News — Find all Issues of the Food for Agile Thought Newsletter

Food for Agile Thought 566: Building AI Products, Feature Factory at 10, PM Skills Report 2026, Team Dynamics Suffer from AI

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-10-16 News

TL; DR: Building AI Products — Food for Agile Thought #566

Welcome to the 566th edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,248 peers. This week, Ian Vanagas suspects user conversations will outlast half his lessons in building AI products, whereas John Cutler sees AI amplifying feature-factory habits. With features cheap, Aakash Gupta and Tim Herbig warn that wrong choices get expensive. Gabriel Unger and Arvind Narayanan favor steerable agents over full automation, though Jeremy Korst, Stefano Puntoni, and Sonny Tambe find approving each step pays least. Likewise, Nigel Thurlow shows a completed A3 proves little until you investigate where abnormalities arise.

Next, Ara Kharazian wonders whether AI adoption has peaked, with falling prices stalling token spend. In contrast, Lari Hämäläinen et al. find cheaper tokens fueling usage and favor measuring cost per successful output. Jason Knight and Simonetta Batteiger warn that AI speed may worsen product economics, and Sangeet Paul Choudary sees advantage shifting to companies helping agents decide better, yet ProductSide finds PM judgment lagging. Maarten Dalmijn proposes designing a smaller system rather than descoping to de-risk product investments.

Lastly, Shane Hastie and Matt Gjertsen see AI agents turning contributors into managers, and Addy Osmani names verification their bottleneck. Kate Niederhoffer et al., however, find treating AI as a teammate erodes trust. Art Smalley warns central AI teams recreate Taylor’s thinking-executing split, while Jason Cohen rejects the Precision Fallacy shielding frameworks, favoring single-team pilots. Finally, Yanli Liu’s Claude sessions rebuild a Mac app from notes, so closed code may no longer be a moat.

Food for Agile Thought 566: Building AI Products, Feature Factory at 10, PM Skills Report 2026, Team Dynamics - Age-of-Product.com

Food for Agile Thought 565: AI Age Manager, 10X Revenue by 10X Code? Budgeting AI Spending, Team Happiness a Goal?

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-10-09 Featured News

TL; DR: AI Age Manager — Food for Agile Thought #565

Welcome to the 565th edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,263 peers. This week, Camille Fournier calls middle management’s AI-era obituary premature, much as Gergely Orosz sees planning and tests outlasting handwritten code. The point that leaders confuse visibility with understanding fits AI transcripts, which Teresa Torres and Petra Wille fear can become weapons. Abundance misleads, too: more code isn’t more revenue for David Pereira and Rich Mironov, a refined backlog can mean the wrong product for Christopher Cummings, and Pavel Samsonov rejects synthetic users’ false certainty.

Next, Jillian Vordick and Stephanie Stamm find only 11% of businesses forecast AI spending accurately, and Kyle Poyar suggests how to make bills predictable. Clear plans are rare, too: Nick Graveline sees AI adoption stalling on storytelling, not tooling. Andrew Chen doubts agents inherently create network effects, yet as they do legwork, Andrej Karpathy sees human work shifting toward understanding, which anchors Alex Ewerlöf’s rejection of ‘coding is solved’: you can’t answer for code you don’t understand.

Lastly, Charity Majors ties psychological safety to uncomfortable learning, not comfort, and Maarten Dalmijn likewise raises the bar rather than designing for the least competent. Mark Levison blames situations instead: most ‘difficult’ colleagues are good people trapped by incentives or missing strategy. Jeff Gothelf sees this gap turning AI mandates into chaos and recommends spending one afternoon on goals and OKRs. Andi Roberts similarly reads matrix power beyond titles, mapping who can affect an outcome.

Food for Agile Thought 565: AI Age Manager, 10X Revenue by 10X Code? Budgeting AI Spending, Team Happiness a Goal? Age-of-Product.com

Food for Agile Thought 564: AI Pace Accelerating, Product Trio Future, Career Traps for Smart People, Aggregation Theory & Agents

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-10-02 News

TL; DR: AI Pace Accelerating — Food for Agile Thought #564

Welcome to the 564th edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,278 peers. This week, Simon Willison suggests that the current AI pace exceeds even his predictions, while Jenny Wanger believes it has made the product trio single-player, creating product debt in the process. Dan Shipper proposes a labs team expecting to discard 90% of its work, whereas Teresa Torres and Petra Wille treat innovation as a byproduct, not a goal. Ben Thompson suggests whoever owns your agent becomes the ultimate gatekeeper, yet Madeline Renbarger, M. Sriram, and Tom Dotan report even agentic commerce enthusiasts still want control.

Next, Dror Poleg suggests delegation ties his AI glossary together, and Casey Newton shows its price: OpenAI’s Dots saves him two hours but wants your email and bank account. For delegated code, Addy Osmani fears that the engineer approving it without independent checks becomes the moral crumple zone. Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor propose AI extinction probabilities are guesses wearing numbers, whereas Paweł Huryn’s analysis of AI subscription benefits rests on API list rates: SuperGrok buys 190x its price.

Lastly, John Cutler suggests your virtues lure you into career traps, while Jonny Miller points out that white-knuckled grinding ends in burnout; let go. Tim Ottinger hopes AI kills ticket culture and revives XP, whereas Viktor Cessan proposes automating internal requests only once volume justifies it. Finally, Fran Noto favors pairing over documentation; the latter captures only a fraction of what experienced people know, and Anuja Karnik and Sumeet Gayathri Moghe suggest trust grows in everyday work, not by orchestrated events.

