Episode 2: Is AI a Team Member?

Brian (00:20) Hello, hello, welcome. Welcome to the People Over Prompts Podcast. ⁓ This is a place where we're going to talk about the future of work in the age of AI. And I'm your host here. And I will be just about every episode. My name's Brian Milner. And today I have a friend that I've asked to come on to share this conversation with me. Mr. Scott Dunn is with us. Welcome in, Scott. Scott Dunn (00:46) Hey, Brian. I'm glad that I'm I've reached a friend status now. So that's nice. It used to be professional. By the way, that's a dope intro. I really like that. I was kinda getting into it. It's really it's really good. yeah. Brian (00:50) Yeah. Thanks, thanks. Yeah, hey, nice groove, right? yeah, so I mean if you're if you're joining us here, this is we're brand new. We've just started this thing and you know what as I said in the intro here, we're t we're hoping to talk about kind of how this AI thing changes how we work. ⁓ you know, we're not ⁓ AI experts. We're not people here are gonna give you the latest skills and prompts and things to put into ⁓ Clawed MD file or anything. We're here to talk about ⁓ kind of the process around it and how this changes you know how teams put together work and how they use this and what happens and all that kind of stuff. And ⁓ I wanted to have Scott on. Scott is a fellow certified Scrum trainer like I am, and ⁓ we we've talked multiple times on my previous podcast, the Agile Mentors podcast, on different aspects of officers. Scrum and Agile. But in this brave new world, we we wanted to kind of focus for a minute and just stop down on the idea of team. ⁓ And really, I've heard a lot of conversation about this. I've heard a lot of snippets back and forth about AI being a team member. And that's kind of the big core question I wanted us to wrestle with, Scott, through this episode was, is AI really on the team? So I I think probably a good place to start with that is, I mean, what is a team? ⁓ if you were to answer that question, what how would you at its core kind of say, well, this is what a work team actually is? Scott Dunn (02:35) Right. so by the way, I was chewing on these questions quite a bit, and I think this is one. For those folks listening, this is not an easy one, and I'm glad Brian brought it up because I've I've danced around it a bit. 'Cause for me, we would commonly say like we see we compare and contrast, ⁓ team is different from a collection of individuals. Or for me it was always about this isn't my work, it's our work. Do you watch people chip in to get things done? Do you avoid the situation of knowledge styles that if Jerry's not here, things fall apart. If only we could clone Jerry. These are classic problems we struggle with. So that's where there's an aspect of team that thought Scrum did such a great job of a shared goal. ⁓ we share knowledge, we help each other out, the work's made visible so we can pair on things. We make decisions together on how we work. We make decisions on the way to approach and tackle the work. So all that becomes really powerful and we watch teams just light up, right? So lots of times we'd get companies asking for help like The team, they're not they don't seem empowered, they're not taking initiative, they're we you know, can you help us with motivation? All those things. For me, a lot of it came back to team. Now, the default, I think this is interesting, Brian, that you made me think of is wow, AI has all these powerful abilities, including one of the most obvious ones that people are focused on now is it can create code. And the quality's gone up significantly. So it's like it's a given now that we would use that. And that's usually the most expensive part of your project is the software engineering. So I understand. There's money to be saved. I understand that they say it can work 24-7, that it'll never sue you, all that kind of stuff. There's obviously a lot of drawbacks too that people could point to. It'll hallucinate, it'll expose security flaws, it'll tell you what you want to hear, all that too. But come back to what you just said about team, it does seem to be the default of, it's a team member. I've literally seen this written down multiple times. But the problem is if Cloud makes a mistake and puts something on production, it shouldn't have ha do we hold it accountable? Is this I mean, what's there's I mean, how do you Brian (04:18) Hm. Scott Dunn (04:21) work with that. ⁓ how do you how do you I think what when you bring up this aspect of team, what we're not stopping is there's a productivity thing with AI, it's solid, no doubt. But it's almost like if you look at it ⁓ team as ⁓ sociology, we don't do that. And I think that's where people don't refactor how do we work now with AI? They simply say, I'm gonna use AI to do this task. And then and then it explodes. And it's almost like the Dunning Kruger effect that Its ability is surpassing our understanding of how we work as a team. Because we don't think about it much. And most teams aren't probably really retrospecting at that level. And I get it. I'm not even like that's not even a blame. But it's clear that this power outstrips us. And you can go back through time at plenty of time. Technology's advanced beyond people's ability to do but you know, make smart choices with it. I think there's a lot of simple ones, people like that like why we why we caution people about using a chainsaw for the first time. Why we worry about our