Learning AI and Going Broad or Deep First

It depends.

Yeah, I hate that answer, too, but it’s because we all prefer simple answers to the real ones. We also want to believe in overnight success, one size fits all, and that the plug and play option is all we need. And don’t get me started on long term weather predictions!

But it helps to know what it depends on, which is, in this case, where you are in your AI journey. The same approach really applies to any learning journey where there are multiple aspects, so we’re going to start with looking at it simply from the perspective of learning.

Why and How and When to Start Deep

If this is your first foray into a new realm of knowledge, start by going deep on one aspect.

Pick the area that you are most interested in. Intrinsic motivation is a better driver for learning than any reason that includes “have to”. Once you have picked that topic, dig in and follow your curiosity until you feel you can converse freely on the topic. This is how you build a baseline mental model.

Going deep in one specific corner makes other adjacent areas easier to absorb later because you actually have a frame of reference to hang new information on. When you encounter a new tool, you filter it through existing mental models to facilitate integration of new knowledge. This cognitive filtering means you aren’t starting from scratch every time a model updates. You are simply updating a specific branch of an existing tree. (See The Memory Paradox: Why Our Brains Need Knowledge in an Age of AI)

The Pivot to Breadth: Mapping the Landscape

Once that baseline mental model exists, going broad is more valuable.

This first accumulation of breadth is to understand what’s possible, or available. You aren’t trying to master everything. You’re mapping the space so you know where the boundaries are. This aligns with the “T-shaped professional” model, defined by having deep expertise in a specific area while also possessing broad knowledge across various disciplines. This structure ensures you have enough technical depth to contribute high-value work immediately. It also gives you enough breadth to collaborate with experts in adjacent fields without needing a translator.

Going broad makes it easier to know exactly when and where to go deep next. Knowing what exists and what is possible makes it easier to say “I have an idea of how that can be done” with conviction.

The Trap of Constant Depth

The problem with going deep on one thing at a time, after the initial deep dive, is that when you need the knowledge or skill in a practical situation, there may be something adjacent that will make it easier or is better suited.

If you’re buried in a single silo, you won’t see it. This is why pure specialists struggle when their niche technology shifts. Markets move faster than individual mastery, which is why modern engineering organizations must embed specialists into existing teams. Breadth prevents you from becoming a legacy asset the moment your specific tech is disrupted. It provides the foundation for transferring implicit knowledge, which is the exact kind of knowledge needed to generate creative ways of tackling business problems. Innovation happens at the intersection of two unrelated fields.

Managing the Hierarchy of Ideas

To move between breadth and depth effectively, you have to understand how to categorize information. A  practical framework to understand how to conceptualize those categories in a given realm of knowledge is The Hierarchy of Ideas. This concept allows you to mentally zoom in and out of a topic. It ensures you are always operating at the exact level of detail the current problem requires.

Think of a hierarchy using transportation as the frame. At the top, you have the abstract concept of “Transportation”, which includes planes, boats, trains, cars, skateboards, and ox carts. Moving down a level, you find “wheeled vehicles”, which is still broad enough to encompass trains and scooters. Further down, “Cars” will include internal combustion, electric, and peddle powered. As a mechanic, you will be more interested in learning the distinctions between a Ferrari and Hyundai, or between the Sonata and Kona. The higher you go, the more general and broad the idea becomes. The lower you go, the more specific and detailed it gets.

Navigating this hierarchy is done through “chunking.” When you chunk up, you move from the specific Tesla to the broader category of “Transportation” to understand the big picture. When you chunk down, you move from the general concept of “Cars” into the specific components like the “Battery Management System” to find depth. You can also chunk laterally, moving from “Cars” over to “Trains.” This allows you to find alternative solutions that exist at the exact same level of utility.

The AI Sandbox: Applying Levels and Chunks

AI is like transportation in the way that zoology is like geology. They aren’t one giant subject. There’s a hierarchy of distinct concepts, applications, audiences, and values that you have to navigate intentionally.

