AIYINGFrom AI Awareness to Accomplishment
Showing posts with label PO Prompts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PO Prompts. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2026

AI Innovation Project #003 — Build an AI Perspective Council with ChatGPT, Python and LangGraph

Build an AI Perspective Council with ChatGPT, Python and LangGraph



PO Prompts #003 | Think the Unthinkable

Project Description

What if every employee had 100 AI assistants—but none of them was allowed to do the employee's work?

This deliberate provocation challenges the conventional assumption that the primary purpose of AI assistants is to automate tasks.

Instead, imagine AI assistants acting as independent thinking partners, examining a problem from different perspectives, challenging assumptions, identifying overlooked risks and discovering unexpected opportunities.

The proposed innovation: An AI Perspective Council—a multi-perspective decision-support system that helps people make better-informed decisions without surrendering human judgment.

The project begins with five AI perspectives and can later expand to a larger, dynamically selected council.

1. Project Objective

Design, develop and evaluate an AI-powered decision-support application in which multiple specialized AI perspectives examine the same problem, exchange critiques and produce a consolidated briefing for a human decision-maker.

The system should:

  • Challenge conventional assumptions.

  • Explore alternative interpretations of problems.

  • Identify opportunities and potential consequences.

  • Surface disagreements and missing evidence.

  • Generate unconventional but actionable options.

  • Support transparent, accountable human decisions.

Expected outcome: A working AI Perspective Council prototype that can be tested against conventional single-assistant AI decision support.

2. Lateral Thinking Foundation

Conventional Thinking

One employee encounters a problem, asks an AI assistant for recommendations and receives an answer.

Adding more assistants might simply mean automating more tasks.

PO Provocation — Exaggeration

PO, every employee has 100 AI assistants, but none can perform the employee's tasks.

This is a deliberate thinking provocation, not a literal implementation requirement.

MOVE — Extract a Principle

If assistants cannot execute tasks, what useful roles remain?

They could challenge assumptions, examine consequences, uncover alternatives, question evidence and reveal opportunities.

The underlying principle is that AI assistance can increase the diversity of thinking rather than merely the volume of work completed.

New Direction

Create an AI council in which specialized perspectives examine a problem independently and then challenge one another.

The goal is not to manufacture artificial agreement.

It is to expose important differences in reasoning and help humans discover options they might otherwise overlook.

GENERATE

Use generative AI to develop multiple perspectives, explore emerging alternatives and refine unconventional ideas.

JUDGE

Assess novelty, relevance, feasibility, evidence quality, cost, disagreement and risks.

ACCOMPLISH

Build and evaluate a five-perspective AI Council MVP.

Distinction: The exaggeration and movement techniques are inspired by Edward de Bono's lateral-thinking methods. The AI Perspective Council is a proposed contemporary application, not a technique attributed to de Bono.

3. Recommended Technology Stack

ComponentRecommended ToolPurpose
AI modelsOpenAI GPT modelsGenerate and critique alternative perspectives
No-code prototypeChatGPT Custom GPTTest council-style prompting
Programming languagePythonImplement application logic
AI integrationOpenAI APIInvoke specialized AI perspectives
Workflow orchestrationLangGraphCoordinate independent analysis, critique and synthesis
User interfaceStreamlitBuild an interactive decision-support dashboard
Structured outputsPydanticValidate perspective responses and decision briefs
Data storageSQLiteStore scenarios, analyses and evaluation results
Data analysispandasCompare outcomes across experiments
VisualizationPlotlyDisplay scores, disagreements and evaluation results
TestingpytestTest workflow behavior and output validation
DeploymentStreamlit Community CloudHost a non-sensitive demonstration

Recommended Development Strategy

Stage A — No-code: Simulate five perspectives using a Custom GPT or structured ChatGPT prompt.

Stage B — Low-code: Build a Streamlit interface connected to the OpenAI API.

Stage C — Orchestrated application: Introduce LangGraph for independent analysis, controlled critique, synthesis and review.

A multi-agent framework is optional for the first prototype. Multiple perspectives can initially be implemented using separate model calls with distinct instructions.

4. Proposed System Architecture

Human Decision Problem → Context Validation → Perspective Selection → Independent AI Analysis → Cross-Perspective Critique → Evidence and Risk Review → Decision Brief → Human Judgment

Five Core AI Perspectives

1. The Customer Advocate

Examines customer needs, usability, expectations and possible dissatisfaction.

2. The Critical Challenger

Questions assumptions, identifies weak reasoning and challenges proposed solutions.

3. The Evidence Researcher

Identifies evidence requirements, unsupported claims, uncertainty and information gaps.

4. The Risk Analyst

Examines operational, financial, ethical, regulatory and implementation risks.

5. The Innovation Explorer

Uses deliberate provocations and movement techniques to discover unconventional alternatives.

Council Coordinator

A separate coordinating workflow collects the perspectives, highlights disagreements and prepares a consolidated decision brief.

The coordinator must not silently erase minority views or convert speculation into established evidence.

Human Decision-Maker

The user reviews the council's findings, requests clarification, compares alternatives and makes the final decision.

5. Reusable Prototype Prompt

Create a Custom GPT called AI Perspective Council using the following instructions:

You are an AI Perspective Council designed to improve human decision-making through multiple independent perspectives.

When the user presents a decision problem:

  1. Clarify the decision, objectives, constraints and available evidence.

  2. Simulate five perspectives: Customer Advocate, Critical Challenger, Evidence Researcher, Risk Analyst and Innovation Explorer.

  3. Have each perspective independently examine the problem and identify important considerations.

  4. Require the Innovation Explorer to apply a deliberate lateral-thinking provocation and movement technique.

  5. Identify agreements, disagreements and conflicting assumptions.

  6. Generate at least three distinct decision alternatives, including one non-obvious option.

  7. Evaluate alternatives against user-defined criteria.

  8. Identify missing evidence and suggest practical validation experiments.

  9. Prepare a concise decision brief with recommendations, uncertainties and unresolved disagreements.

  10. Leave the final decision to the human user.

Never fabricate evidence, external research, expert identities or independent verification.

Clearly distinguish facts, assumptions, AI-generated hypotheses and recommendations.

Do not force consensus when meaningful disagreements remain.

Implementation note: A Custom GPT can simulate multiple perspectives, but this does not establish that the analyses are truly independent. The application version should use separate model calls and controlled information sharing to better test perspective diversity.

6. Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

MVP Objective

Build a functional web application where a user enters a workplace decision and receives a structured analysis from five AI perspectives.

Essential Features

Feature 1 — Decision Input

The user enters:

  • Decision question

  • Business context

  • Desired outcome

  • Constraints

  • Evaluation criteria

Feature 2 — Five-Perspective Analysis

The application invokes five separately instructed AI perspectives and displays their findings.

Feature 3 — Assumption Challenger

The system identifies at least three assumptions that may be limiting the decision.

Feature 4 — Lateral Thinking Explorer

The Innovation Explorer applies one explicit provocation method and one movement technique to develop a non-obvious alternative.

Feature 5 — Council Discussion

Perspectives critique selected claims or proposals from other perspectives.

Feature 6 — Decision Comparison

The system compares at least three alternatives using a transparent scoring rubric.

Feature 7 — Decision Brief

The application generates a report containing:

  • Problem definition

  • Important assumptions

  • Five perspective summaries

  • Agreements and disagreements

  • Alternative solutions

  • Evidence gaps

  • Risk considerations

  • Suggested experiments

  • Human decision checklist

Feature 8 — Export

Allow the user to export the briefing as Markdown or PDF.

Example Use Case

Decision: Should a small company replace its customer support team with an AI chatbot?

The five perspectives might respond as follows:

PerspectiveKey Question
Customer AdvocateWhat happens when customers need empathy or escalation?
Critical ChallengerAre we assuming that automation requires replacement?
Evidence ResearcherWhat evidence supports the expected savings and service quality?
Risk AnalystWhat happens when the chatbot gives incorrect or sensitive advice?
Innovation ExplorerWhat if human agents handled only the moments where human judgment matters most?

Possible innovation: Instead of full replacement, design an AI-supported customer service system where routine queries are automated and human staff specialize in complex, emotional or high-consequence interactions.

This is a hypothesis to test, not a predetermined recommendation.

7. Evaluation Experiment

Research Question

Does a multi-perspective AI Council produce better-supported and more innovative decisions than a conventional single AI assistant?

Experimental Design

Prepare 10–20 realistic decision scenarios spanning business, education, technology and workplace operations.

Compare three conditions:

A — Human-only: Participants analyze the problem without AI.

B — Single AI Assistant: Participants receive a conventional AI-generated recommendation.

C — AI Perspective Council: Participants receive the council's structured analysis and disagreements.