kids driving at the beginning, because the kids are so confident. I got this. Like but the insurance company says no. Brian (05:12) Yeah. Scott Dunn (05:17) That you don't. I feel it's the same, Brian, 'cause it's an aspect of how do we work with AI as a team, not individual, 'cause that's gonna make it just a multiplier messier, does deserve some some kind of reflection and some thought work of people to kinda step back and say that. What do we think about team for sure. Brian (05:32) Yeah. I I'm so glad you brought up the word sociology because I I absolutely agree this is a sociology problem. ⁓ and I I think that this is you know, the the the question I've been kind of wrestling with is about the metaphor basically. Like we we we we have this concept of a team and you know, I mean Let me let me just h historically take people back a little bit. You know, if we think about like if you're not familiar, there there used to be a way of doing work called waterfall where you'd sequentially do big chunks of things where you do all your analysis, you do your all your design, right? You you kind of do in kind of phases. And it's important to understand that you know, we talk about this in class, that like that came out of the industrial revolution and it came out of assembly line production because that's how you built Cars, automobiles, that's how you built anything on the assembly line was you'd move the thing down the assembly line and there'd be different specialists along the way that would do things. I know I'm I'm going a long way for this, but stick with me. Right. Right. So but so when when we transitioned over into doing agile ways of working, the the whole concept there was, well Scott Dunn (06:35) The young people don't know this. The young listeners aren't aware, they've never Brian (06:46) We're basing the way we work on an old method that is not really what we're doing now. So it was a fundamental reassessment of the the premise. The premise previously was I'm trying to build the same thing over and over again. And Agile said, wait a minute, we're not doing that. We're not building the same thing over and over again. We're we're inventing new things every time. We're building new collaboration works, right? We're building new products every time. So we need a process that enables us to build new things ⁓ in an efficient, effective manner that's got high quality. So that's Agile enters the scene from that. But now I feel like we're at this new inflection point where it's not that we're not building new things, we're building new things, but the premise of which we set up things like Scrum. Was based on a team of humans who were coming together to build this product. And it was meant to solve and handle the problems that came from a team of humans trying to build stuff. Communication issues, ⁓ shared knowledge and understanding, right? All the things that would be like the the hurdles, the dependencies between people, all those things would be hurdles were based on the fact. That this is a team of humans doing it. And I feel like, and Scott, maybe you disagree with me or maybe you'll agree with me, but I I feel like we're at this third inflection point to say, well, now we have to fundamentally reassess what we're doing again because it's not the same team of humans. It's not eight to ten people who are having trouble communicating between other humans. It is two to three humans. And each one having five, six, I don't know, ten agents that they're using. And the communication problems, the dependencies, all those things that were problems between humans, it's not to say that they're not they're not similar problems, but they're different problems. They're they're they they present in different ways. And therefore, I believe the solutions, the the practices have to adjust and adapt to be not between humans, but between agents or humans that are orchestrating different sets of agents now. Scott Dunn (09:11) Yeah. Yeah, I think as humans, ⁓ it's for those who are unaware, we we definitely on the psychological side have a have a preference for familiar over over novel, right? The brain does the brain will pay attention to novel stuff in terms of does this help me for survival? But by and large we we gravitate. ⁓ and we need to look I just came up with someone joking about Man, they have to actually write a letter, get an envelope, fold it up, put a stamp, write the address. Why? Because back in the day, that's how we if we want to exchange a message with someone, that's how we would we would send that. We don't we don't obviously the default of what I get in the mail is not personal letters anymore. I'm getting those via email and text. Yeah, we have this whole infrastructure built up around we need all these things to deliver messages to people like, well, I don't know. ⁓ or whenever something kind of replaces the need for that. A friend would just tell how they'd bought their first house. had a little slot in the back ⁓ the house for the milkman to put the milk into and they could open and shut it like someone had access to your house to put milk in. But they well that's not how we get you don't have milk delivered anymore. You can well I guess you could now. We went back, we we go to the grocery store now it is being delivered again. But all those things I say I think I don't think we reevaluate. And I was kinda going back through because you got me thinking like what stays the same. I think a team stall has a goal