Hi all, We're a small AI consultancy in Germany (mid-market clients, running first pilot projects, fixed-fee model) and we've been exploring ICM as the delivery format for the workflows we ship to clients. The reasoning behind switching from custom-coded pipelines to ICM is mostly the obvious stuff — auditability for the upcoming EU AI Act, lower handover friction, faster iteration with the client in the loop. Jakes’ paper articulates the case better than we could. But while planning the commercial rollout, we kept running into the same question, and we'd love a sanity check from people who've thought about this longer than we have. The observation: ICM commoditizes the workflow itself. Once we hand a client a workspace, they can in principle edit it, fork it, or hire someone else to maintain it. That's a feature, not a bug and it's exactly what makes the model trustworthy. But it also means our differentiation as a service provider has to move up the stack. The workspace can't be the moat. The idea we're testing: An observability layer that sits above a fleet of ICM workspaces, not inside them. Each stage emits a small telemetry event when it finishes (stage name, model used, tokens in/out, duration, success/failure, whether a human intervened). Events flow to a central collector. From that data we build: - Per-workspace ROI metrics (time saved vs. baseline) - LLM cost aggregation across providers - Compliance / audit reports auto-generated for EU AI Act (documentation) - Drift alerts when new model versions are released ("here are the 3 workspaces likely to benefit from Claude 5 — estimated quality delta") - Optimization recommendations based on patterns across stages The premise is that this layer is genuinely hard for the client to replicate because aggregation, history and cross-workspace insights require infrastructure they don't want to run themselves and that this is what justifies recurring revenue, not (only) maintenance bug-fixes. What we're unsure about:

I just wanted to put this out there for a moment, especially since I am currently going through Jake’s course myself. Jake is sharing his content for free, and on top of that, he has made his full GitHub repository with the ICM protocol available under MIT License which means people can actually use it, build on it, adapt it, and even implement it into their own systems. I think that deserves appreciation. What stands out to me is that this is not just another AI hype thing. It feels like he is working on something much more foundational: a structure that helps people organize, route, and actually use AI in a serious way. And that‘s powerful, because with something like this, you do not have to be afraid that the big companies will make your work obsolete. It is almost the opposite, as he said himself before. The better the models and tools from the big companies become, the more valuable a solid system like this becomes, because you can plug those improvements into the structure and keep building on top of it. Of course, how to integrate everything properly is still the next big step. I am still unsure about some parts myself, but that is exactly where a community like this can become really valuable. To me, that is a much healthier way to look at AI. You can ignore a lot of the hype, stop chasing every shiny new tool, and focus on the infrastructure that actually gives you leverage. Thank you Jake for making this available. Sharing something like this openly gave me a clear path instead of getting lost in the noise. ———————————————————————————————— @Jake Van Clief @David Vogel

This is a build session, not a lecture. Plan mode. Sub-agents. Watching Claude fetch repos, study your workspace, and sometimes make better decisions than what you asked for. The point isn't to follow along exactly. It's to see how a real build actually happens. What stood out?

I want to reach out to the community after receiving a message from one of our members. They suggest we set the minimum user level to 3 for DM's. As our community grows, the threat of spammers and phishing attempts rise. We're the Hard Hitting, No Fluff, No Jive AI Community empowering our members towards success. We don't have time nor patience dealing with these miscreants. SO, I ASK - PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR INPUT. Thank you

"Everybody will have to use AI. Because if you don't use AI, you will lose your job to somebody that does" -- Jenson Huang, CEO Nvidia I keep hearing this exact tension in conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. The moment AI comes up, the vibe shifts: “It’s going to take all the jobs. It’s evil. We’re all doomed.” But what if we’re looking at it backwards? AI already holds within it essentially all the books humanity has ever written. It’s a tool that gives us access to knowledge far beyond any single human lifetime — compressing centuries of wisdom, science, creativity, and experience into seconds. Instead of replacing us, it can expand us. It lets us ask better questions, solve harder problems, and explore realms we couldn’t reach alone. Every major technology in history (fire, electricity, computers, the internet) was feared for the jobs it would destroy. Yet each one ultimately created far more opportunity than it eliminated — for those who learned to wield it. The key isn’t resisting AI. It’s learning to guide it intelligently. Just like effective prompting: you don’t tell the model *how* to do something step-by-step. You clearly describe the outcome you want. The same principle applies to our relationship with AI as a society. We decide the direction. We set the guardrails. We choose whether it amplifies human potential or something else. --------------------------------- Edited: This just dropped from AWS CEO The “AI will take all jobs” story is too simple. Some jobs will shrink. Some will change. Some new ones will appear. But the real divide may be behavioral. People who avoid AI will feel hunted by it. People who test it early will see where it helps. That does not make the transition painless. It just makes panic a bad strategy. --------------------------------- So I’m curious — where do you stand? - Are you already using AI regularly in your work or life? - Or do you still see it mainly as a threat? - What’s the best way you’ve found to reframe this conversation with people who are skeptical or afraid?