Use the same problem information and evaluation criteria across conditions. Where feasible, randomize or counterbalance scenarios and have reviewers assess anonymized decision outputs.

Evaluation Metrics

MetricMeasurement
Decision qualityIndependent reviewer rubric
Perspective diversityNumber of substantively distinct considerations
Assumption discoveryRelevant hidden assumptions identified
Innovation qualityNovelty and usefulness of alternatives
Evidence qualityAccuracy and traceability of claims
Risk coverageRelevant risks identified
Human understandingParticipant comprehension of trade-offs
Decision confidenceSelf-reported confidence and calibration
EfficiencyTime, latency and API cost
UsabilityParticipant feedback

Important Evaluation Safeguards

More perspectives do not automatically mean better decisions.

Multiple AI perspectives can share biases, repeat the same errors or create a misleading appearance of independent agreement.

The experiment should therefore measure meaningful diversity, factual reliability, user workload and costs—not merely the quantity of generated ideas.

A small pilot provides preliminary findings rather than proof of general effectiveness.

8. Suggested Development Roadmap

Phase 1 — Concept Validation

Duration: Approximately 2–3 days

Create a Custom GPT prototype and test five representative decision problems.

Deliverable: Working prompt-based council demonstration.

Phase 2 — MVP Development

Duration: Approximately 1–2 weeks

Build a Python and Streamlit application using the OpenAI API.

Implement independent perspective calls, structured responses, a comparison view and decision brief export.

Deliverable: Functional web prototype.

Phase 3 — Council Orchestration

Duration: Approximately 1 week

Introduce LangGraph if the workflow requires explicit stages, controlled critique and review checkpoints.

Deliverable: Coordinated multi-perspective workflow.

Phase 4 — Quality and Safety Testing

Duration: Approximately 1 week

Test prompt injection resistance, unsupported claims, output consistency, privacy protections, costs and error handling.

Deliverable: Test report and revised prototype.

Phase 5 — Comparative Evaluation

Duration: Approximately 2 weeks

Run decision experiments with representative users and independent reviewers.

Deliverable: Evaluation dataset and comparative analysis.

Phase 6 — Improvement and Expansion

Explore additional perspectives, adaptive perspective selection, verified document retrieval and domain-specific councils.

Deliverable: Enhanced prototype and implementation recommendations.

Durations are illustrative estimates for a small prototype, not guaranteed delivery commitments.

9. Expected Project Deliverables

  1. AI Perspective Council Custom GPT prototype.

  2. Reusable multi-perspective prompting framework.

  3. Python and Streamlit web application.

  4. Five specialized AI perspective modules.

  5. Optional LangGraph orchestration workflow.

  6. Structured decision-analysis templates.

  7. Decision brief export functionality.

  8. Evaluation dataset and scoring rubric.

  9. Comparative pilot report.

  10. Technical documentation and deployment guide.

10. Future Extensions

Once the MVP is evaluated, possible enhancements include:

Dynamic Perspective Selection: Choose the most relevant perspectives for each problem rather than always using the same five.

100-Perspective Library: Maintain a catalog of specialized perspectives, invoking only a useful subset for each decision.

Evidence-Grounded Council: Connect approved documents and verified information sources so perspectives can support claims with traceable evidence.

Human-AI Debate: Allow users to challenge individual perspectives and request counterarguments.

Decision Memory: With appropriate permissions, record decisions, assumptions, outcomes and lessons learned for future review.

Specialized Councils: Develop versions for AI engineering, education, entrepreneurship, product design and organizational governance.

11. What Makes This an AI Creativity Project?

Conventional AI assistance often follows a familiar pattern:

Ask → Generate → Select

The AI Perspective Council explores a different approach:

Disrupt → Move → Discover → Explore with AI → Judge → Accomplish

The project begins by exaggerating the number of AI assistants while removing their ability to execute tasks.

That provocation creates an unexpected question:

What else could AI assistants contribute besides doing work?

Through deliberate movement, we discover the possibility of AI systems designed to expand the diversity of human thinking.

The goal is not to replace human judgment with an artificial committee.

It is to help people recognize assumptions, understand disagreements, discover alternatives and make better-informed decisions.

Lateral thinking is the creative engine. AI is the exploration amplifier. Accomplishment is the destination.


Project status: Proposed innovation concept and technical blueprint. Prototype development and experimental validation remain future work.

PO Prompts — Think the Unthinkable.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI.

AI Innovation Project #002 — Build an AI-Supported Reverse Teaching Assistant | PO Prompts

AI Innovation Project #002 — AI-Supported Reverse Teaching

PO Prompts #002 | Think the Unthinkable

Provocation: PO, students teach their teachers.

What if AI helped students become teachers—and teachers became facilitators, questioners and evaluators?

This project translates Edward de Bono's lateral-thinking principle of reversal into a practical AI-supported educational experiment.

Proposed innovation

An AI-powered Reverse Teaching Assistant that helps students prepare, explain, demonstrate and assess a topic while teachers verify accuracy and guide learning




Technical Blueprint: Building an AI-Supported Reverse Teaching Assistant

AI Innovation Project #002 | PO Prompts — Think the Unthinkable

1. Project Objective

Develop an AI-powered educational assistant that enables students to prepare and deliver short lessons, explain concepts, generate examples, answer questions and assess understanding.

The teacher remains responsible for curriculum alignment, factual accuracy, accessibility and assessment.

Central innovation: Reverse the traditional classroom roles without removing teacher oversight.

Lateral Thinking Foundation

Conventional assumption: Teachers explain; students listen and learn.

PO provocation: Students teach their teachers.

Movement technique — Extract a principle: Explaining a concept can reveal gaps in understanding and deepen learning.

New direction: Make student explanation a regular learning activity, with AI helping students prepare and teachers guiding the process.

The aim is not to replace teachers. It is to redesign learning around active explanation, questioning and feedback.

2. Recommended Technology Stack

ComponentRecommended toolPurpose
AI reasoning and content generationOpenAI GPT modelsPrepare lesson outlines, examples and questions
No-code prototypeChatGPT Custom GPTBuild an initial Reverse Teaching Assistant
Application developmentPythonImplement lesson preparation and feedback workflows
User interfaceStreamlitCreate an interactive student and teacher dashboard
AI integrationOpenAI APIGenerate and evaluate learning materials
Document processingPyMuPDFExtract text from teacher-approved PDF materials
Structured contentPydanticValidate lesson plans, questions and feedback formats
Data storageSQLiteStore lessons, practice attempts and assessment results
Workflow orchestrationLangGraph (optional)Manage multi-stage lesson preparation and review
Analyticspandas, PlotlyAnalyze learning outcomes and participation
DeploymentStreamlit Community CloudHost a non-sensitive prototype

Recommended approach: Start with a Custom GPT using teacher-approved learning materials. Develop a Python/Streamlit application when multiple users, lesson tracking and structured evaluations are required.

For real classroom use, especially with minors, use school-approved systems, appropriate consent and privacy safeguards rather than an unrestricted public prototype.

3. Proposed System Architecture

Teacher-Approved Topic → AI Lesson Coach → Student Preparation → AI Rehearsal → Teacher Review → Student Teaching → Assessment → Feedback

The system contains six functional modules.

Module A — Topic and Learning Objectives

The teacher provides:

  • Topic and grade level

  • Expected learning outcomes

  • Approved source material

  • Lesson duration

  • Assessment criteria

Module B — AI Lesson Planner

AI helps the student develop:

  • A simple explanation

  • Three important concepts

  • Two practical examples

  • One illustration or activity

  • Three questions for the audience

Module C — AI Teaching Rehearsal

The student practices teaching the topic to an AI assistant.

AI plays the role of a curious learner by:

  • Asking clarification questions

  • Identifying unclear explanations

  • Suggesting alternative examples

  • Highlighting unsupported claims

  • Encouraging simpler explanations

Module D — Teacher Verification

Before classroom delivery, the teacher reviews the generated material for accuracy, appropriateness and curriculum alignment.

Module E — Reverse Teaching Session

The student delivers a short lesson while the teacher observes, asks questions and corrects misconceptions when necessary.

Module F — Assessment and Feedback

The system supports quizzes, reflection, teacher feedback and comparison of learning outcomes.

AI-generated scores are advisory. Teachers make the final assessment decisions.

4. Reusable Prototype Prompt

Create a Custom GPT called Reverse Teaching Assistant and use the following instructions:

You are an AI Reverse Teaching Coach.

Your purpose is to help students learn by preparing to teach others.

Begin by asking for the student's grade, topic, learning objectives, available preparation time and approved learning materials.