and those agents would have a goal and they we've heard that's really important. I think we still deal with complex problems. So this idea of Let's stop and talk about how it's going on this complex thing. Like you just said, we're not doing in in manufacturing, we're doing complex stuff that can change a lot. I think I think the idea of a team coming together with that storming, forming, normally, performing probably looks different because now there's other aspects of it. We've never really had truly some kind of a robotic thing doing the work as part of our team necessarily. The one that really stuck out to me is this the tier change curve because it's obviously it's throwing in something very new. So where we're at two years ago to where we probably are gonna be in one or you know two years radically different. But but you and I would both advocate, yeah, because that's such a change, you need feedback loops, you need to do retrospectives. And I think one thing that jumped out is does the team stop and actually think about their working agreement in terms of what they do with agents? Cause so one thing that jumps out that we've talked about on my team, because one of our guys is is a ⁓ you know he's our our technical coach, so he does the certified scrum developer trainings, that your juniors ⁓ are not going to learn by pairing with the seniors that the seniors are busy spinning up agents and that's their new job is orchestration of agents. So they will struggle. Or or anytime, I've already seen this numerous times. You hire someone new or there's a junior and hey take a look at the code and you make the change like, well how's this all work? Like, I I don't know. AI built it. So there's a lack of understanding. And they even said you could run KATAs to say, we're gonna take a piece of the code that AI developed and who can explain it. Because it's The learning gets lost. I can have AI do stuff that I don't understand how it works. Just like in the old day you could work on your car and now like, I don't know. There's it's a check engine light. Right? I can't I'm helpless in some ways. That's I think it's similar. But management would still expect us to understand why it is or isn't working. Managers still un expect us to deliver on time and with quality, but we have whole parts of like, I don't know why it's doing that. Yes, it got done faster. That's almost like we were talking recently as a team. immediate gratification over long term. Can it develop the code? Great, we can throw it out. What about total cost of ownership in six months, nine months? Right? So I think those are the inherent challenges of the team's sense of ownership and a shared understanding of this thing that they say they've built or delivered, even if it used AI, right? That's fine. But it there's inherent expectations on the team with that that I think we're just skipping right over, almost back to we've cranked out a lot of lines of code. Is it is it scalable? Not sure. Is it you know, is it now we can write other agents to check some of that, but I don't think it's the humans now. That idea of human in a loop is kind of lost. But if we could step back as a working agreement, say, let's just stop for a moment. Should we, if the default is pushed the gas pedal down, use as AI as much as you can, is that really what we need right now? That might be the long term goal, maximize AI. But if it costs us things like ⁓ team cohesion, collective ownership, shared understanding. Maybe we maybe we slow it down. Maybe actually limit the number of agents we use right now. Maybe you intentionally pair a junior and a senior on while spending up the agent. You know what I mean? Like, but no one, no one's giving a thought. We're back to the experts just gonna use AI. And I know I can name a company that's almost like a pride issue where the most senior person in AI is just killing it, locking up all the stuff while whole team members have no idea what to do. He's not busy helping them get going. He's actually kind of have this pride like. Yeah, well, I know Plot you know, I Claude pretty well. That's not good long term, right? But that's just kind of running amok and they're not truly self managing. You know what I mean? They're not Yeah, it's it's troublesome. Brian (13:35) Yeah. Yeah. Well Think there's lazy management going on. And I I'm sorry, managers out there, I'm sorry leaders. ⁓ like I I I'm not I'm not saying you're all this way, trust me. But I I think that there I think we could all ⁓ agree that there is some lazy managing going on out there to just say, I've gotten used to the way I manage a team, and this is the way I manage a team, and now this new thing's popping up. Well, great, hey, this new person over here knows how to do this stuff. I'm gonna let them just run with it. And it's not that Scott Dunn (13:44) for sure. For sure. Brian (14:11) We don't want to encourage that, but We have to remind ourselves, I think, that there's some fundamental best practices that we've learned. And, you know, it gets back to did you learn the practice or did you learn the purpose behind the practice? And if you don't really understand why you're doing that practice, then they're not gonna fit and you're not gonna be able to adapt it because you don't really understand why you're doing it in the first place. and and and that gets back to this fundamental reassessment of our team. Scott Dunn (14:27) Yeah, true, true. Brian (14:42) because if if our team