Article
The end of 2024 is approaching, and I find myself on a train, heading to my hometown to spend the holidays with my family. In just a few hours, I’ll be in Banská Bystrica, the place I hold so dearly in my heart. As I sit here, I’ve been reflecting on what 2024 has taught me and what challenges await me in 2025.
The Biggest Lesson of 2024
When I first considered what 2024 taught me, my mind wandered to the usual contenders: professional missteps, personal struggles, or relationship challenges. But none of those compared to the realisation that health, my own health, had been neglected.
Yes, I know what you’re thinking. Everyone knows health is important; it’s obvious. And to those around me, it probably seemed like I understood this too. I’ve often told my colleagues, "Health comes first," whenever they faced an issue. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: I didn’t live by my own words.
In my professional life, I’m quick to act when problems arise, a data discrepancy, a sudden error, or an unresolved issue. These challenges can frustrate me, but they also motivate me to dive in and fix them immediately. Why, then, don’t I respond with the same urgency when it comes to my health? Why don’t I pay attention to my body’s signals and take them seriously?
Continue reading for free
Enter your email to keep reading for free. This also subscribes you to my monthly newsletter. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Why do professionals often neglect their own health?
What is the intention-action gap in health?
Can treating health like a work project actually help?
Why is sleep quality so important for professionals?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
LinkedIn
Related articles
My body was not broken. Quite the opposite – it was smarter than me.
More articles
Seventy per cent. That is where the first AI output begins, even when you give it the full company context and the best examples from the past. We are talking about the kind of output that cannot be defined programmatically. It is more complex. Often it is creative work. On one repeated type of output I reached eighty per cent within a week. Every further percentage point is harder than the one before.
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too: professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement, knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing: the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data (yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset), and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed, but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.