Then:

  1. Identify the three most important concepts.

  2. Help the student construct a clear explanation in their own words.

  3. Suggest two relatable examples.

  4. Design a short teaching activity.

  5. Generate three questions to check understanding.

  6. Act as a curious learner and ask challenging but age-appropriate questions.

  7. Identify potential misconceptions and unsupported statements.

  8. Help the student revise the explanation.

  9. Produce a teacher-review checklist.

Encourage independent thinking. Do not simply write a speech for memorization.

Use supplied teacher-approved materials as the primary reference. When information is missing or uncertain, explicitly identify the gap rather than inventing facts.

Never claim that a lesson is approved until a teacher has reviewed it.

5. Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

Develop a simple web application with two interfaces.

Student Interface

  • Select topic and grade level.

  • Upload approved lesson material.

  • Generate a five-minute lesson outline.

  • Practice teaching through an AI conversation.

  • Receive suggestions for improving explanations.

  • Generate a short quiz.

  • Export the lesson plan for teacher review.

Teacher Interface

  • Review student-prepared lessons.

  • Check content accuracy and learning objectives.

  • Approve or request revisions.

  • Record teaching observations.

  • Compare pre-lesson and post-lesson assessment results.

Example: Grade 7 Science

Topic: Photosynthesis

Student task: Explain photosynthesis to the teacher in five minutes.

AI helps the student prepare an explanation, a diagram of the process, a relatable example and three questions.

During rehearsal, AI asks:

  • Why do plants need sunlight?

  • Where does the carbon dioxide come from?

  • Does photosynthesis occur at night?

The student refines the explanation and submits it for teacher review.

The classroom then conducts the reverse-teaching activity.

6. Evaluation Experiment

Research question: Does AI-supported reverse teaching improve conceptual understanding compared with conventional instruction?

Suggested Pilot

  • Participants: 20–30 students, subject to school approval.

  • Duration: Two to four weeks.

  • Topics: Four comparable curriculum topics.

  • Lesson format: Ten-minute student-led sessions.

Comparison

Group A — Conventional Learning: Teacher explanation followed by ordinary exercises.

Group B — AI-Supported Reverse Teaching: Students prepare and deliver lessons with AI assistance and teacher verification.

Where feasible, use random assignment or a crossover design to reduce differences between groups.

Evaluation Metrics

MetricMeasurement
Conceptual understandingPre-test and post-test scores
Knowledge retentionDelayed quiz after 1–2 weeks
Explanation qualityTeacher-rated rubric
Student participationNumber and distribution of contributions
MisconceptionsErrors identified before and after teaching
Student confidenceShort self-assessment survey
Teacher workloadPreparation and review time
Student experienceStructured feedback

Evaluate both learning benefits and costs, including additional teacher workload, inaccurate AI suggestions and unequal access to technology.

A small pilot can establish feasibility and generate preliminary evidence, but cannot by itself prove broad educational effectiveness.

7. Suggested Development Roadmap

Phase 1 — No-Code Prototype

Build the Reverse Teaching Assistant as a Custom GPT. Test it with three to five topics and teacher-approved materials.

Phase 2 — Working Web Application

Develop a Streamlit application using Python, the OpenAI API and SQLite. Implement lesson generation, rehearsal and teacher review.

Phase 3 — Quality and Safety Testing

Test factual accuracy, age appropriateness, accessibility, privacy protections and the reliability of generated questions.

Phase 4 — Classroom Pilot

Conduct supervised reverse-teaching sessions with consenting participants and record outcomes.

Phase 5 — Evaluation and Improvement

Analyze assessment results, student feedback and teacher observations. Improve prompts, workflows and instructional materials.

Phase 6 — Extended Implementation

If the pilot supports further development, consider multilingual explanations, subject-specific templates, LMS integration and accessible learning formats.

8. Expected Project Deliverables

  1. Working AI Reverse Teaching Assistant.

  2. Reusable lesson-planning and rehearsal prompts.

  3. Student-facing web prototype.

  4. Teacher review and approval interface.

  5. Sample AI-supported teaching materials.

  6. Assessment rubrics and evaluation dataset.

  7. Classroom pilot report.

  8. Implementation guide for teachers and institutions.

9. What Makes This an AI Creativity Project?

Ordinary educational AI often focuses on explaining lessons, generating notes or answering student questions.

This project begins with a deliberate lateral-thinking reversal:

What if students taught their teachers?

The movement reveals a different educational design: students learn through explanation, teachers guide the learning process, and AI supports preparation, rehearsal and feedback.

The innovation is not the AI-generated lesson plan. It is the redesigned learning relationship.

Lateral Thinking → AI Exploration → Prototype → Evaluation → Accomplishment


PO Prompts — Think the Unthinkable.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI.

Thursday, October 29, 2026

AI Innovation Project #001 — Building an AI Question Discovery Assistant | PO Prompts

🚀 AI Innovation Project #001 | Question Discovery Assistant




What if AI stopped giving answers?

This provocation from PO Prompts #001 opens an interesting possibility:

An AI assistant that helps us discover better questions before rushing to answers.

The proposed project:
Build an AI-powered Question Discovery Assistant that:

  • Challenges hidden assumptions

  • Identifies missing evidence

  • Reveals overlooked perspectives

  • Suggests questions and experiments

  • Helps improve decision-making

The experiment: Compare decisions made using conventional AI answers with those supported by the Question Discovery Assistant.

Inspired by Edward de Bono's Serious Creativity, the project demonstrates how lateral thinking can take us beyond mere AI-generated ideas.

Lateral thinking discovers new directions. AI helps turn them into accomplishments.

🎬 Watch the 15-second concept video:
https://youtube.com/shorts/41NMZBbng-E

💬 Would you use an AI assistant that asks better questions instead of immediately giving answers?

PO Prompts — Think the Unthinkable.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

#POPrompts #LateralThinking #AIInnovation #GenerativeAI #AIYING

Technical Blueprint: Building the AI Question Discovery Assistant

Project objective: Develop an AI assistant that improves human reasoning by asking insightful questions, challenging assumptions and identifying missing evidence before recommending solutions.

1. Recommended Technology Stack

ComponentRecommended toolPurpose
AI modelOpenAI GPT modelsGenerate insightful questions, examine assumptions and analyze responses
PrototypingChatGPT Custom GPTBuild an initial no-code prototype
ProgrammingPythonImplement the application's logic
User interfaceStreamlitCreate an interactive web application
AI integrationOpenAI APIConnect the application to an AI model
Workflow managementLangGraph (optional)Coordinate multi-step questioning and evaluation
Data storageSQLiteStore questions, responses and experiment results
EvaluationPython, pandasAnalyze question quality and decision outcomes
DeploymentStreamlit Community CloudPublish a prototype for testing

Recommended starting point: Build a Custom GPT first. Move to Python, Streamlit and the OpenAI API when greater control, structured logging or systematic evaluation becomes necessary.

2. Proposed System Architecture

User Problem → Assumption Discovery → Question Generation → Evidence Identification → Reflection → Decision Support

The assistant operates through five stages:

  1. Understand: Identify the user's problem, objective and decision context.

  2. Challenge: Surface hidden assumptions and alternative interpretations.

  3. Question: Generate five relevant, non-obvious questions.

  4. Investigate: Identify missing evidence and suggest practical ways to obtain it.

  5. Support: Help the user develop and evaluate possible decisions without pretending uncertain information is established fact.

3. Prototype Prompt

Create a Custom GPT using the following instruction:

You are a Question Discovery Assistant inspired by lateral-thinking principles.

Your primary responsibility is not to provide immediate answers but to improve the user's understanding of the problem.

For each problem:

  1. Identify the underlying objective.

  2. Surface three potentially limiting assumptions.

  3. Ask five insightful questions, including at least one that challenges the conventional framing.

  4. Identify important missing evidence.

  5. Suggest two practical investigations or experiments.

  6. Provide recommendations only when requested, clearly separating evidence from assumptions.

Be constructive, concise and curious. Never invent supporting evidence.

4. Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

Build a Streamlit application with:

  • A text box for entering a problem or decision.

  • A button to discover assumptions and questions.

  • A panel displaying five AI-generated questions.

  • An option to answer the questions and refine the analysis.

  • An evidence checklist.

  • An exportable decision summary.

Example input: "Should our college introduce AI-based examinations?"

Instead of immediately recommending yes or no, the assistant might ask:

  • What educational outcome are examinations supposed to measure?

  • Which assessment practices are we assuming must remain unchanged?

  • What evidence would show that AI improves or weakens learning?

  • Could assessment become continuous rather than examination-based?

  • What small pilot could test an alternative fairly?

5. Evaluation Experiment

Compare two approaches using the same set of decision problems.

Group A: Conventional AI assistant providing direct recommendations.

Group B: Question Discovery Assistant encouraging structured exploration before recommendations.

