Article
Visiting my sister Kristína after some time, I was struck by how many more paintings she had than I remembered. Her space felt transformed, almost like an art gallery. Her paintings were everywhere, not hung on the walls as you might expect, but leaning against furniture and arranged in small clusters. It was clear that painting had become a significant part of her life. This made me want to understand more about her journey with painting and the role it plays in her life.
A Canvas for Emotions
When I asked her about her paintings, she shared that her inspiration often comes from moments of deep emotion. She said:
“I mostly feel like painting when I’m feeling melancholic or when nostalgia hits me. I think about experiences that left a strong emotional impact on me and those I wish I could relive. Usually, I look at photos to remind myself of these moments, and I try to paint what I love about them. At the same time, it helps me deal with overwhelming emotions.”
Experimenting with Creativity
My sister does not consider herself an experienced painter, but that has not stopped her from experimenting and growing as an artist. She explained:
“Painting, for me, is an experiment. Since I’m not skilled in it, I get excited about every small improvement I make. For a long time, I was afraid to paint specific things on canvas because I felt I didn’t have the technique or skills for it. I used to enjoy just playing with shading and mixing colors to create minimalist pieces.”
The Process Over the Result
One thing she emphasised was that for her, painting is not about the final product but about the act of painting itself. She told me:
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
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
LinkedIn
More articles
The same task, two models. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8. On paper Fable is the better model, with a larger context and stronger specs. And still it lost. Opus handled the task with a single round of checking for 721,000 tokens, while Fable needed nine rounds and burnt through 2.78 million tokens. The difference was not in the model, but in how I set the task. And I know it, because I measured it.
A few weeks ago I installed a small local AI model on my laptop that watches a live camera feed. I turned the webcam on in the dark, and in near total darkness it recognised me and the objects in the room. That such things exist, I have known for a long time. What opened my eyes was the accessibility. I installed it in one prompt, free, and it runs entirely on my machine, sending data nowhere.
I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.
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.
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.