From understanding ICM to actually using it — a lesson I'm still learning

I've been meaning to share this with the community because I suspect I'm not the only one who has experienced it.

I've been using

's ICM framework for some time now. I've invested quite a few hours in building my systems, organising my projects and trying to move away from relying on individual AI conversations.

And yet, I keep falling into the same trap.

I'll spend hours working with ChatGPT or Claude, developing an idea, refining it and building on previous discussions. Then I'll ask another question, and suddenly the AI focuses on the last part of our conversation, completely missing the bigger picture.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that 𝐈 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈'𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐂𝐌, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐲𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐬.

I think that's an important distinction. Understanding a system isn't quite the same as consistently applying it.

In medicine, we often distinguish between knowing what to do and actually doing it reliably in everyday practice. I'm beginning to realise that working with AI isn't so different.

This experience prompted me to write a LinkedIn article about the importance of context, why AI sometimes loses sight of what we're trying to achieve, and how Jake's approach offers a more structured way forward.

I've also shared a shorter LinkedIn post to introduce the idea to people who may never have heard of ICM.

I wanted to share both here, partly to give something back to a community I've learned so much from, but also to hear what others think.

It would be good to help more people discover what Jake is teaching here.

LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7516770678604242944/

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-ai-loses-bigger-picture-why-context-matters-more-edgar-brincat-sclre/

𝐈'𝐦 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐈𝐂𝐌 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐭-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧'𝐭.

I'd welcome your thoughts on the article. Does it explain the problem clearly? Have I represented Jake's approach fairly? Is there anything you would add or challenge?

And perhaps, if you feel the article reflects your own experience, you might consider sharing it with your network. I think there are many people using AI every day who haven't yet realised how much of their frustration comes from the way they organise their work rather than the AI itself.

Thanks again to

@Jake Van Clief

and everyone contributing to this community. I'm still learning, and occasionally making the same mistakes, but I suspect that's part of the process.

1 comment

From understanding ICM to actually using it — a lesson I'm still learning