Food for Agile Thought 564: AI Pace Accelerating, Product Trio Future, Career Traps for Smart People, Aggregation Theory for Agents - Age-of-Product.com

Food for Agile Thought 563: Survival of High-impact Ideas, Friction Is Good, Surrendering Agency to AI, AI in Dysfunctional Systems

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-09-25 News

TL; DR: Survival of High-impact Ideas — Food for Agile Thought #563

Welcome to the 563rd edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,293 peers. This week, Jason Knight and Rich Mironov explore why faster AI-generated code does not create faster revenue, and Itamar Gilad sees a similar limit: output-maxing won’t rescue high-impact ideas from prioritization politics. John Cutler believes AI strips the positive friction forcing teams to think, while Roman Pichler suggests its sprawl lets teams hit targets as the business stagnates. Martin Eriksson would assumption-map leadership’s untested strategy, whereas Pavel Samsonov believes “Claude wrote it” launders slop.

Next, Artificial Analysis finds Claude Opus 5.5 tops its Intelligence Index, while Simon Willison reports that Opus on “Max” thinks so hard it never delivers the Pelican, Simon’s famous test. Addy Osmani suggests deleting “think carefully” prompts and naming when to stop. Diogo Almeida wants models to return typed decisions instead of text, creating Jev, while Charity Majors suggests chatbot answers erode trust when colleagues want your opinion. Also, Mustafa Suleyman believes Anthropic’s constitution fuels anthropomorphism and makes containing AI harder.

Lastly, Nigel Thurlow and Mike Fisher learn from Toyota: Thurlow believes AI visibility changes nothing unless leaders act, while Fisher shows performance is largely systemic. Tim O’Reilly likewise believes going AI native is a human problem. Steve Blank watched day-one AI demos turn MVPs into evidence theater, and James Shore believes AI speed gains can evaporate. Finally, Jeff Gothelf suggests key results track the humans deploying or receiving an agent’s work, not API calls.

Food for Agile Thought 563: High-impact Ideas, Friction Is Good, Surrendering Agency to AI, AI in Dysfunctional Systems - Age-of-Product.com

Food for Agile Thought 562: Slop Grenades, AI Didn’t Make Delivery Free, Pacing the Frontier, Handling Disruptive Change

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-09-18 News

TL; DR: Slop Grenades — Food for Agile Thought #562

Welcome to the 562nd edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,321 peers. This week, Tobi Lütke tells Shane Parrish that AI makes judgment more valuable because machines cannot take responsibility. Teresa Torres, Petra Wille, and Josh Elman add that AI cheapens features and demos, yet working products still demand judgment. Barry O’Reilly makes that judgment auditable before deployment through baselines and accountable owners. Also, Dario Amodei applies that accountability to the labs with third-party evaluators and speed limits, while Dwarkesh Patel’s guests expect expert-beating AI within ten years.

Next, Nigel Thurlow argues that we turned Lean into belts and templates, although Toyota wanted a better management system. Refinement repeats that mistake: Maarten Dalmijn untangles its four parallel conversations, and Mike Cohn warns that polished AI stories hide gaps. AI adoption needs the same management focus: Aaron De Smet ties it to trust, Christiaan Verwijs and Barry Overeem recruit volunteers for Reflexive AI, Addy Osmani explains how unsupervised agents turn legacy code into technical debt factories.

Lastly, Cedric Chin argues that structural constraints, not stubbornness, kill incumbents, and Elena Verna catalogs the sales habits that smother PLG. Matthew Hodgson applies that logic to AI, where functional silos swallow productivity gains unless leaders fix the operating model before buying tools. Also, Eliezer Yudkowsky explains why models ignore instructions: a polite ambassador talks while a doer chases rewards. Finally, Marily Nika plans for that gap with Minimum Viable Quality: rank failure modes and design for recovery.

Food for Agile Thought 562: Slop Grenades, AI Didn't Make Delivery Free, Pacing the Frontier, Disruptive Change - Age-of-Product.com

Food for Agile Thought 561: Token Bills, Exhausting Change, Cracks in the AI Thesis, Automating Broken Systems

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-09-11 News

TL; DR: Token Bills — Food for Agile Thought #561

Welcome to the 561st edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,328 peers. This week, James Shore wants leaders to justify $21,000 monthly token bills per heavy user by measuring approaches, never people. Julie Zhuo adds that fear-driven mandates produce transformation theater, and Kate Leto argues AI exposes old leadership gaps that Petra Wille and Teresa Torres say individuals cannot fix. Brooke Weddle, Deepak Mahadevan, Richard Steele, and Tom Welchman tie AI value to operating-model redesign, while Brett Queener sees jobs collapsing into one application.

Next, Afonso Franco argues AI agents, your product’s second user, bypass the UI and break seat pricing, and Kyle Poyar shows how Notion, Rippling, and Profound survive almost weekly launches by separating shipping from announcing. Nigel Thurlow sees agents running bureaucracy at machine speed, and Richard Kasperowski remains the bottleneck of his Scrum team of six agents. David Pereira watches AI make unchecked assumptions comfortable, while OpenAI’s ChatGPT Work guide keeps decisions with humans.

Lastly, Ara Kharazian finds AI spend per employee at top firms fell nearly 10% in August as token prices dropped 41%, and Gergely Orosz reports Uber, Pinterest, and AT&T cut bills with open models. Attackers enjoy the same discount: Anthropic’s threat report shows agent swarms letting lone operators match state hackers, raising the stakes for Meta’s Muse agent booking travel and negotiating for you. Finally, Paul Iusztin warns weak plans make cheap models expensive.