Start by chunking down into a specific primary aspect. Dive into development. If you choose Software Development, don’t just use a generic chatbot. Master how tools integrate directly into the developer’s workflow. Modern development is shifting toward a model where the AI handles low-level syntax. The human engineers and architects manages high-level logic and security.

If you choose Marketing, dive into tools capable of predicting future trends. These platforms move you from general demographic targeting to individual-level behavioral forecasting in real-time. This creates your first deep anchor.

Once you feel steady, chunk up. Skim through news and articles about the overall space so you get a sense of the capabilities. Map the broader landscape—from vector databases to multimodal generation. Staying informed at this high level prevents you from getting blindsided by architectural shifts.

As you build that breadth, you chunk laterally. Then, when something comes up that would benefit greatly from an aspect other than your first specialty, you will recognize that your current focus isn’t the right one in that context. If you are deep in software development but hit a bottleneck in data quality, your broad map will point laterally toward data architecture. You will have a good idea what aspect is better suited. Then you can partner with someone that has that expertise, or learn it deeply yourself, or both.

Effective mastery requires building a foundation deep enough to create your mental anchor, while maintaining a wide enough perimeter to spot the right tools for the job. You cannot specialize into obsolescence and expect to stay relevant in a field that moves this fast. Whether you are ready for your first technical deep dive or you are currently gathering seeds for future growth, the only wrong move is standing still. Pick a starting point and get to work.

For your convenience (plus, I hate to throw away interesting artifacts that AI outputs when researching my articles), below are some areas (i.e., non-exhaustive) to consider when conceptualizing the Hierarchy of Ideas around AI.

AI Deep Dive Reference Table

Specialization Primary Focus Practical Application
Software Development AI-assisted coding and autonomous agents. Tools handle boilerplate code and test generation. This shifts engineering cycles away from syntax and toward system architecture.
Marketing Campaigns Predictive analytics and forecasting. Systems are built for predicting future trends. Marketers deploy these models to adjust budgets preemptively rather than reacting to yesterday’s reports.
Prompt Engineering Advanced linguistics and logic structures. Mastery involves navigating how mental models assist in problem-solving. This discipline structures language strictly enough to force an LLM into predictable reasoning patterns.
Data Architecture AI-ready data pipelines and vector databases. Success requires establishing a comprehensive inventory of everything in your ecosystem. AI models hallucinate when fed fragmented data; clean pipelines act as the essential guardrail against garbage outputs.
Content Creation Generative text, image, and video workflows. AI enables executing multidisciplinary mental models for solving complex problems. Scaling content now relies on curating outputs against a strict brand voice, not writing from a blank page.
Business Intelligence Pattern detection and anomaly resolution. BI teams use AI to deploy real-time anomaly detection. This replaces static dashboards with active alerting systems that diagnose the drop in metrics before leadership even asks.
If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson

Developers are now Agent Managers: Enter the New Matrix

TL;DR: The use of AI in development has shifted from a coding assistant to a team of agents doing the heavy lifting. This requires developers to skill up in management and forces a fundamental shift in how software roles collaborate.

The Managerial Migration

For those not watching closely (which is most people, and perhaps only a few reading this), the world of software delivery is in the midst of a tectonic shift. The use of AI is evolving from a simple coding assistant to a team of agents, or experts, performing the bulk of the work. This moves the developer role from a traditional software engineer to an agent manager.
The change in role definition and skills is another aspect of the paradigm shift the Age of AI is bringing. If this sounds new to you, it is because you may have missed the transition that the proliferation of the “WWW” subdomain brought to IT in the 90s. We are all going to come out better, but it is going to be a long haul as we re-learn lessons from last time and write new ones for this era.