Evaluate:

  • Relevance and originality of questions.

  • Identification of hidden assumptions.

  • Quality of supporting evidence.

  • Consideration of alternative solutions.

  • Quality of the final decision rationale.

  • Time and effort required.

Use independent reviewers and a predefined scoring rubric. Avoid assuming that asking more questions automatically produces better decisions.

6. Suggested Development Roadmap

Phase 1 — No-code prototype: Build and manually test a Custom GPT.

Phase 2 — Application prototype: Implement the workflow using Python, Streamlit and the OpenAI API.

Phase 3 — Evaluation: Test 10–20 representative decision scenarios, compare against a direct-answer baseline and review failure cases.

Phase 4 — Improvement: Refine questioning strategies, add evidence checks and strengthen privacy and safety controls.

Phase 5 — Pilot: Invite a small group of students, teachers or professionals to evaluate the application.

Expected Deliverables

  1. Working Question Discovery Assistant.

  2. Reusable prompting framework.

  3. Interactive web prototype.

  4. Evaluation rubric and test dataset.

  5. Pilot report documenting strengths, limitations and improvement opportunities.

Beyond Mere Generation

The distinctive feature of this project is not simply generating more questions.

It is deliberately challenging existing thinking patterns, using lateral-thinking techniques to discover new directions, and employing AI to investigate those directions.

Lateral thinking is the creative engine. AI is the exploration amplifier. Accomplishment is the destination.

PO Prompts — Think the Unthinkable.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

What If AI Stopped Answering Us? 🤯 Something Amazing Happens! #Shorts


PO Prompts #006 — What If AI Agents Became the Managers?

 What If AI Agents Became the Managers?



One Strange Question. A New Possibility.

PO–AI Thinking Lab | AI Agents • Leadership • Future of Work • Human–AI Collaboration

What if AI agents became the managers—and humans decided what work was worth doing?

It sounds like an upside-down organization.

But that is precisely why it is worth exploring.

As AI agents become capable of planning tasks, using digital tools, coordinating workflows and monitoring progress, organizations are beginning to reconsider how work is organized.

Much of the conversation asks whether AI will replace employees or managers.

PO thinking invites us to ask a different question:

What if AI did much of the coordination traditionally associated with management, allowing humans to concentrate on judgment, relationships, creativity and responsibility?

This is not a prediction that AI agents should become people's bosses. It is a deliberate lateral-thinking provocation designed to reveal possibilities hidden inside familiar organizational structures.

Welcome to PO Prompts #006, where we turn a contemporary development into a practical experiment in thinking differently.


1. The Contemporary Trigger: AI Agents and the Changing Workplace

The workplace is moving beyond AI systems that simply answer questions.

Increasingly, organizations are exploring AI agents that can pursue defined goals, plan sequences of tasks, interact with authorized software tools and assist with multi-step workflows.

Microsoft's 2025 Work Trend Index introduced the concept of the agent boss: a human who builds, delegates to and manages AI agents.

Its 2026 Work Trend Index reported significant growth in agent activity across its Microsoft 365 ecosystem, while emphasizing the continuing importance of human judgment and organizational readiness.

These developments raise questions about the future of management.

If an AI agent can prepare a project schedule, identify delays, consolidate reports and recommend priorities, how much managerial time must still be devoted to routine coordination?

And if those activities change, what becomes more important in the human manager's role?

Rather than predict the answer, let us provoke a different way of thinking.

PO: AI agents become the managers. Humans decide what work deserves to be done.

PO is a deliberate provocation, not a statement of fact or a recommended transfer of managerial authority.


2. The Story: Priya and Her New Manager

Priya is a project manager at a technology company in Bengaluru.

She manages a team of twelve professionals working on software development, customer support and product improvements.

Her Mondays follow a familiar pattern.

She checks project updates, reviews unfinished tasks, distributes new assignments, prepares schedules, follows up with colleagues and attends coordination meetings.

By lunchtime, she has already spent several hours managing the work.

But she has had almost no time to think about improving the product, developing her team or understanding emerging customer needs.

One day, the company introduces an AI coordination agent.

The agent can summarize project information, prepare draft task lists, identify potential bottlenecks and suggest schedules.

Initially, Priya uses it as an assistant.

During a team discussion, one colleague asks:

“Why don't we let the agent coordinate the entire project?”

Another jokes:

“Then Priya will have an AI manager!”

Everyone laughs.

But Priya becomes curious.

What if I stopped being the person who coordinates everything?

She begins imagining a different working day.

Instead of spending the morning asking people for status updates, she could help a junior engineer solve a difficult problem.

Instead of preparing routine reports, she could speak to customers about unmet needs.

Instead of chasing deadlines, she could identify why the team repeatedly struggles with particular tasks.

Instead of merely distributing work, she could help people grow.

The AI agent would not decide what matters or exercise authority over employees.

It would help organize information and recommend coordination actions, while Priya and her team retained control.

The thought experiment leads to an unexpected realization:

Perhaps the future of management is not simply managing more work. Perhaps it is creating more value from human capabilities.

Priya and her workplace are fictional. The scenario illustrates a possible direction for human–AI collaboration.


3. The Hidden Assumption

Traditional management often combines several responsibilities:

  • Deciding what the organization should accomplish.

  • Assigning and coordinating tasks.

  • Monitoring progress.

  • Communicating priorities.

  • Developing employees.

  • Resolving disagreements.

  • Making difficult decisions.

  • Accepting responsibility for outcomes.

Because these responsibilities are commonly performed together, we may unconsciously assume they must remain together.

Hidden assumption: Effective leadership requires the manager to personally coordinate and monitor the work.

But is coordination the same as leadership?

Is preparing a schedule the same as making a wise decision?

Is collecting status reports the same as helping people succeed?

These distinctions create an opening for lateral thinking.


4. The PO–AI Thinking Lab

Our six-stage AIYING extension combines Edward de Bono's PO provocation and movement methods with AI-assisted exploration, critical judgment and practical experimentation.

The stages are:

FOCUS → PROVOKE → MOVE → GENERATE → JUDGE → ACCOMPLISH

Stage 1 — FOCUS: What Problem Are We Really Solving?

The problem is not necessarily that organizations need fewer managers.

A more useful formulation might be:

How can organizations reduce the burden of routine coordination while improving leadership, teamwork and outcomes?

We can begin by identifying activities that consume managerial time.

Some involve information processing and routine administration.

Others require empathy, contextual judgment, trust, ethical reasoning and accountability.

The opportunity is to examine these responsibilities separately rather than assume they must always be performed by one person.

Stage 2 — PROVOKE: Reverse the Relationship

Edward de Bono's lateral-thinking approach uses deliberate provocations to disrupt established patterns.

For this episode, we use reversal.

The conventional arrangement is:

Human manager → Assigns work → Team performs work → AI assists

Now reverse part of the relationship:

PO: AI agent coordinates work → Humans decide priorities, approve actions and lead people

The provocation sounds uncomfortable.

Can software really be a manager?

Should an algorithm assign work to people?

Would employees lose autonomy?

Those concerns are important, but during the provocation stage, we temporarily suspend immediate rejection.

We use the unusual arrangement to search for useful ideas.

The aim is not to implement the provocation literally.

The aim is to move beyond the assumptions it challenges.

Stage 3 — MOVE: Extract New Directions

In de Bono's approach, movement means using a provocation to move toward potentially useful ideas rather than merely judging whether the provocative statement is correct.

Consider several movement techniques.

Extract a principle

The provocation suggests that routine coordination and human leadership can be separated.

An agent may support scheduling and information flow without exercising authority over people.

Explore positive aspects

Managers could gain time for coaching, innovation, customer understanding and complex decisions.

Employees could receive clearer task information and fewer repetitive status requests.

Examine consequences

If AI-generated schedules become common, teams may need better mechanisms for challenging priorities, reporting unrealistic workloads and identifying unfair recommendations.

Identify differences

A human manager understands personal circumstances, relationships, organizational culture and informal context in ways an AI system may not reliably capture.

This difference suggests complementary roles rather than interchangeable ones.

Look for special circumstances

An AI coordination assistant may be especially useful for distributed teams, recurring operational workflows or projects involving many dependencies.

However, sensitive personnel matters, performance evaluations, disciplinary decisions and consequential employment actions require stronger safeguards and human authority.

Movement turns an apparently absurd idea into several directions worth exploring.


5. GENERATE: Seven New Possibilities

Here are seven possibilities arising from the provocation. They are concepts to investigate, not claims that every organization can already implement them successfully.

Possibility 1 — The AI Coordination Partner

An agent prepares task plans, consolidates updates and flags possible delays.

Humans approve priorities and assignments.

