02/13/2026
This AI trend made me LOL. Then it intrigued me enough to keep going.
I asked ChatGPT to create a caricature of me and my work with the procided prompt. What came back was hilarious on the surface, but also revealing of an issue I too often.
The result was misguidingly literal.
While my work is centered around psychologically driven business architecture, I am neither a neuroscientist nor an architect.
And then there was the chess. Which I don't play. Even a little bit.
At first glance, it felt highly inaccurate. But after asking why the choices were made, the gap became clear.
The caricature wasn’t necessarily wrong.
It was vague because I had been. I didn't tweak the provided prompt at all, just plugged it right in.
And without precise, representative inputs, AI fills in the gaps using patterns, stereotypes, and creative shortcuts.
What we call “generic” is often just a lack of clear data, context, and constraints. Basic instruction.
So that chessboard wasn’t random. It was AI’s way of expressing my strategic thinking because I hadn’t defined how I wanted it to show up, so it defaulted to a familiar symbol. It was just doing its best.
This is the gap most people miss.
❌️ If AI feels generic, off-brand, or slightly wrong, it’s often not because the tool is bad.
It’s because the inputs aren’t specific or aligned enough to be accurate.
AI reflects what you give it and provides what you ask for.
If you want outputs that truly represent you and your company, you have to:
đź“š Train it with meaningful context
🎯 Be specific about what you do and how you do it
🧠Stop expecting genius from vague prompts
Better inputs create better results.
And sometimes, a misplaced chessboard is just the mirror you needed to see where the prompt needs refinement.