The Expertise Gap in Management

One common misconception is that this automation means developers can be replaced by Product, Project, or Program managers. This is mostly the “Wall Street Rumor Mill,” which is only just now being revised from “replacing people with AI” to “shifting investment from employees to AI vendors”. At least that is more honest.
The “average” manager often lacks the technical depth to write a precise specification or review the complex output of an agentic workflow. Managing a digital workforce requires the same technical understanding and focus as writing source code. If you cannot perform a rigorous technical review of what AI agents produce, you should not put it into production (unless you suffer from a terminal case of technical hubris).

The Developer Drift

While many managers lack the depth to take over, developers are not guaranteed success in this new role without learning to view technical problems from different angles. Many developers tend to drift from the business context without a reminder, which is why lifecycle ceremonies exist to gather feedback from users and owners. For some, this is a forest-versus-trees effect, while for others, it is the temptation of a “cool” approach over a practical solution.
The speed of AI can take a minor gap in understanding and expand it into a costly chasm. When an agent can produce a week’s worth of logic in seconds, the cost of moving in the wrong direction scales exponentially. The team must find a way to collaborate where agents are a factor beyond just a tool choice.

Grit over Gift

This proficiency is not a magic gift: it is a byproduct of learning, practice, and pushing boundaries. There is a persistent myth that “prompt engineering” is an inherent talent or a shortcut for the lazy. It is actually the opposite. Real proficiency comes from hundreds of hours spent in invisible iteration. You have to break the agents to understand how to fix the workflow. These skills are then applied to context engineering, where the developer becomes the manager and the back-and-forth transitions to a human-in-the-loop system.
Deep experience can sometimes trigger intellectual rigor mortis, where you stop looking for a better way because you already know the “right” way. To succeed now, you need the grit to unlearn habits that are no longer efficient. High ROI in the age of AI belongs to the person who pushes boundaries through practice, not the one waiting for the “perfect” model to arrive.

The Practical Pivot

As we navigate this “.ai moment,” leadership, managers, and developers need a new way to interact. It is no longer about a ticket hand-off: it is about real-time orchestration.
  • Developers: Start treating your AI tools as interns, not calculators. An intern needs guidance, a clear spec, and a rigorous peer review. If they produce garbage, it is a reflection of your management. Mentor your agents by providing better context and documentation.
  • Managers: Help leadership understand that the “silver bullet” still requires expert aim. AI is a force multiplier, but it requires a human who knows where to point the barrel. Use these tools to bridge the communication gap, not to eliminate the experts.
  • Everyone: Support each other in cross-training. Incorporate big-picture product thinking with low-level solutioning. Document the new workflows immediately, as your team now includes transient sessions that lack long-term memory.
Incorporating this new layer requires new connections, shifts in responsibility, and overlaps that act as double-checks from different perspectives rather than simple redundancies.
If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson

The Beginners Mind Stands on a Foundation

TL;DR: Experience is a liability when it kills curiosity. AI proficiency is a byproduct of hundreds of hours spent in invisible iteration.

The Expertise Trap

Deep experience often triggers intellectual rigor mortis. You have seen the “right” way to do things for a decade, so you stop looking for the better way. A beginner mindset is not about being a blank slate (which is just another word for useless). It requires enough of a foundation to know when you are headed in the right direction, or perhaps a parallel path with new perspectives, before getting back on track.

If you have twenty years of experience but no curiosity, you are just a legacy system waiting for a decommission date. The ROI on a “beginner” attitude is higher because it allows for rapid pivoting. You need the basics to provide a compass (to avoid spending days debugging a syntax error), but you need the mindset to explore the paths that lead to breakthroughs.

The AI Sweat Equity

There is a myth that prompting is a low-skill activity. It is not. Most people really good at prompting have iterated and learned. The developers currently running multiple agents and building software 4 to 10 times faster than they did last year have been in months of practice to get there.

This is iteration 0 work. It is messy and mostly undocumented (because the tech moves faster than the README files). What makes it daunting for those first starting is that the people who are now good at it did it without formal training. There is a tendency to forget how much effort went into the initial struggle.