Potential value: Less time spent collecting information and preparing routine coordination documents.

Possibility 2 — The Human Development Manager

Managers deliberately allocate more time to mentoring, coaching, skill development and resolving complex problems.

AI handles selected administrative preparation tasks.

Potential value: More attention to employee growth and team capability.

Possibility 3 — The Employee-Challenged AI Plan

AI proposes a weekly work plan.

Every employee can question an assignment, explain missing context or propose an alternative.

The human manager makes the final decision.

Potential value: Greater transparency and employee participation in planning.

Possibility 4 — The Outcome-Oriented Team

Instead of constantly reporting activities, teams define meaningful outcomes and review progress against them.

AI helps summarize evidence of progress without replacing human interpretation.

Potential value: Less emphasis on visible busyness and more emphasis on useful results.

Possibility 5 — The AI Bottleneck Investigator

An agent examines authorized workflow data to identify repeated handoffs, unnecessary approvals and recurring delays.

Managers investigate the causes and decide which changes to test.

Potential value: Better process improvement without assuming every delay is an employee performance problem.

Possibility 6 — The Human–Agent Team Designer

A new professional responsibility emerges: designing how people and AI agents collaborate.

This includes defining task boundaries, permissions, escalation procedures, quality checks and accountability.

Potential value: More reliable and understandable human–AI workflows.

Possibility 7 — The Manager as Opportunity Creator

As routine coordination becomes easier, managers devote more attention to identifying new customer needs, experimenting with services and discovering opportunities.

Potential value: Management shifts some of its effort from maintaining existing processes to improving what the organization can accomplish.

The most interesting result is that none of these possibilities requires an AI system to become a human employee's unquestionable boss.

The provocation has served its purpose by revealing alternative organizational designs.


6. JUDGE: Which Possibilities Deserve to Be Tested?

Creative possibilities need critical evaluation.

AI-generated coordination plans can be wrong, incomplete or unfair. Agents may misunderstand context, operate on outdated information, mishandle sensitive data or create excessive monitoring.

Before experimenting, organizations should examine five questions:

Usefulness: Does the proposed workflow solve a genuine coordination problem?

Feasibility: Can the available AI system perform the task reliably with the permissions and information provided?

Human agency: Can employees understand, challenge and correct its recommendations?

Security and fairness: Are confidential information, access controls, privacy and workload equity protected?

Accountability: Who approves actions, handles mistakes and remains responsible for decisions?

A crucial distinction must remain clear:

AI may recommend and coordinate within defined boundaries. Human leaders remain responsible for consequential decisions and the treatment of people.

The most promising direction is not unlimited automation.

It is well-designed collaboration.


7. ACCOMPLISH: A Seven-Day Experiment

You do not need to reorganize your company to explore this idea.

Try a small, controlled experiment.

Day 1 — Observe

Record how much time your team spends preparing schedules, collecting updates and coordinating tasks.

Day 2 — Select

Choose one low-risk activity, such as preparing a draft weekly task plan.

Day 3 — Generate

Provide ChatGPT or another approved AI tool with a fictional or appropriately sanitized project description. Ask it to propose a task plan.

Day 4 — Review

Have team members identify missing context, unrealistic assumptions, dependencies and possible unfairness.

Day 5 — Improve

Revise the proposed plan with human input. Keep all real assignments subject to human approval.

Day 6 — Compare

Compare the AI-assisted process with the previous approach. Examine time saved, plan clarity, errors, employee experience and additional review effort.

Day 7 — Decide

Determine whether the approach should be refined, repeated or abandoned.

A successful experiment is not necessarily one that automates the most work.

It is one that produces a measurable improvement without sacrificing trust, quality or human control.


8. Your Complete ChatGPT PO Prompt

Copy the following prompt and adapt it to your team, profession or organization.

Act as my PO lateral-thinking partner, using Edward de Bono's provocation and movement methods.

I want to rethink management, teamwork and the role of AI agents in my organization.

Use this deliberate provocation:

“PO: AI agents become the managers. Humans decide what work deserves to be done.”

Guide me through the following six stages:

1. FOCUS: Help me identify what managers currently do. Separate coordination, administration, leadership, judgment, employee development and accountability. Reveal hidden assumptions.

2. PROVOKE: Explore the reversal without immediately dismissing it as unrealistic. Treat it as a thinking exercise, not a recommendation to transfer authority over people to AI.

3. MOVE: Apply principle extraction, positive aspects, consequences, differences and special circumstances to discover useful directions.

4. GENERATE: Develop at least seven genuinely different ways AI agents could transform coordination, teamwork and leadership. For each, identify the problem addressed, potential benefits and required human involvement.

5. JUDGE: Evaluate each possibility for usefulness, feasibility, reliability, security, privacy, fairness, employee autonomy and accountability. Distinguish verified capabilities from speculation.

6. ACCOMPLISH: Help me design a safe, low-cost, seven-day experiment. Include the hypothesis, required inputs, human review points, success criteria and risks.

Do not assume that AI agents have permissions or capabilities they have not been given. Do not recommend autonomous personnel decisions or unnecessary employee surveillance.

Ask questions at each stage rather than immediately giving all the answers.

Begin by asking about my team, responsibilities, workflows, available AI tools and biggest coordination challenges.


9. Beyond Managers: Who Else Could Use This PO Prompt?

Although this episode begins with project management, the underlying provocation can be explored in many settings.

Teachers might ask whether AI could coordinate routine classroom administration while teachers concentrate on learning and mentoring.

Healthcare administrators might examine AI-assisted scheduling while preserving clinical judgment and patient safety.

Entrepreneurs could explore agent-assisted operations while founders focus on customers and strategic choices.

Students might use the provocation to imagine new professional roles involving human–AI coordination.

AI engineers could explore how to design agents that are observable, interruptible, secure and accountable.

Organizational leaders could investigate which activities genuinely require managerial judgment and which could be redesigned.

The purpose is not to arrive at one universal answer.

It is to uncover new possibilities appropriate to each situation.


10. The Bigger Question: What Is Management Really For?

For decades, management has often been associated with planning, organizing, directing and controlling.

AI agents invite us to examine how some of those activities might change.

If preparing schedules becomes easier, managers may have more time to understand people.

If routine reporting becomes faster, teams may have more time to discuss problems that matter.

If coordination becomes more automated, leadership may become more visibly about judgment, trust, responsibility and human development.

But these improvements will not happen automatically.

Poorly designed AI coordination could create more bureaucracy, more surveillance and less autonomy.

That is why PO thinking must be followed by careful judgment and practical experimentation.

The question is not simply whether AI can manage tasks.

The more consequential question is what humans should accomplish when managing tasks becomes easier.


11. Your PO Challenge

Imagine arriving at work tomorrow and discovering that an AI agent has prepared your schedule, organized your routine tasks and identified your project's most urgent dependencies.

You are still responsible for the decisions.

You can challenge every recommendation.

You remain accountable for how people are treated.

What would you do with the time and attention you gain?

Would you develop your team?

Solve a neglected customer problem?

Create a new service?

Improve how people collaborate?

Or discover an entirely different way of working?

Share your answer in the comments.

One unusual question may reveal a possibility that conventional thinking has overlooked.


About PO Prompts

PO Prompts — One Strange Question. A New Possibility.

PO Prompts is an AIYING series that uses deliberate lateral-thinking provocations to challenge assumptions, explore unconventional directions and turn promising ideas into practical experiments.

The series draws on Edward de Bono's PO and movement methods. The six-stage FOCUS → PROVOKE → MOVE → GENERATE → JUDGE → ACCOMPLISH process is an AIYING framework for extending those methods through AI-assisted exploration and action.

PO provokes. AI generates. Humans judge and accomplish.

One Image. One Story. One Provocation. Many Possibilities.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI.


References and Further Reading

  • Microsoft, 2025 Work Trend Index Annual Report — introduction of the “agent boss” concept.

  • Microsoft, 2026 Work Trend Index Annual Report — developments in agent adoption and human–AI work.

  • Edward de Bono, PO: Beyond Yes and No (1972).

  • Edward de Bono, Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas (1992).

Editorial note: The workplace story, proposed organizational models and seven-day experiment are illustrative. They are not presented as verified outcomes or established best practices.

PO Prompts #005 — What If Yesterday's Success Stories Were Forbidden? | AI Careers and New Possibilities

What If Yesterday's Success Stories Were Forbidden?



One Strange Question. A New Possibility.

An Indian MBA campus story, Sam Altman's challenge to conventional ambition, and a practical PO–AI Thinking Lab for discovering opportunities that don't yet have a name.


The Question That Started It All

Every generation grows up admiring the success stories of the generation before it.

Students study successful companies.

Business schools teach established management practices.

