Why Prompt Chasing Is Dead—And the Real AI Skill Every Operator Needs Now
The future belongs to clear communicators, not template collectors—no matter what technology comes next.
Good day! Between the market swings and the pace of tech change, it feels like we're all on some kind of rollercoaster that nobody signed up for. Even the weather over here on the west coast has gone from beautiful sunny days to a stormy start to the week—nature mirroring the tech landscape, perhaps?
Anyway, I try to save the really, really good stuff for Tuesdays when people still have their head in the game. So please enjoy this special edition where I talk about PROMPTS. Or rather, why you should probably stop obsessing over them and focus on something much more valuable instead...
I had a shower thought the other day about how most conversations around AI tools eventually circle back to "What prompt did you use?" or "How exactly did you do that?" People are frantically searching for the precise steps, convinced there's a manual they somehow missed.
Here's the thing: the killer outputs don't come from rigid formulas. They emerge from intuition and curiosity. It's not about following some perfect methodology—it's about playing in the sandbox like a kid. You create, explore, try stuff, see what sticks.
That experimental mindset is a game changer compared to memorizing prompting techniques or building a database of templates. Strip everything away, and success still comes down to the soft skills you already have (or should have): communicating clearly, asking smart questions, and expressing exactly what you want.
AI mirrors your clarity, not your technical prompting
A simple mental model for understanding this: think of AI as a mirror. Whatever you put in front of that mirror—your input, your intent, your clarity (or lack thereof)—is exactly what gets reflected back at you.
When your communication is intentional, thoughtful, and precise, the mirror gives you something actionable and useful. But when your input is vague, rushed, overly dense, or poorly articulated, you get a reflection of that same mess.
This model isn't complicated, but it's a no-brainer for understanding why communication skills matter more than prompt templates. AI doesn't magically add clarity—it reflects whatever clarity you bring. The clearer you are, the better the output. It's on you to bring your communication A-game and shape the response you want.
Four timeless communication principles that AI responds to best
This really boils down to fundamental communication skills—the same approach I'd use with anyone on my team. There are four core elements that consistently get better results than any prompt template:
State your goal. Start by clearly articulating what you actually want. Be explicit—what are you trying to achieve? Don't make the AI guess.
Provide context that matters. Briefly describe the relevant scenario. What industry? Who's the audience? What problem needs solving? AI needs this context to align with your intent, just like a human would.
Use precise language. Be specific and ditch vague, generalized phrasing. Don't assume the AI will magically infer the same things a human might—it often takes words literally (this is improving, but there's still a gap).
Structure your thinking. Break things down logically into steps, bullets, or sections. Structured input naturally leads to structured output.
These aren't prompt hacks or secret AI whispering techniques—they're basic professional communication skills. But they make a game-changing difference in how clearly and effectively AI responds to you.
Prompt templates fail when communication skills are missing
People are obsessing over the wrong things—fixating on specific prompts, exact wording, and templates instead of just communicating their intent clearly to LLMs like ChatGPT or Claude. They're treating prompting like some kind of standardized test with perfect answers rather than focusing on the actual goal: effective communication.
When someone asks me how I got a particular result from AI, they're almost always looking for the exact prompt—the magic incantation—rather than understanding the strategy behind it. It's like they believe there's a secret code that unlocks these tools.
This is a fact: the exact prompt doesn't matter. What drives results is good, clear communication. If you know your problem, can articulate your goal, provide relevant context, and outline the path forward, you'll naturally communicate effectively—whether you're talking to AI or humans.
AI tools are getting sophisticated enough that specific formulas and templates are going to be irrelevant soon anyway. But the communication skills that focus on clear thinking and articulating ideas? Those will serve you everywhere—with today's AI, tomorrow's technologies, and in every human interaction you have.
Collaboration trumps formulas in effective AI interaction
Believe it or not, there's an artistry to AI communication that most people miss completely. It's not a science—it's finding that sweet spot between giving too little context and drowning the system in unnecessary constraints.
Under-communicate your goals or leave out important context, and the AI isn't going to magically read your mind—you'll get garbage back. But the flip side is just as bad: overloading the AI with excessive technical details actually kills the creative process. You end up in this ridiculous loop of frustration, yelling at your chat bot, "Why didn't you do what I wanted?" (I’m one of the fools the robots will come for first.)