Building the Mental Infrastructure

Learning new technical skills requires toggling between different cognitive states. Barbara Oakley (author of Learn Like a Pro: Science-Based Tools to Become Better at Anything and Learning How to Learn, among other great books) describes this as the tension between focused and diffuse modes. Focused mode is for the granular syntax: the structure of a prompt or a script. Diffuse mode is where the beginner’s mindset lives. It is the relaxed, curious state that allows your brain to make the non-linear connections required to solve a problem that does not have a documentation entry yet.

She emphasizes chunking: breaking complex concepts into small, functional units until they become second nature. This prevents cognitive overload when the system throws an error you have never seen before. Curiosity is a tool that keeps you in the diffuse mode long enough to see the “big picture” before diving back into the details. I took her class on Coursera at the start of my AI journey, and I recommend everyone do the same, even if your interests are in other areas. It applies to learning anything, and you will thank yourself for doing so.

They say “oh, it’s easy, you just do this”, which looks like magic to the beginner. It is not entirely different from visiting a new area and asking a local for directions. Every time they start with “Oh, that’s easy”, there is a good chance you are going to get lost following their directions.

Locals navigate by landmarks that either do not stand out to an outsider or have disappeared from all but the local’s memories. They tell you to turn where the oak tree used to be or past the shop that changed names five years ago. They have internalized the route so deeply they forget the friction of finding it the first time.

And sometimes, that makes the trip more fun. Stop looking for the “perfect” prompt or the “right” workflow. Spend more time being “lost” in the tool. The goal is not to avoid the detour: the goal is to have a strong enough foundation to know how to get back to the main road once the detour stops being productive.


A Simple Roadmap

If you haven’t begun your journey with Generative AI, or feel a bit lost, here’s a simple roadmap to help you along:

  1. Pick one model and stay there: Stop comparing benchmarks and just use one tool (Claude, GPT, or an LLM via API) for a week straight to understand its specific “personality.”
  2. Iterate on a single prompt 50 times: Don’t just accept the first output. Change one variable at a time until you understand exactly what triggers a hallucination vs. a logic block.
  3. Read the system prompt documentation: Most users treat AI like a search engine. Read the actual technical guides on “system roles” and “temperature” to understand the controls.
  4. Practice manual orchestration: Before you try to automate a multi-agent system, act as the agent yourself. Copy the output of one model into another and manually fix the “gotchas” in between.
  5. Fail on purpose: Try to make the model break. If you don’t know the edges of the tool, you won’t know when you are standing on a cliff.
If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson

Zen and the Art of AI Adoption: Surviving the Scare Trade to Thrive in the Age of AI

“the AI scare trade is speeding up AI transformation by years at tens of thousands of businesses.” (Nate B. Jones, Feb 19, 2026, Why the Biggest AI Career Opportunity Just Appeared—and Almost Nobody Sees It.)

Anyone who is focused on enterprise AI adoption and heard this on Nate B Jones‘s AI News & Strategy Daily channel or read it on his substack will be concerned about how this all works out on several levels. Let’s look at a few key impacts:

  • Your Investments
  • Your Career
  • Your Business

That list is not in order of importance; it is in order of a sequence of events in history where each of these aspects has had similar drivers. I will be referring to quotes from Why the Biggest AI Career Opportunity Just Appeared—and Almost Nobody Sees It. throughout, and I recommend you watch it after reading this because it has a lot more to offer on other topics, too.

Investments

While I agree that last year was not the AI bubble, there is one coming soon. Anyone that was part of the world of tech in 2000 will see the echo here:

Meanwhile, AI startups, regardless of whether they’re good or not, look relatively more attractive to everybody. You stick AI in the name, and magical things happen right now. Magically, more capital will flow to the AI company that has AI in the name and releases an AI press release than to anybody else. (14:23)

In 1999, companies with “.com” in their name were guaranteed a huge IPO, even if all they had to offer was a cool sock puppet as their mascot. Today, a similar narrative is forming where Wall Street hype and Media hype are creating a hype-vortex, drawing in capital regardless of actual value. When the Dot Bomb blew up the Dot Com Bubble, I watched friends near retirement age having to change their life plans with no choice because it wasn’t just tech stocks that took the hit, and it took the market 15 years to rise back up to the peak of the previous century. Diversification was not a watchword in those days; even for those that were diversified, the impact rippled.