Young professionals seek prestigious careers.

Entrepreneurs examine proven business models.

There is considerable value in learning from experience.

But what happens when the world changes faster than our definitions of success?

What if the career everyone wants today was designed for yesterday's economy?

What if the next extraordinary business opportunity does not resemble any company we currently admire?

And what if AI could help us discover possibilities beyond established career and business models?

These questions become particularly interesting in light of a recent observation by Sam Altman.

The News That Inspired This Episode

In an October 29, 2026, Times of India report, Sam Altman was quoted criticizing the tendency of MBA students to pursue opportunities that had been fashionable years earlier.

Speaking in an interview with Stanford Graduate School of Business, according to the report, Altman encouraged ambitious people to explore new opportunities emerging from technological change.

His central concern was not that established careers have no value. It was that aspiring leaders may overlook emerging opportunities when they focus too heavily on familiar success stories.

The report also described Altman's view that AI could enable new companies and significantly change how work is performed.

Source: The Times of India — Sam Altman on MBA students and new opportunities

This reported observation offers a powerful starting point for lateral thinking.

But rather than merely agreeing or disagreeing with Altman, let's introduce a deliberate provocation.

What if yesterday's success stories were forbidden?


1. The Story: Aditi and the Placement Race

It was placement season at a prestigious Indian business school.

The campus was buzzing with excitement.

Students were preparing for interviews with consulting firms, investment banks, multinational corporations and established technology companies.

There were workshops on résumé building, mock interviews, aptitude tests and case-study preparation.

Everyone seemed to know what success looked like.

A prestigious employer.

An attractive salary.

An impressive job title.

A career path that others would recognize and admire.

Aditi, a final-year MBA student, was among the most promising candidates in her batch.

She had excellent academic results, strong communication skills and several internship experiences.

Yet she felt strangely uncertain.

The familiar question

One evening, Aditi opened ChatGPT.

She typed:

"What are the best career opportunities for an MBA graduate in the AI era?"

The response was impressive.

It presented career options, skill requirements, industry trends and recommended learning paths.

Consulting.

Product management.

Corporate strategy.

Business analytics.

Technology leadership.

Entrepreneurship.

The answer was sensible.

But Aditi noticed something.

Most of the recommendations resembled paths that previous generations of successful graduates had already followed.

She wondered:

If AI is changing the world so dramatically, why am I still planning my future by looking backward?

The professor's unusual assignment

The next morning, during an innovation class, Professor Rao introduced a challenge.

“Imagine,” he said, “that every successful career path and business model from the past five years has become unavailable.”

The students laughed.

“That would eliminate most of our placement choices,” someone replied.

“Exactly,” said the professor.

He wrote a statement on the board:

PO: You are forbidden to copy yesterday's successful careers or business models.

Aditi raised her hand.

“Then how do we know what to pursue?”

Professor Rao replied:

“Perhaps that is the question you should be asking.”

The classroom fell silent.

For the first time, the students were not being asked to choose among established opportunities.

They were being challenged to imagine opportunities that might not yet exist.

The discovery

Aditi returned to ChatGPT.

But this time, she did not ask for the best jobs.

She asked:

"What important problems are emerging because AI is changing how people live and work? Which of these problems might require entirely new professional roles, services or organizations?"

The conversation changed.

Instead of merely ranking careers, AI began helping her explore emerging needs.

Who would help small businesses evaluate AI-generated decisions?

Who would design trustworthy human–AI workflows?

Who would help local organizations adapt AI tools to their languages, customers and working practices?

Who would investigate failures when autonomous systems made mistakes?

Who would help professionals preserve accountability while delegating routine work to AI?

Aditi had not discovered a guaranteed career.

She had discovered something potentially more valuable.

A new way of searching for opportunities.

And it began with a strange question.

The characters, institution and classroom events in this story are fictional. They illustrate the PO thinking method and are not presented as a real incident.


2. The Hidden Assumption: Success Means Following a Successful Path

Many students and professionals make career decisions by studying people who have already succeeded.

This is understandable.

Successful examples provide evidence, inspiration and practical guidance.

But they can also influence what we consider possible.

Consider some familiar assumptions.

Assumption 1: Prestigious careers are necessarily the best careers.

A recognized job title may provide status, income and opportunity. But it does not automatically guarantee suitability, satisfaction or long-term resilience.

Assumption 2: Established industries offer the most attractive opportunities.

Mature industries may provide excellent careers. Yet emerging needs can also create opportunities that are not reflected in conventional placement lists.

Assumption 3: The most popular career choice is probably the safest.

Popularity does not establish future security. Economic conditions, technological capabilities and employer needs can change.

Assumption 4: A new opportunity must resemble an existing job.

Sometimes new technologies create combinations of responsibilities that do not fit established professional categories.

Assumption 5: AI should tell us which career to choose.

AI can organize information and compare options. But its more interesting contribution may be helping us discover possibilities we have not considered.

The challenge is not to reject existing career paths.

It is to avoid treating them as the complete universe of opportunity.

A better question

Instead of asking:

“Which successful career should I follow?”

Ask:

“What important problems are emerging, and what new capabilities might be needed to solve them?”

That shift prepares us for PO.


3. Understanding PO: The Escape Technique

Edward de Bono developed lateral-thinking techniques to help people move beyond established patterns.

One such technique is escape.

In escape provocation, we identify something normally taken for granted and temporarily remove it.

The purpose is not to argue that the assumption should disappear in reality.

The purpose is to discover what becomes visible when we imagine its absence.

For this episode, the assumption is:

Established success stories provide the natural starting point for future career and business decisions.

Now remove that assumption.

The PO provocation

PO: Yesterday's successful career paths and business models cannot be copied.

Imagine that for one week:

You cannot choose a career simply because it is prestigious.

You cannot pursue a business idea merely because another startup has succeeded with it.

You cannot use an established job title as your starting point.

You must begin with emerging problems, changing needs and unexplored possibilities.

What would you investigate?

Who would you talk to?

What would you ask AI?

Which skills would suddenly become relevant?

This is where deliberate movement begins.

The provocation is not a literal career restriction.

It is a temporary thinking experiment.


4. The PO–AI Thinking Lab

Our refined PO–AI Thinking Lab follows six stages:

FOCUS → PROVOKE → MOVE → GENERATE → JUDGE → ACCOMPLISH

The first stages draw on Edward de Bono's methods of provocation and movement. The integration with generative AI, critical evaluation and practical experimentation is the AIYING extension.

Let's apply the framework to Aditi's challenge.

Stage 1 — FOCUS: What Are We Really Trying to Achieve?

Aditi's initial question was:

"Which MBA career should I choose?"

But that question already assumes that the correct opportunity can be found among recognizable career categories.

A more fundamental question is:

“How can I build a meaningful, economically viable and adaptable professional future in a rapidly changing world?”

This is a broader and potentially more useful focus.

Questions for reflection

What does career success mean to me?

Is it primarily income, security, independence, learning, social contribution or some combination?

Which abilities do I genuinely enjoy developing?

What kinds of problems motivate me?

What constraints must I respect?

What opportunities might I overlook because they do not have familiar names?

Aditi's initial assumptions

She identifies four assumptions:

  1. Her MBA qualification should lead to a conventional management role.

  2. A prestigious employer is the best evidence of a good career decision.

  3. New opportunities are too uncertain to investigate seriously.

  4. AI is primarily useful for comparing existing career choices.

She does not need to reject these assumptions permanently.

She needs to examine them.

FOCUS outcome: Redefine the objective from selecting a prestigious job to discovering a sustainable professional direction.


Stage 2 — PROVOKE: Remove the Familiar Paths

Now Aditi introduces the escape provocation:

PO: I am forbidden to copy any successful career path or business model from the previous five years.

Imagine that conventional consulting, banking, product-management and startup models are unavailable as templates.

This does not mean that the underlying skills become useless.

Analytical thinking, financial literacy, communication, operations and leadership remain valuable.

But Aditi cannot simply imitate the familiar professional destination.

She must search for something different.

The immediate discomfort

How will she explain her choice to recruiters?

How will she estimate income?

How will she know whether an opportunity is real?

What skills should she acquire?

These concerns are legitimate.

But during the provocation stage, she temporarily postpones judgment.

The goal is to expand the space of possibilities before evaluating them.

PROVOKE outcome: Remove dependence on familiar success models as the starting point.


Stage 3 — MOVE: Discover What the Provocation Reveals

Provocation alone is not enough.

We must move from the unusual statement toward useful concepts.

Let's apply several movement approaches.

Movement A — Extract the principle

What principle might emerge from the prohibition on copying old success models?

Build your future around emerging problems, not merely established job titles.

This principle can guide practical exploration without requiring us to abandon conventional careers.

