Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
00:58:10 · Dianne Penn, Lenny Rachitsky
[00:58:10] S0: Yeah. Yeah. [00:58:11] S1: I'm curious how, kind of on this thread of finding ways for AI to help you in your work and life, are there any interesting ways you've been using Claude lately in your work as a PM? [00:58:22] S0: I think there's a lot of things with Fable and things like TAG. So I think TAG is in the very early days; I think there's something around how you work in a different paradigm of allowing an agent to go off and work and them bring back product and experiences to you. I think one area that it's not more recent, but one that I bring up a lot with the team and I think we could do more on using AI is just how to use it to also have better conversations with each other, to be better managers. I don't think it's necessarily just about raising the IQ of experiences we build, but also I use it a lot and actually prepping for how to have better conversations in the moment during crucial conversations. So I love that book. And so I actually have a skill that helps me figure out, am I going in the right level of detail given the situation at hand, and actually helping me be a better manager and better supporter for the team. So for managers on the team, that's actually a thing that I've been sharing more with our managers of, okay, how do you actually use Claude to make you a better coach? Because it's hard sometimes to find the right perfect words, and the models have a lot of perfect and right words. And I think there is something about how it can actually augment us from an EQ perspective in addition to IQ.
01:00:04 · Lenny Rachitsky, Dianne Penn
[01:00:04] S1: Oh man, there's so much interesting stuff there. So just to understand what you're doing there. So you built a skill; you're just like, "Help me, Claude, build a skill." Pulling in lessons from Crucial Conversations, the book, which it knows enough about. You don't have to even give it the content. And then you use that skill to talk to Claude, "Hey, I have this very difficult conversation coming up with a colleague. Give me some tips on how to approach it." [01:00:25] S0: Yeah. And it's a great, it's almost like coaching, individualized, personalized coaching of just how to make you... And there's so much context switching that we do all day. And having Claude help me pair and help me... And maybe there are times where I end up not using suggestions from Claude, but it actually ends up being very helpful for just coming up and brainstorming. Am I thinking about reactions in the right way? How do I actually go a bit deeper, faster, build trust faster, be more direct?
01:00:25 · Dianne Penn, Lenny Rachitsky
[01:00:25] S0: Yeah. And it's a great, it's almost like coaching, individualized, personalized coaching of just how to make you... And there's so much context switching that we do all day. And having Claude help me pair and help me... And maybe there are times where I end up not using suggestions from Claude, but it actually ends up being very helpful for just coming up and brainstorming. Am I thinking about reactions in the right way? How do I actually go a bit deeper, faster, build trust faster, be more direct? [01:01:05] S1: Yeah. Man, I have so many questions here. This is so interesting. One is just there's concern people are going to start talking the way AI writes because they're talking to AI so much, and it's going to be like, "Dianne, it's not this, but it's that." I know that you're not doing that, but that's a concern people have. Let me just ask about that, I guess. Do you fear there's this brain-rot atrophy stuff people talk about it where you're just so reliant on AI now and we stop learning and thinking and overlaying AI thoughts on that, being so close to it and being so integrated with AI constantly?
01:01:38 · Dianne Penn, Lenny Rachitsky
[01:01:38] S0: A lot of actually thinking process and writing process are tied together for me personally. And so I think there are ways where I use Claude to augment my thinking, but what I want to make sure, and maybe this is what you're describing, is Claude doesn't take over all of my thinking for me. And so I think depending on the situation, depending on how much more personal judgment I want to have in a situation, I might come up with my own POV first and then work with Claude through that, and making sure that I maintain my sense and tone throughout. I think there are then other things like updates. We have monthly business reviews, and then in those cases it's much more, I actually want it to be standard, and I want it to be much more like it gets a crystallized information in the right way. And I have a skill, and we're augmenting and improving our skill for that. I want to get to a place where the monthly business review, the writing of that, is potentially asymmetrically less valuable than the thinking. And so how do I get that piece delegated to Claude fully? And I'm more of a reviewer and a verifier of that information. So I think it depends on what you're using Claude for and what you're trying to convey, and is there asymmetrical value in delegating more to Claude. [01:03:11] S1: What I'm also hearing, the first tip is really great, which was think first, have a point of view, and then use Claude as a sparring partner almost to evolve the idea, push back on the idea.
01:03:11 · Lenny Rachitsky, Dianne Penn
[01:03:11] S1: What I'm also hearing, the first tip is really great, which was think first, have a point of view, and then use Claude as a sparring partner almost to evolve the idea, push back on the idea. [01:03:22] S0: Yeah. Yeah. And I think this is where things like actually our alignment research and safety research is helpful because what you don't want is AI that just agrees with you. What you want is this technology to actually augment and grow and get to a better outcome. And so sometimes it's having Claude push back makes me better. And so that's great. Like a coworker, I want somebody to push back when my ideas are not fully formed.
01:03:22 · Dianne Penn, Lenny Rachitsky
[01:03:22] S0: Yeah. Yeah. And I think this is where things like actually our alignment research and safety research is helpful because what you don't want is AI that just agrees with you. What you want is this technology to actually augment and grow and get to a better outcome. And so sometimes it's having Claude push back makes me better. And so that's great. Like a coworker, I want somebody to push back when my ideas are not fully formed. [01:03:53] S1: I want to hear more about that. I've heard that when Ben Mann was on the podcast, he talked about the constitution that is built into Claude and how unintuitively the work and the focus on safety and alignment, as you said, and this constitution that describes how Claude should think and operate. You would think that would limit the abilities of Claude and make it less fun and interesting. It's exactly the opposite. Claude is the most interesting personality. I hear that constantly. It's just like I much prefer talking to... OpenClaw famously was built on Claude, and then people were forced to switch. We won't get into it. Were forced to switch to ChatGPT, and they're like, "This is so bad. This is not who I'm used to talking to." So that is, I think, a really interesting point. I just want to make sure we spend a little time on. Why is it? Why is that the case? Just this focus on alignment, safety, having this clear constitution? Why does that make Claude better and more interesting to talk to you also?