is now dip structured differently and we have this problem with you know now the senior people are more valued because you know if I'm a senior developer and I can now be an orchestrator because I can I can vet the code of these ⁓ different agents because there's a code quality problem that comes from this and we need the human at the moment to kind of vet that and still ⁓ still be able to you know keep the quality standards high I well, if I dump all my junior engineers, then you're right, we're gonna have this HR problem at a certain point where now we have a gap 'cause we don't have anyone coming up who can replace those senior engineers when they're gone or they move up to another, you know, organization or anything. And it's a short term thing. I think that ⁓ you know, I heard one person talking about this recently and I I I'll see if I can put the name in the show notes 'cause I I want to give the guy credit, but I just forgot his name off the top my head. But he was talking about how You know, it's a short-term problem because we we have built and structured our organizations in a way that our senior most leaders are never there for very long. Our senior leaders are there for short windows of just a few years. And so they are they are concentrated on getting the stock price to go up. over their tenure and they're not concerned with fifteen twenty years. They're concerned with two or three years. And so if I if my window is two or three years Scott Dunn (16:09) Very different. Brian (16:12) Absolutely. I I I see the benefit in dumping my junior engineers because I don't have to worry about what happens when there's a gap. I I'm worried about the next two or three years and when that gap surfaces, hey, I'm on to someone else. I'm on to my next gig and now that's you some other guy's problem. Right? That's not my problem. Scott Dunn (16:20) No. Absolutely. Well I think that that at that team level, quite a question for you, Brian, and because this is what I'm partly what I'm after in the nucleus of this is how much from your experience in the companies you've worked with, whether that's in the training classes or when you're coaching, ⁓ how much would you feel, percentage-wise, the teams truly had ownership of how they work and they knew they could just go and change things? You know, I mean I have seen teams like they've changed the operating system they would use, like this one works better. Like that would that's you know, that was at a startup. Or ⁓ I just need to go out and buy this equipment or whatever that might be. Or and contrast it with number of teams that you felt like it's just kind of an order taker. Just tell me what you want. I know, but we'd like your ideas. That just tell me what you want, right? For whatever reason. I don't want to be wrong with it. What what have you seen out there? Because I think this is kind of inherent in the problem of if that's a lot of people, then we're asking we're asking them to think differently about AI, but if they're still don't have a sense of ownership, they feel like they're they're just acting like owner takers, I think that might be a problem. But what what have you seen in your experience? Percentage wise. Brian (17:25) Yeah, no. I I agree with you. It's a rare thing, right? It's a rare thing when the team has the agency to make the changes that they feel necessary to actually improve and get faster and deliver better quality and all that stuff. It's sorta, you know, I hate to ⁓ go this far back, but I have to draw the quote from Ronald Reagan, the whole trust but verify kind of thing. And I think that there's that delicate teeter-totter kind of thing with you know, that that scale of trusting. Scott Dunn (17:53) Yeah. Fair. Brian (17:55) Trust and verify that I think leaders are always wrestling with that they they know and I think we we as leaders know we should be trusting our teams, but You know, we're ⁓ you brought accountability and account we're accountable, right? We're accountable to deliver these things and we're we're we we want to trust them, but we also need some level of verification so that we make sure we're on target, we're on track, everything else. And I think that's the major struggle. Scott Dunn (18:24) Right. Now it's so and I think that's so for me this it's almost like it's a problem that's now been stacked or exponentially gotten problem problematic. So add to that what you've seen, the number of leaders who really fundamentally understood Agile. And I pulled plenty of people in the leadership class, and it is consistent that they would say the leaders on a scale of one to ten understand maybe four, four point five, yet How much would the leader say they understand about Agile? Was like an eight or nine, or some people say 12 out of 10. So the problem is they didn't understand Agile. Now you throw on AI. I think that I have not seen that that problem changes that they fundamentally understand are using it, but they want everyone else to use it. So now how do they lead? Agile's one thing because it changes the process. This is almost like it makes you qu question the whole the fundamental concept like team. Yet they can't lead them because they don't even understand AI, much less agile. So shifting so here's an example that I thought was really profound. ⁓ a client had said we want to do some advanced AI, great. I'd even walk back through this is what I would recommend. ⁓ and we're going through it. And I could tell right away, and