Movement B — Examine the positive aspects

What might be useful about temporarily ignoring familiar career templates?

Aditi may notice opportunities that placement rankings overlook.

She may explore combinations of business and technical capabilities.

She may discover organizations that need new kinds of services.

She may identify problems that established companies have not prioritized.

She may become more willing to test ideas before committing to a career direction.

Movement C — Explore consequences

If graduates stopped relying exclusively on familiar career categories, what might happen?

Some would begin studying emerging customer and organizational problems.

Others would explore new combinations of existing skills.

Some might discover opportunities within established companies rather than outside them.

Universities might introduce more problem-discovery projects alongside conventional placement preparation.

Employers might recruit for capabilities and outcomes rather than only established titles.

These are possibilities, not predictions.

Movement D — Identify differences

Compare two ways of exploring a career.

Career-first approach:

Choose a profession → Study its requirements → Acquire qualifications → Apply for roles.

Problem-first approach:

Identify an important problem → Understand who experiences it → Investigate possible solutions → Determine which capabilities are needed → Test a professional opportunity.

The two approaches can complement each other.

But the second may reveal directions that the first overlooks.

Movement E — Find useful circumstances

Where could this approach be especially valuable?

During technological transitions.

When industries face unfamiliar regulatory or operational challenges.

When organizations adopt new AI capabilities.

When local communities have unmet needs.

When professional roles combine disciplines that have traditionally been separate.

The movement insight

Aditi begins with an impossible restriction.

She arrives at a practical principle:

Don't merely search for a job title. Search for a valuable problem that your capabilities could help solve.

MOVE outcome: Shift from career imitation toward problem-led opportunity discovery.


5. Stage 4 — GENERATE: Five New Possibility Directions with AI

Now Aditi uses generative AI to expand the directions uncovered by PO.

The following examples are exploratory concepts, not verified job openings or forecasts.

Possibility 1 — Human–AI Workflow Designer

As organizations introduce AI into everyday work, they must decide which activities can be automated and which require human judgment.

A possible professional opportunity is helping organizations design workflows that combine human expertise with AI capabilities.

For example, a small business might use AI to prepare customer communications, but retain human approval for sensitive decisions.

A workflow designer could help identify tasks, responsibilities, controls and measures of success.

Skills to investigate: Process mapping, business analysis, AI literacy, change management and evaluation.

Question to test: Are organizations willing to pay for help redesigning specific workflows around AI?

Possibility 2 — AI Decision Accountability Specialist

AI-assisted decisions can create difficult questions.

Who checks the output?

Who approves consequential actions?

What evidence supports a recommendation?

How are errors detected and corrected?

Organizations may need people who understand both business decisions and AI governance.

Aditi could investigate opportunities related to decision oversight, documentation, escalation processes and accountability.

Skills to investigate: Risk management, responsible AI, governance, auditing and organizational processes.

Question to test: Which organizations have unresolved accountability problems in their current AI workflows?

Possibility 3 — Local-Language AI Service Innovator

India has enormous linguistic, cultural and organizational diversity.

A service that works well in one language or context may be difficult to use in another.

Aditi could explore AI-assisted services designed around specific local needs.

Examples might include supporting small businesses with multilingual customer communication or helping service organizations make information easier to understand.

Skills to investigate: Customer research, multilingual service design, usability testing and AI tool evaluation.

Question to test: What important communication difficulties remain unresolved in a specific local market?

Possibility 4 — AI Adoption Experiment Designer

Many organizations are interested in AI but uncertain about where it will produce meaningful benefits.

Instead of offering general AI training, a professional might help organizations design small, measurable adoption experiments.

For example:

Can an AI-assisted process reduce the time required to prepare routine reports without increasing errors?

Can a customer-service team use AI to improve response consistency while maintaining human oversight?

Skills to investigate: Experiment design, operational metrics, project management and process improvement.

Question to test: Would organizations value structured experiments more than generic AI demonstrations?

Possibility 5 — Emerging-Problem Discovery Consultant

Organizations often begin innovation by asking for new solutions.

But what if the more valuable service is helping them discover which problems deserve attention?

Aditi could explore a consulting model that combines customer interviews, PO provocations, AI-assisted analysis and small experiments.

The consultant would not begin with a technology recommendation.

The process would begin with the organization's unresolved difficulties.

Skills to investigate: Research methods, facilitation, lateral thinking, business modeling and validation.

Question to test: Would a client pay for a clearer problem definition before investing in a solution?


6. Five More Possibilities Worth Exploring

The first five possibilities are only starting points.

Aditi could ask AI to explore additional combinations:

AI Evaluation Coordinator: Helping organizations test whether AI systems perform reliably on real tasks.

Human–Agent Operations Planner: Designing responsibilities and oversight when AI agents participate in operational workflows.

AI Accessibility Service Designer: Exploring ways to make digital services more accessible to people with different needs.

Workforce Transition Facilitator: Helping teams identify how changing technology affects tasks, capabilities and learning requirements.

Community AI Opportunity Researcher: Investigating locally important problems that might benefit from appropriate AI-enabled services.

Again, these are conceptual directions. Their economic viability, market demand and appropriate qualifications must be independently established.

A critical distinction

AI can generate plausible descriptions of new opportunities.

It cannot establish that employers are hiring for them or that customers will pay for them merely by describing them confidently.

An AI-generated opportunity is a hypothesis until evidence supports it.


7. Stage 5 — JUDGE: Which Possibilities Deserve Serious Attention?

This is where enthusiasm meets evidence.

Aditi should not abandon a credible job opportunity because an AI-generated career concept sounds exciting.

She needs a disciplined evaluation process.

Consider five criteria.

1. Meaningful demand

Who experiences the problem?

How frequently?

How costly or consequential is it?

What are they doing about it today?

2. Personal fit

Does the opportunity match Aditi's strengths and interests?

Can she acquire the necessary capabilities?

Would she enjoy the daily work?

3. Feasibility

Can she enter the field without unreasonable financial or professional risk?

Are there accessible organizations, customers or projects where she can gain experience?

4. Evidence

Are there real job descriptions, paid projects, customer interviews or documented organizational needs supporting the opportunity?

What remains speculation?

5. Responsible implementation

Does the opportunity involve sensitive information, high-stakes decisions or regulatory obligations?

What expertise and safeguards would be required?

Illustrative evaluation matrix

PossibilityMain attractionKey uncertaintyFirst evidence to collect
Human–AI Workflow DesignerCombines business and AI skillsWill organizations fund redesign work?Interviews with operations managers
AI Decision Accountability SpecialistAddresses governance needsRequired expertise and qualificationsReal role descriptions and practitioner interviews
Local-Language AI Service InnovatorAddresses context-specific needsWill users adopt and pay?Customer interviews and prototype testing
AI Adoption Experiment DesignerProduces measurable business outcomesIs there demand for facilitated pilots?Discussions with small-business owners
Emerging-Problem Discovery ConsultantDifferentiated innovation approachWill clients pay for discovery?One small paid or pilot engagement

The matrix is a framework for investigation, not a ranking based on market research.

Aditi's decision

She decides not to choose a new career immediately.

Instead, she selects two possibilities for further investigation.

She will compare them with her conventional career options using real evidence.

This preserves both creativity and prudence.

JUDGE outcome: Select promising opportunities for testing without confusing novelty with viability.


8. Stage 6 — ACCOMPLISH: The Seven-Day Opportunity Discovery Challenge

The objective is simple:

Discover and test one promising opportunity that you would not have considered through conventional career planning alone.

This exercise is useful for students, professionals considering a transition, educators and aspiring entrepreneurs.

Day 1 — Map Your Conventional Choices

List your five most obvious career or business options.

For each, record why it appeals to you.

Is it compensation?

Prestige?

Security?

Interest?

Family expectations?

A successful role model?

Then identify which assumptions shape your choices.

Day 2 — Apply the PO Escape

Temporarily remove your five familiar options.

Ask:

“If none of these paths existed, what important problems would I want to help solve?”

Do not evaluate the ideas yet.

Use AI to expand your thinking.

Day 3 — Discover Emerging Problems

Investigate problems in three domains that interest you.

Look for credible evidence of changing needs.

Speak with practitioners.

Read relevant industry material.

Observe workflows.

Use AI to organize findings and propose questions, but verify factual claims independently.

Day 4 — Generate Alternative Opportunities

Ask AI to develop ten different professional or entrepreneurial responses to the problems you identified.

Avoid merely renaming familiar jobs.

Explore different delivery models, customers, combinations of skills and forms of value.

Day 5 — Evaluate the Evidence

Shortlist three possibilities.

For each, identify:

  • Who needs it

  • Why it matters

  • What capabilities are required

  • What evidence exists

  • What risks are involved

  • What remains uncertain

Do not confuse AI-generated explanations with market validation.