Your Career

…the CFO pulling forward cost cuts to demonstrate to investors that management does take this transition seriously. Stock drop doesn’t just reflect reality, it creates reality. A company whose stock craters on AI fears is going to start behaving as if AI is an existential threat. Even if the actual tech is years away from threatening its core business, defensive postures get adopted right away. (4:58 to 5:19)

Lots of people have already had their lives upended by companies determined to show investors that they are becoming more efficient, even (especially?) if they aren’t. This reactive stance often ignores the fundamental reality that human behavior does not move at the speed of a GPU (see Your AI-Driven Digital Transformation is Impeded by Behavioral Challenges).

There are lots of takeaways from the video on this, so, again, watch it after reading this. Meanwhile, a recurring theme on the channel is that if you aren’t thinking about how you can learn to use AI and then figure out how to become more efficient with AI, your career is going to be in trouble. This will come later for some industries as a whole, and for individual businesses because, contrary to media hype, not everyone is going to be making the shift at the same time and certainly not at the same pace. But it is coming, and the speed it is coming at keeps increasing.

There were a lot of people who changed careers in the late 90s into a track that was tied to the .com boom. Only a few survived and then thrived in the rebuild. Of the rest, the lucky ones were able to resurrect their former skills and return to their previous work. The rest often drifted from job to job, sometimes finding a new track, and sometimes not.

Your Business

And because of the prominence of the American stock market, there are boards all over the world looking at this. Now visibility like this is what turns a slow trend into an urgent capital reallocation in favor of AI. I’m not kidding when I say the AI scare trade is speeding up AI transformation by years at tens of thousands of businesses. The scare trade is a transfer of career capital from the people who treated AI as somebody else’s problem to the people who have been invested in understanding it. (27:59 to 28:24)

The above quote is what inspired this post. I’ve been advocating for a while now that most businesses have been going all wrong about how they are adopting AI. They are buying the tools and then trying to figure out how to use them. This approach often fails to account for the competitive disadvantage smaller firms face when racing against the scale of industry giants (see Why Bigger Companies Move Faster than You in the AI Adoption Race).

Companies are looking at how others are using tools and assuming it is the tool that is making it work, so they start mimicking the behavior they can see and failing miserably because what makes the tools work is not the results, it is the process of adoption and growth. That is why for every Chase or Walmart example, there are 10 AWS or Replit incidents. Many of those don’t go reported because they happened to a business the size of yours, rather than one that is currently getting media focus on a regular basis.

It’s clear that some businesses are going to rush into their AI adoption approach. Some already have. Some will be like children that touch the hot stove (healing in a couple of weeks and exercising caution), and a few may even become great chefs. Others will be more like the fictional inventor from The Expanse, but without the rest of the world benefiting from his demise:

Lesson learned? Faster is better when you build speed, not when you jump straight from 0 to splat.

Post title inspired by both Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner’s Guide and Zen in the Art of Archery. While the title Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is the inspiration for the former, Zen in the Art of Archery is much more along the lines of this post and the AI adoption, though truthfully the adoption of AI, like your situation, is unique unto itself.

Looking for help adopting AI in your organization? Let’s talk. Tag me in a comment or reach out directly with a connection request.

If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson
The New Digital Divide is Analog

Your AI-Driven Digital Transformation is Impeded by Behavioral Challenges

The recent article by CT Crooker, Why Everything You Know is Probably Wrong, is filled with hard truths that everyone in IT needs to consider. It starts by pointing out the evidence supporting the thesis that things are going to be very different.

