Exploring Human Agency In The AI Age: Decoding
Ed's AI Mission Log
A field guide for working with AI systems
Coaching The MachineStop treating AI like a search engine. Start treating it like a junior intelligence analyst you're training. The difference: clear operational context, iterative refinement, and mission-specific standards. Most operators get mediocre results because they give mediocre tactical guidance.
AI can't read your mind. If a human couldn't complete the task with what you've provided, neither can AI.
"Write a fleet readiness report"
You're writing a weekly fleet readiness brief for the Naval Operations Center. Audience: Flag officers who need operational decisions, not technical details Format: 3 bullet points max, each under 30 words Tone: Direct, mission-focused language Current status: 7 of 12 destroyers mission-ready, 2 in maintenance, 3 awaiting parts delivery Key decision needed: Deploy available assets now or wait 72 hours for full squadron? Draft the brief now.
Context checklist:
- Who is the audience?
- What's the purpose?
- What constraints exist?
- What does success look like?
The first draft is rarely the answer. Build iteratively, like you would with any team member.
Step 1: "Draft 3 different approaches for securing this shipping lane" Step 2: "Take approach #2, but optimize for smaller patrol boat deployment" Step 3: "Now add specific threat assessment metrics for each checkpoint" Step 4: "Red-team this: what would hostile forces exploit in this plan?"
Iteration techniques:
- Ask for multiple options before choosing one
- Request reasoning before conclusions
- Have it critique its own work
- Specify what to improve in the next version
AI performs better when it knows what role to play. Be specific about expertise level and perspective.
"You're a senior maritime intelligence analyst with 8 years of naval operations experience. You're reviewing this port security assessment for operational feasibility and threat mitigation. Be constructively critical — identify vulnerabilities and recommend countermeasures."
Role clarity checklist:
- What's their expertise level?
- What's their perspective or bias?
- What are they optimizing for?
- How should they communicate?
Constraints unlock better solutions. Set limits to force creative thinking.
- "Explain this threat assessment in under 75 words" - "No classified info — brief for coalition partners" - "Budget is $2M, not $20M, for this operation" - "Only use assets currently in theater" - "Must work in a contested communications environment"
Useful constraint types:
- Word / time limits
- Audience restrictions
- Resource constraints
- Technical limitations
- Format requirements
Build quality checks into your process. Don't accept first drafts.
Before finalizing any operational plan, ask: 1. "Is this actionable with current force structure?" 2. "What intelligence supports these threat assumptions?" 3. "What are the top 3 enemy courses of action?" 4. "How would a maritime domain expert critique this?" 5. "Does this actually achieve mission objectives?"
Standard quality checks:
- Evidence backing claims
- Clear next actions
- Appropriate detail level
- Logical consistency
- Audience appropriateness
Copy-paste templates
Initial briefing template
- Role: You are a [specific role] with [experience level]
- Task: [Specific deliverable]
- Audience: [Who will use this, and why]
- Constraints: [Time, format, style, resource limits]
- Success criteria: [How you'll judge quality]
Iteration commands
- "Show me 3 different tactical approaches before we proceed"
- "What threat assumptions are you making? List them."
- "Now critique your own plan — what vulnerabilities exist?"
- "Make this 50% more concise for a command briefing"
- "What would enemy intelligence object to in this assessment?"
Quality gates
- Is this operationally feasible with current assets?
- What intelligence supports these assessments?
- Have we considered enemy countermeasures?
- Would this survive operational review?