The magical approach? Treat the LLM like a creative partner or collaborator. You wouldn't corner a colleague at lunch and lecture them nonstop without letting them get a word in, right? (Right??) The same principle applies.
The interactions that produce the best results feel like natural conversations: clearly state your goal and context, then let the AI respond or ask its own clarifying questions. Trust is a game changer here—giving the LLM some room to interpret your intention often produces outputs that not only nail your vision but take it somewhere even better than you originally imagined.
Simple requests outperform complex templates every time
Smart people are massively overthinking this stuff, especially for basic tasks like reviewing emails. I've watched folks pull out these ridiculous prompt templates they found on a blog or LinkedIn that read like this:
I’m providing the email below for review, which I’ve drafted to send to a key client whose response could significantly impact our future business trajectory. Before you provide your feedback, carefully analyze the email for multiple dimensions of effectiveness: tone appropriateness (ensuring professional yet engaging communication), clarity and coherence (confirming it delivers a concise yet comprehensive message), persuasive strength… blah blah blah…And it just keeps going with layers of unnecessary detail that nobody has time for.
All of that friction can be replaced with something straightforward:
Can you review this email before I send it to an important client? Check the tone, clarity, and effectiveness.Done. That simple version gets you identical results without the copy-paste gymnastics from some prompt library. You're just wasting time dressing things up in fancy language when these systems already understand normal human communication.
A clear, direct request will always outperform a bloated, over-engineered prompt—in both effectiveness and efficiency. Just like in real life with actual humans.
Working with AI is about navigation, not memorization
Think of AI prompting like using a GPS—you input your destination and it helps guide you there. But just like with a GPS, you still need to know how to drive the damn car. You've got to steer, accelerate, brake, and make decisions at intersections—that's your fundamental communication skillset.
If you already know the city—your domain or context—you'll navigate even more effectively. Recognizing major landmarks and having a sense of direction means you're not slavishly following the GPS's every instruction for routine trips.
This applies directly to real-world scenarios: when MVPing a web app, you have two options for that first hour of work. You could spend it studying prompt engineering documentation, or you could use that time to craft a solid technical brief that clarifies your vision—not for the AI, but for yourself and your team.
The brief is the no-brainer choice because it has standalone value. It helps you define the project scope, clarify goals, identify users, and map out features. It's useful whether you're working with AI or human developers.
When I work with Claude, I simply feed it that brief and say, "We're starting a new project based on this brief," and I paste the whole thing in. That's it. The system gets to work because I've given it complete context upfront. No need to mess with complicated prompting or drip-feed constraints later.
People who focus on prompt engineering over project planning are doubling their time investment because they still need to create and input all that project context afterward anyway.
When AI reflects your communication shortcomings
I learned this lesson the hard way when I first used Claude Code to build a React app—specifically, a questionnaire for identifying weak points in business strategies.
I knew exactly what tech stack I wanted and gave Claude a simple directive to "build it in React," but I got lazy and didn't write a proper brief upfront. Because I wasn't specific enough about structure and standards, it built this bizarre Frankenstein app using a messy combination of vanilla JavaScript, JSX, and TSX files all mixed together.
Did it work? Yeah, technically. But it was a complete mess architecturally. If another developer looked at that codebase, they'd immediately ask, "What the hell is going on here, dude?"
This is exactly the kind of result people warn about with AI coding tools: spaghetti code with no architectural clarity, poor scalability, and zero consistency. But here's the thing—the AI wasn't the problem. I was.
I hadn't clearly communicated the full context or standards I wanted to follow. The vision was crystal clear in my head, but I failed to translate those details into the brief. I ended up having to go back and fix everything, creating unnecessary friction that I could have avoided by treating the AI like a proper collaborator from the start.
This taught me a crucial lesson: the failure point wasn't about needing a better prompt—it was about not providing clear enough communication upfront. There's no magical prompt template on earth that would have prevented that issue.
When AI exceeds your expectations
The flip side came when I gave Claude Code a comprehensive brief for a different project. This wasn't a prompt—it was a standard brief detailing technical requirements, user goals, timelines, and specifics you'd include for any real developer team.