“Going to be” is the one level where I depart from a lot of recent articles by really brilliant people. When discussing the unprecedented acceleration of new and improved capabilities that come under the media definition of AI, these experts are not only correct in their assessments of the rate of change; they understand the details of those changes better than most.

However, they often present these shifts as a present-tense reality for the masses. For the vast majority of organizations, these changes are still in the “going to be” phase because the experts are focusing on a very active and very small minority.

Then there are people.

  • Most CI pipelines aren’t really continuous and don’t truly integrate.

  • Teams hold stand-ups and manage backlogs that aren’t the least bit Agile.

  • Enterprise CRM systems are treated as glorified address books while the predictive analytics and automation features sit dormant.

  • Smartphones are used for scrolling while the powerful sensors and computing power in our pockets remain largely untouched.

The main impedance to technical solutions is rarely a technical problem. The real culprits are process and culture challenges that act as a silent brake on innovation. This resistance to change usually stems from a deep-seated fear of the unknown or a perceived threat to the status quo.

When a new capability arrives, it doesn’t just offer a faster way to work; it threatens the established hierarchy, the “way we’ve always done it,” and the specialized knowledge that individuals have spent years protecting. These psychological hurdles are the biggest obstacles to adding and improving technical capabilities. It will take significant time before these new tools make it into mainstream IT departments because human behavior does not move at the speed of a GPU.


A Challenge by any Other Name is…Entirely Different

This brings me to the point of my only contention with the article. I disagree with the suggestion that “transformation impedance” is a better way to think about these shifts than “epistemic flexibility under inversion.” While I find the shift in terminology problematic, Crooker’s post is otherwise incredibly thought-provoking and accurate; it is really valuable that he raised these points because they are essential to consider.

He explains “epistemic flexibility under inversion” as a capability characteristic of both systems and people to adapt to rapid changes and then adopt new approaches as a result. He goes on to suggest that “transformation impedance” may be a better way to think about it.

But branding is more important than most realize. People who take up the call of “transformation impedance” will be more likely to focus on the impedance side, which leads to conflicts between those who think everyone should reduce the impedance versus those who want to lower it. I’ll admit there is some room for collaboration on the rate of lowering impedance, but then again, there are still a lot of those CI pipelines that are still neither.

First, I will admit that I had to look up the definition of “epistemic flexibility under inversion” to fully digest it:

“Epistemic flexibility under inversion” is a specialized concept often found at the intersection of Bayesian statistics, cognitive science, and information theory. It refers to a system’s (or a mind’s) ability to maintain a coherent understanding of reality even when the “direction” of information flow or the relationship between cause and effect is flipped.

Once I had this better understanding, I had the same reaction to using “transformation impedance” as an alternative as I do to changing “issue” to “challenge.” (There is a lot more to that definition, of course, and I suggest you talk with your favorite Generative AI LLM to get the rest of the picture.)

The Utility of the Negative

Media tells us we should always be positive and pursue higher goals. We buy into this because the truth is that the method of using the negative to drive action, specifically addressing an “issue,” is much more likely to succeed than the message of chasing a dream. That’s another hard truth.

I like “issue” better than “challenge” because people will deal with an issue so it will go away. A challenge makes them feel good about pursuing it, and since the pursuit is the reward, completing it removes the reward and thus the incentive. If it is an issue, the incentive needs to be to correct it.

While “epistemic flexibility under inversion” may be harder to understand, it keeps the focus on how we need to change our approach to deal with the changes approaching us. “Transformation impedance,” on the other hand, is a label describing a phenomenon and doesn’t necessitate action until it is too late.

We need to flip our approach and find ways to catch up with change and not be left behind or run over. We should begin thinking about what problems need to be solved for our businesses, and even our lives, that for whatever reason we thought were too hard before, and then come up with new solutions taking advantage of the AI. To do that, we must be willing to set aside the old frameworks that impede our ability to do so.

If you found this interesting, please share.

© Scott S. Nelson