one of my coaches was a pairing, I'm like slacking behind the scenes, like, this isn't looking good. Because what they're asking for was super advanced stuff, like, show us how AI can give us a dashboard and full predictability for all of our projects. I'm like, what like So this is that's way beyond what we normally do. Normally like just like how to you know set tone, how to how maybe start talking about skills and agents, whatever. And so finally I just stopped and talked to the head of the person that called me in. I said, I I'm I'm puzzled at the level of questions you're asking. So what where's this coming from? And she's like, Well, we're the we're the AI services group, right? So you so they're providing services of how to leverage and maximize AI for all these other groups. And I just stopped. Now th think about this for a moment, because this is coming from our perspective. But in in my mind, and they've existed for five years, in my mind, like, why are you coming to me for answers then if you know the power of AI? Like, am I smarter than Claude and ChatGPT and Jim and I all put together? By by no means. So my what I saw in that moment is you still have this mentality of I just want a solution. To your point, I don't understand the fundamental principles under underneath this, which is AI can do anything I need. But they're still in this box of I just kinda I need solutions to give off to other people. Now, even when I shared that, they weren't clocking it. And the feedback that came back after the end of the class, you could tell a couple of people did clock it. But like, why are we why are we coming for the answers? So that's that's one example of the problem ⁓ that I've seen. The other similar problem is that we want them to use AI and learn, but we don't even give them time to do that. So now if I'm reduced to I need to use something, it's gonna be your Like if we did a graph that Stacy matrix, it's gonna be a simple, straightforward. Can I have it write my email for me? And we see this limit. Those numbers you were sharing earlier about AI's adoption don't look much different than last year. And people are saying they're starting to see now the problem, the limiter isn't AI. The limiter is these humans. And to your point, we're not that smart about the system of work, right? Going back to people learning agile and the principles underneath, those that got it, it was incredible. Now we're at AI, which I think is much better. bigger challenge to the fundamental principles of how we work in teams, but without understanding, without a sense of I'm a team has ownership, I'm a team that's not an order taker. We're we're empowered truly, I think you have a very small percentage. And I'm not quite sure how do you move them forward outside of podcasts like yours, conversations, training, et cetera. But I'm not seeing a lot of this ⁓ out there. Have the fundamental thinking to say like, no, no, we can we can What's our solution at my company versus yours? I'm sure it'll look different, but we got the tools we need to figure out. They're like, No, just make an agent spin it up, replace a person, cut costs. Just like you're saying, and I think they're gonna hit that ceiling. If they haven't already hit the ceiling, they're just gonna just cruise along in that and it's it's ⁓ I don't even think that they're aware they don't know that they don't know that. And that's the problem. Brian (22:09) Yeah. I agree. Well and and I I think one of the fundamental sort of problems that I that I think is inherent in the way in the in the era that we're in right now. ⁓ In the Scrum world, you hear people saying things like, Can AI replace my Scrum Master? Can AI replace a product owner? Or obviously can it replace a developer or a junior developer if you're not in Scrum, right? ⁓ There's all these questions about can it do this? Can it be this person? And I think that's Scott Dunn (22:31) Okay. Brian (22:41) fundamentally flawed. I think that when you start coming at it from here's how we do things right now, can I take this piece out and plug AI in and have AI replicate this human? I think that's a flawed approach. I think that would be similar to I I've thought about this kind of as an analogy. When the internal combustion engine was was invented, people didn't say, can we build a horse with a combustion engine. Can we make, you know, with four legs that run along and can I crack the whip over the horse? Like that would be the the right, right. That would be like the the the equivalent to today is it seems like what we're doing is we're taking this technology, this tool, and saying, all right, well here's how we do things today. Scott Dunn (23:13) Make the legs move faster, right? Brian (23:26) So, what components or pieces do I pluck out and put in AI when AI is not meant to do that? AI is not designed or built. It doesn't excel at replacing a human. It excels at doing certain things. And as you s as you said, that requires a fundamental reassessment of the entire process from end to end to say, here's the problem, here's the solution. How do we get from A to B now that this new tool is in place? We need to reassess what the team looks like. We need to reassess what people do what things. We need to reassess the task along the way and what AI, what task an AI can do, not what person an AI can be. Scott Dunn (24:12) There you go. Right. So so for us, th this is a recent experience and I just discussing it with one of our teammates