Instead of passively waiting for instructions, it internalized the brief and took initiative. It set up appropriate languages and features, and—this is the killer part—proactively built in scalability and modularity because I had mentioned those were important in the brief.
I could immediately run the project locally. It had even handled the design work and included deployment instructions for Cloudflare Pages—something I never explicitly requested.
Watching it independently name functions and structure the application according to the strategic intentions I'd outlined felt genuinely human—like working with an insightful coding partner rather than a tool.
This completely shattered my assumption that AI interactions would remain transactional. It showed how deeply these systems can understand, interpret, and creatively extend human intent when given proper context. The difference between my two experiences wasn't about prompt engineering—it was about the quality of communication.
Seasoned leaders naturally excel with AI without prompt training
I've noticed something interesting: people who've been in leadership or management roles for years tend to naturally excel at AI prompting without any training whatsoever. Why? Because they've built the muscle of identifying root problems quickly, cutting through noise, and making fast, aligned decisions.
They already know how to frame a goal, clarify intent, and communicate with precision—all essential when working with AI. These folks don't waste time obsessing over the perfect semantic structure of a prompt. They just instinctively drive clarity and action.
On the other hand, people newer to leadership might still be developing those soft skills needed to communicate complex ideas simply. For them, prompt training might feel like a helpful shortcut.
But let's be real about the deeper question: what actually provides more long-term value for the individual and the organization? Learning temporary prompt engineering tricks that'll be outdated in six months, or developing timeless communication skills that transfer across every technology and human interaction?
The answer is a no-brainer.
The AI revolution flips the script on who prompts whom
We've already seen language models moving away from prompt-specific workflows—they're getting dramatically better at interpreting casual, natural communication. The future of AI interfaces isn't about perfect prompting; it's going to be multimodal: voice, text, images, gestures—whatever feels most natural to you.
Voice assistants are already demonstrating how these models can pick up on your tone, emotion, and even those little pauses and hesitations in natural conversation. The experience feels less like engineering a prompt and more like having an actual conversation.
We're also seeing image-based prompting get wild fast. Drop in a screenshot or photo, ask a question, and these systems understand the content in nuanced ways—not just reading data but grasping meaning, emotion, and abstraction. You don't even need to start with a question or direction anymore.
The most mind-bending shift? We're moving toward personalized AI assistants that learn your communication patterns. Eventually, they'll start prompting you with insights and suggestions. That's the big twist—while we’re discussing how to prompt AI, we're about to live in a world where the AI starts prompting us.
Given how fast this is all evolving, this article already feels late to the party. If you're still fixated on perfecting your prompt templates, you need to catch up. Things are moving at lightning pace and the game is already changing.
Prompt engineering dies while communication skills thrive
I see people getting weirdly obsessed with the idea that prompt engineering is going to be a legitimate profession or structured discipline. There's all this buzz about companies needing dedicated “prompt engineers” or “Directors of Prompting,” and maybe that'll materialize in some form.
But let's be real—the technology is evolving so ridiculously fast that most of this feels short-lived. We're racing toward a future where using these tools is basically like having a conversation, and I don't need specialized training to talk to a person—at least not as a functioning adult in a business environment.
Sure, we learn communication from childhood, but any adult should already have the foundational skills to communicate effectively without needing some kind of prompting playbook or template library.
As these models continue to improve at light speed, they'll need less and less technical prompting knowledge from us, and the value will shift dramatically toward just being a clear communicator.
At the end of the day, prompting as a distinct skill is already fading fast. The real differentiator moving forward won't be your collection of prompt templates—it'll be how well you can think, frame ideas, and collaborate with both humans and machines.
The future belongs to clear communicators, not template collectors—no matter what AI wave comes next.
If you found this valuable, I'd love for you to support my little newsletter. Frontier Notes explores the intersection of technology, leadership, and the future of work without the usual hype or doom-spiraling. Just practical insights from someone in the trenches.
Thanks for spending part of your day with me and my thoughts.
P.S. If today’s insight shaved even five minutes off your mental load, please do me one quick favour—forward this note to a teammate who’s staring down the same AI storm. Every share gets us closer to 1,500 sharp-minded subscribers.