Day 6 — Test One Possibility

Conduct a small experiment.

Possible experiments include interviewing a potential customer, discussing the concept with a professional, developing a simple demonstration or offering to solve one narrowly defined problem.

The experiment should be inexpensive, ethical and reversible.

Day 7 — Decide What to Learn Next

Review what you discovered.

Did you identify a meaningful problem?

Did someone confirm that the problem matters?

Could you contribute value?

What skills would you need?

What evidence would justify investing more time?

You may decide to pursue the opportunity, investigate further or abandon it.

All three can be useful outcomes.

The real measure of success

The challenge is not to invent a fashionable new job title.

It is to discover an opportunity that is:

Meaningful enough to matter. Plausible enough to investigate. Valuable enough to test.


9. The Complete ChatGPT PO Prompt

Here is the full reusable prompt for students, professionals and entrepreneurs.

Copy this prompt into ChatGPT

Act as my PO lateral-thinking partner, using Edward de Bono's provocation and movement methods.

My challenge is to discover new career, business or entrepreneurial possibilities in the AI era.

Use this provocation:

“PO: I am forbidden to copy any successful career path or business model from the past five years.”

Guide me through the following six stages.

1. FOCUS

Help me identify the conventional paths I am considering and the hidden assumptions behind them.

Explore what success means to me, my existing capabilities, interests, constraints and aspirations.

2. PROVOKE

Apply the escape technique.

Temporarily remove familiar success models and conventional job titles from consideration.

Do not dismiss the provocation merely because it is unrealistic.

3. MOVE

Use principle extraction, positive aspects, consequences, differences and special circumstances to discover useful directions emerging from the provocation.

Help me identify what changes when I begin with emerging problems rather than established career paths.

4. GENERATE

Develop at least ten genuinely different career, professional-service or entrepreneurial possibilities.

Base them on plausible emerging needs, changing technologies, organizational challenges or human problems.

Avoid simply producing a list of fashionable AI jobs.

For each possibility, explain the problem addressed, who might benefit, what capabilities are needed and what makes the direction distinctive.

5. JUDGE

Help me evaluate the most promising possibilities using:

  • Potential demand

  • Personal fit

  • Required capabilities

  • Feasibility

  • Risks

  • Available evidence

  • Uncertainties

Clearly distinguish verified facts from assumptions, speculative ideas and AI-generated hypotheses.

Do not invent job openings, market statistics, customer demand or evidence.

Where current information is necessary, identify what must be researched and verified.

6. ACCOMPLISH

Help me select one promising possibility and design a seven-day, low-cost experiment.

Include:

  • The hypothesis to test

  • People or organizations to approach

  • Questions to ask

  • A small practical activity

  • Evidence to collect

  • Criteria for deciding the next step

Ask me questions at each stage rather than immediately producing a final recommendation.

Begin by asking about my background, skills, interests, ambitions and current career or business options.


10. How to Make This Prompt More Useful

The quality of the exploration improves when you provide real context.

For example:

For an MBA student

“I am completing my MBA in marketing and operations. I enjoy solving customer problems and have experience in retail. Help me discover unconventional opportunities related to AI and changing consumer behavior.”

For an engineering graduate

“I have studied computer science and enjoy building software, but I don't want to assume that conventional software-development roles are my only options. Help me explore emerging problems I could address.”

For an experienced professional

“I have fifteen years of experience in operations management. I want to investigate how my expertise might create value in organizations adopting AI.”

For an entrepreneur

“I operate a small service business. Help me identify new customer problems and business models that might emerge as AI changes expectations and workflows.”

The prompt should adapt to the person's actual situation.

A student with limited resources needs a different experiment from an experienced executive.

An entrepreneur with an existing customer base has different opportunities from someone beginning their career.

The goal is not to discover the same new opportunity for everyone.

It is to help each person discover possibilities relevant to their circumstances.


11. What Should Business Schools Teach in the AI Era?

The provocation raises an interesting educational question.

Should business schools focus primarily on preparing students for existing professional roles?

Or should they also prepare students to discover and create roles that do not yet exist?

These objectives are not mutually exclusive.

Students still need strong foundations in finance, economics, operations, marketing, ethics and organizational behavior.

But they may also benefit from deliberate practice in:

Problem discovery.

Creative reframing.

Lateral thinking.

Human–AI collaboration.

Experiment design.

Evidence-based decision-making.

Responsible innovation.

Interdisciplinary learning.

A possible classroom experiment

Imagine an MBA course in which students must identify a consequential problem that is not adequately addressed by existing products or services.

They then use PO to challenge the assumptions surrounding the problem.

AI helps them explore alternatives.

Students interview relevant stakeholders.

They evaluate the ideas and test a small intervention.

The final assessment is not merely a business plan.

It is a documented learning process showing:

What was assumed?

What was challenged?

What possibilities emerged?

What evidence was gathered?

What worked?

What failed?

What should happen next?

Such an exercise could complement traditional business education.

It would help students practice creating possibilities, not only analyzing established ones.


12. The Bigger Possibility: From Career Seekers to Opportunity Discoverers

Sam Altman's reported comments raise a question about ambition in a period of technological change.

But the deeper issue extends beyond MBA graduates.

It applies to engineers, teachers, consultants, managers, researchers, entrepreneurs and experienced professionals.

Many of us approach the future using categories inherited from the past.

We ask which existing role will remain attractive.

Which successful company should we imitate?

Which familiar skill should we acquire?

Which established strategy should we follow?

These can be sensible questions.

But they are not sufficient.

PO introduces a different possibility.

What if the most valuable opportunity is not yet represented by a familiar job title, product category or business model?

Generative AI can help us explore such possibilities.

But we must guide that exploration deliberately.

Otherwise, AI may simply generate more polished versions of conventional advice.

This is the distinctive opportunity of combining PO with AI.

PO challenges the frame.

AI expands the possibilities.

Human judgment separates promising directions from attractive speculation.

Experimentation reveals what deserves further investment.

That is the thinking philosophy behind AIYING's PO–AI Thinking Lab.


13. Your PO Challenge

For the next seven days, imagine that your preferred career or business path is unavailable.

Not permanently.

Just as a thinking exercise.

Ask yourself:

“If I could not follow an established success story, what new problem would I choose to solve?”

Then use the complete ChatGPT prompt in this article.

Explore the possibilities.

Investigate the evidence.

Test one direction.

You may discover that your original path remains the best choice.

Or you may uncover an opportunity you had never considered.

Either outcome can improve your decision.

A question for readers

Are we preparing young people to succeed in the world we know—or to discover possibilities in the world that is emerging?

What would you advise an Indian MBA graduate entering the AI era?

And what unconventional opportunity would you personally explore?

Share your thoughts and discoveries in the comments.


About PO Prompts

PO Prompts is an AIYING series exploring the power of deliberate provocation and generative AI to discover new possibilities.

Each episode combines a relatable story, a hidden assumption, a PO provocation, structured movement, AI-assisted exploration, critical evaluation, a practical experiment and a complete reusable ChatGPT prompt.

The series draws inspiration from Edward de Bono's original work on lateral thinking, provocation and movement.

The six-stage FOCUS → PROVOKE → MOVE → GENERATE → JUDGE → ACCOMPLISH workflow is an AIYING adaptation for practical human–AI collaboration.

One Image. One Story. One Provocation. Many Possibilities.

PO Prompts — One Strange Question. A New Possibility.

Don't just ask AI which successful path to follow. Use PO to discover a path that may not yet exist.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI.


References and Further Reading

1. The Times of India (October 29, 2026). Sam Altman on MBA students, established career paths and emerging AI opportunities.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/sam-altman-is-unhappy-with-most-mba-students-that-he-calls-his-chronic-disappointment-says-they-always-want-to-go-do-the-thing-that-/articleshow/135287091.cms

2. Edward de Bono — Serious Creativity. Background on deliberate creative thinking, provocation and movement.

https://www.debono.com/serious-creativity-article

Editorial note: The Indian MBA campus story is fictional. The PO provocation, career possibilities and six-stage AIYING exercise are creative extensions developed for this article, not statements attributed to Sam Altman. Suggested opportunities require independent validation.

Accomplish with AI

Powered by Blogger.

Featured post

AI Engineering Hands-On Lab #001 — Build an AI Answer Reliability Test Bench Without Code

AIYING | Daily 24 — Post 009 AI Engineering Hands-On Lab #001 Build an AI Answer Reliability Test Bench — Without Writing Code Lea...

Search This Blog

List of blogs

Search This Blog

About

Translate

Instant Stories

Read in Your Language

Test

share this

ShareThis

Popular Posts