yesterday. And she's done great on digging into AI, leveraging AI, et cetera. Some of that was my prompting from her, 'cause we'd meet regularly, but we have our mobbing sessions where we get together and we tackle different problems intentionally with AI. We solve our regular meetings for like operations, et cetera. One thing that shifted my thinking, and I've been watching this since Chat GPT really hit the scene, I was aware of machine learning and AI before that, but like, well, I don't see how that 'cause I It wasn't generative yet. But now so I've been I feel like I've been around this for for long enough to know better, but I still don't know better. I wasn't really seeing the power of AI until this year when I said I will not approach, I will not start any task anymore without first looking and saying, Can AI do help with this in some way? And it really opened my eyes to the power of AI. And that started to shift towards a team of like, let's all work together to say there's something in our backlog we need to do, let's take a if AI can do that or not. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes we simply learn that's fine. But for her, one of the things I was talking to is I'm giving like here's the things we need to get done and she she handles all the back off of stuff, things on the website, you know, accounting, et cetera. I just paused, I said, Where do you where where do you put all these items when I'm asking you like, hey, make you know, see if you can look into this, do it? She goes, Well, and she kinda paused, she's like, Well, I write down. I said, Okay, before we meet next week, I want you to try vibe coding and see if you can build something that would do that for you. Now, if she's already been in the mobbing session, we're seeing what we've been doing. But she came back in a week with like A very lightweight equivalent of Trello. And since then has done more with it. And now I I'm honestly now she just she doesn't ask, she just knows. I'm gonna show you the newer features I add that help her, including like, this is a task I need to do every day, like you know, something for for YouTube. It she moves it to done, it knows it pops back in the next day, right? Or it could be weekly. What day of the week do you want it to pop in? Everything's color code. I mean, it's it's the best tool I've seen for, you know, it's I like it more than mine. I'm even thinking like, you know, I could I could license this from her. But that's an example of that. But w we've we one those tasks was ⁓ web pages when people are looking for stuff on our site, do we have it or not? And and now we just have an agent running our SEO analysis, right? So I don't have to do that. Great. It gives us an analysis that I I trust good enough. I'm not saying it's perfect, but better than me, better than waiting on me for six weeks to come around to it. So now it makes it. Now here's where here's where we had to change how we work. It said, You don't have a page for this particular class. Okay, fine. So I talk with the other person I pair with on my team. When we deliver that class and hey, we need a page for this, all right? And he sits and thinks about it, he comes up by ideas, he runs those by me, we meet in a week, and then he gets verification. All right. Then it's another week or two. As he he uses AI, he goes to Claude saying, Can you make a page, whatever? But it doesn't, it doesn't match ours exactly, right? So, but my in the in the end, it was three weeks before we finally had something to put on the website. And I was just dying inside, like, I n I know that's not necessary. So the shift was, in this case, you know, Jessica, I'm saying, like, You just draft them and send them us for review, but call it good. And all I'm looking for is it factually incorrect. So when it says like Scott is trained, you know, NASA astronauts or we're like, no, that's actually not true. It'll still make up stuff. So we do check that. But I'm back to good enough is good enough. And now it's done really in just a few days. We're even talking to the team of our mobbing session should be the output of that is is the product. Almost like it's a one hour sprint. We're gonna pull in a user story and knock it out. But this idea that we're still working, like let's talk to each other and review, we should collaborate, but we those delays are killing us. And it wasn't necessary for the value. But took us a few cycles, like this isn't working. And now we just ran the SEO report again, like, yep, it sees what we've done, but that was all in less than a week compared to say three weeks or more. So this idea of teams and how we do it, but that's stopping and saying, I don't think we need to do it this way. If team members aren't empowered to do this, and this might be a takeaway for the people listening, maybe that retrospective is actually pause and say, How do we think it's best to use AI, balancing short term and long term, and let's run some experiments on that? Because I think right now they just run blindly. Use AI as much as you can, and all sorts of problems will come downstream to your point, depending on leadership. But I encourage them to have that sense of ownership. Let's reflect on this and let's give your voices to that. Is ever is everyone feeling good? Like the Spotify team health check. Am I having fun? Is this enjoyable? If I'm being left behind as a team member, I'd be really like hey, I'm part of the team, and it kind of stinks