Transitioning from Workflows to Commanding Intent in AI Solutions

·Jan 01, 2026 09:14 AM·

Lisa H. Rida K. I think we're hitting the limit of the "Plumber Era" (Zapier/Make) where we are forced to be architects of pipes just to move data around. The friction you're describing, where AI adds drag instead of leverage, usually happens because we're trying to bolt "intelligence" onto "dumb pipes." I’m actually heads-down building something new to solve this exact "Judgment vs. Noise" problem. The thesis is moving from "Building Workflows" to just "Commanding Intent." Basically, collapsing the stack so the AI is the workflow engine, not just a plugin. Would love to hear more about how you're scoping those "Junior Analyst" boundaries. That's the exact UX challenge I'm tackling right now.

🙌2

3 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Rida K.
·
·
This really resonates — especially the idea that overwhelm is a signal. I feel this a lot in my day-to-day work as a freelancer automator. On Upwork, I see so many jobs that are dead-set on “Zapier or Make, quick fix, copy this workflow” — and almost always the real issue isn’t the tool, it’s that no one paused to work backwards from the actual decision or outcome they care about. I’ve learned that what works beautifully for one business can be a liability for another. Same tools, same data — totally different judgment costs, tolerance for risk, and maintenance capacity. That’s where I agree with you: architecture > automation. If the system isn’t clear and boring enough to survive turnover, edge cases, and growth, AI just accelerates confusion. Clarity really is the moat haha
Paul R.
·
·
Nadav I. would love to hear more about what you are building.
Lisa H.
·
·
Rida K. Yes — this is exactly it. What you’re describing on Upwork is the pattern I see everywhere: people asking for a workflow when what they actually need is a decision to be clarified. Tools get blamed because they’re visible, but the real gap is that no one paused to agree on what outcome matters and who owns it. I love how you framed judgment cost and risk tolerance. Same tools, same data — completely different consequences depending on context. That’s the part most “copy this Zap” requests miss. When architecture is right, automation feels boring and obvious. When it’s wrong, AI just moves the confusion faster. Clarity first. Pipes second

Rida K.
·
·
This really resonates — especially the idea that overwhelm is a signal. I feel this a lot in my day-to-day work as a freelancer automator. On Upwork, I see so many jobs that are dead-set on “Zapier or Make, quick fix, copy this workflow” — and almost always the real issue isn’t the tool, it’s that no one paused to work backwards from the actual decision or outcome they care about. I’ve learned that what works beautifully for one business can be a liability for another. Same tools, same data — totally different judgment costs, tolerance for risk, and maintenance capacity. That’s where I agree with you: architecture > automation. If the system isn’t clear and boring enough to survive turnover, edge cases, and growth, AI just accelerates confusion. Clarity really is the moat haha
Paul R.
·
·
Nadav I. would love to hear more about what you are building.
Lisa H.
·
·
Rida K. Yes — this is exactly it. What you’re describing on Upwork is the pattern I see everywhere: people asking for a workflow when what they actually need is a decision to be clarified. Tools get blamed because they’re visible, but the real gap is that no one paused to agree on what outcome matters and who owns it. I love how you framed judgment cost and risk tolerance. Same tools, same data — completely different consequences depending on context. That’s the part most “copy this Zap” requests miss. When architecture is right, automation feels boring and obvious. When it’s wrong, AI just moves the confusion faster. Clarity first. Pipes second

🙌

1