The noise I keep seeing
I want to share my thoughts on this. First, a quick disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert in the field. Like everyone else, I'm still figuring out the landscape. But when it comes to creators, influencers, whatever you want to call them — especially some things I've observed on LinkedIn — this isn't a general commentary, but it has been a major observation of mine.
When it comes to people who put out content around AI tools, a good amount of what gets traffic, what goes viral, tends to be noise at the execution level. And that's the key phrase: execution level. You share 20 Claude commands, a ChatGPT cheat sheet, a list of 37 SEO skills, and there's a place for that kind of content. But I've grown tired of it, because even though it may help you go viral, at the low level details it's not that useful to me. 37 cheat sheets, so what? What I'm interested in is how it's helping you. What experiments have you run? How are you actually shipping things with this?
At the end of the day, in my opinion, it doesn't matter that you created 50 Claude skills, or something similar. As nice as those things are, and there is some level of value there, what I'd love to see more of is people building with things. I want to see more execution, more experiments. I want people to say, "here's how I used Claude Opus 5 to build X and Y, and here's why I use this model over that one." Telling me Claude Opus 5 is better than Claude o3 is nice to know at a basic level. But why is it better? What makes one better than the other? What experiments did you run? Show me something. I want to see the rough work. I want to see the experimentation. I want to see the learnings. That's the content I love, and it's always been my standard: why should this content be useful?
How I want to be perceived
One bias I'll admit to here: many people just bookmark that high-level stuff and never actually use it. Or maybe I'm just projecting, because even though I gather them like Thanos did infinity stones, they almost never make it into my actual execution workflow.
For me it's also a matter of how I want to be perceived. I don't want to be perceived as someone you go to for the shallow stuff that anyone can do basic research about. I want to be perceived as someone who goes deeper than that, and that's how I've always approached content.
There's a time and place for everything, and I've said this multiple times, I'm not saying those things are invaluable. But they are low level. What I'm interested in is going lower than that, into the real work. It shows in how I create my own content. When I was writing an article on Claude Code vs Cursor pros and cons, or on any tool's pros and cons, I actually used those tools myself. The article I wrote is filled with screenshots, filled with real life notes on my real life experience, because that, in my honest opinion, is going to be one of the most valuable things going forward. Any AI chatbot, Claude, ChatGPT, whatever, can tell you the basic stuff. But they can't give you real life experience. That's one reason I love blogs like PostHog, you can see and hear how they're doing what they're doing, what they're learning from it. That's what we need: more executors, less "how to."
What I'm actually running right now
I'm currently running various experiments that I'll share more of later. One of them: when Claude Fable 5 came out, I ran some tests on my portfolio website and noticed it was better at some tasks that other models had struggled with. It's possible I was doing something wrong with the previous models, but the same prompts, the same task, and Claude Fable 5 performed it, executed it, made various improvements to the codebase instantly. I'm also experimenting with Antigravity and comparing the workflow differences between Antigravity, Claude Code, and Codex. When I'm done with that experiment, I'll share more details.
The point I'm trying to make: it's much easier to put out the generic stuff. But what I believe true value looks like, and what I'd recommend you become known for, is the real life experience, the actual execution, the actual learnings. Don't tell me "Claude just killed SEO" or "Claude Fable 5 just changed the game." Nice catch, it may make you go viral, but I want to be known for producing content my readers actually glean value from.
None of this is bad, exactly
None of this is bad, by the way. Even Google puts out this kind of content, I recently saw a video from them comparing MCP vs API. Based on my focus, you'd think that's too basic for a company like Google to put out. But they did, because it's still valuable. My issue isn't that the content exists, it's that there's an oversaturation of it. I'd love to see creators be more deliberate about going into the deeper end of things.
What I want to be known for
"How Claude killed SEO" may be catchy, but I'd rather read "I ran this experiment with Claude and here's what I saw" or "here's how I automated my WordPress publishing with ChatGPT." Those are far more valuable, especially at the professional level, for people who are actually executing. Creating content for executors matters.
What I don't want to be known for is being a "Claude explainer." Not because I won't share skills or templates, but if I share a skill, I'm sharing how I use it, the gotchas, the caveats, not just "here are 10 skills." That's not bad content, and I may still put some of it out. But I want to be known for going into the deeper end of things. That's my rant.