that you guys are doing amazing stuff. I just hear bits and pieces and I'm not a part of that, right? But let's refactor a bit of that because you're right, we fundamentally change this in much bigger ways than I think most people are thinking. But if we don't actually stop and evaluate, which I think most don't, they're just gonna run at 120 miles an hour on that horse with the combustion engine and then this is gonna explode, right? That's a problem. But rethink all of that, and your car metaphor is a really good one. It's fundamentally different. It's gonna look different. I don't know what it looks like exactly. So I haven't I just have a Our experiences and what I've seen, but I know it's radically different for sure. Brian (28:53) Yeah, completely agree. Well, Scott, we're we're at our time. So thanks for for coming on. I really appreciate you being willing to to jump in here early on in this this new podcast and ⁓ share your thoughts with us. Scott Dunn (29:05) Always good. Always enjoy it, Brian, with you. Always a pleasure. And I do I do it for the fun. I'm glad it's a good thing we're talking about people get if people get value, I hope so. But yeah, thank you for having me on. Really a pleasure. Brian (29:10) Yeah. Absolutely. Brian (29:15) Wasn't Scott great. I I just love having Scott on. if you haven't if you didn't listen to the the last podcast, the Agile Mentor Mentors podcast, I had him on multiple times and really appreciate his insights. ⁓ you know, we we're kind of similar thinkers and ⁓ you know, kind of every time I have a conversation with him, we kind of approach things from a different way and ⁓ help each other reexamine some of these topics. So big thacks thanks to Scott Dunn. ⁓ I'll put links to Scott and his company in our show notes in case you want to follow him. ⁓ Scott has his own podcast as well. so you can maybe tag on to what he's doing there. ⁓ we appreciate you guys joining in early on in this ⁓ people over prompts podcast. And ⁓ you know, I I said this in the first episode, but this is not an anti- AI podcast at all, please don't think that that title means for some reason that we're gonna be anti-AI. No, we're pro-AI. We think that AI is a good tool. And as I said in the episode, is fundamentally changing how we approach work. But we just wanna have the conversations and talk about it in a real way. We're trying to be transparent about what's really going on ⁓ at the team level and how this is gonna change things. So that's kind of the whole point. That's the purpose of this. ⁓ here's our ask from you. If you like this, if this topic is interesting you and ⁓ you know you you're not sure if there's another thing like this, or there's you know, people are kind of giving you tips and tricks on AI, but this isn't really that. it's kind of handling it from a new new area. If you know other people who would be interested in this. My ask from you is i if you wouldn't mind, tell a friend. Tell a coworker, ⁓ tell someone else. We're we're new and ⁓ you know we're not advertising anywhere. So we we want to spread by word or mouth. We want you to tell people that you work with, people that are friends of yours, if you know people that really dig this topic and are into it. Just reach out and say, hey, give it a shot. give this new podcast a shot. I think they're onto something and I think this is something that might grow into an a really interesting area. So that's my ass for you. Also, obviously, like, subscribe to this. That's you know, for a new podcast, that's just vital. ⁓ we we've gotta get our our subscriptions up so the people when they search for this topic can find us. ⁓ and that doesn't cost you anything. It it's just a way that you can help us. so I I know it it takes. A little time, but you know, that's my my other ask from you is if you can take the extra minute or so to just do that to make sure you like or subscribe to us and whatever podcasting platform you use on a regular basis. That really does help. That really does help us get found by new listeners. So that's my appeal to you as well. ⁓ we're gonna try to release this as often as we can. So, you know, that will keep this new in your inbox. We also would love to hear more from you. ⁓ So we we'd like you to be able to send us an email. You can send Miguel an email directly at Brian at Brian. agilityevolved.com. That's my ⁓ my business and my direct email. So send me an email. It's Brian with an I. So Brian at agilityevolve.com. If you have any kind of suggestions for topics, ⁓ areas you want us to cover or you you might know someone who would be a really good guest for us. ⁓ my only request for you is if you send a guest suggestion, if you can send any kind of a link to that person speaking somewhere else. ⁓ That's usually really helpful in vetting ⁓ new people to come on the show. So ⁓ we'd love to hear from you. I'd love to you know have your ideas and your topics on here. ⁓ you know, I I I always try to make the podcast I work on ⁓ not owned by me, but owned by the listeners. So you you point me in the right right direction, and I I will do my best to give you the podcast that you ⁓ that you want here from us. So I hope you stay connected with us. I hope you stay ⁓ on board with us. We're we're gonna go in a lot of different areas and it's gonna be exciting. So stick around. ⁓ this conversation's just starting. But thank you for joining us on our second episode of People Over Prompts Podcast. Talk to you next time.