Philip Miller's 'Make AI Boring' Advantage

Philip Miller's "Boring AI" Strategy That Gets Results

I fell into a mini LinkedIn rabbit hole recently. I was looking at creators who talk about AI without sounding like they're selling magic beans, and one profile kept popping up: Philip Miller.

Here's the part that made me sit up a bit. Philip has 8,097 followers and a Hero Score of 45.00. Kyle Poyar has 102,215 followers with a 44.00 score. Jarno Duursma has 58,584 followers and a 44.00 score. So Philip is running neck-and-neck on engagement efficiency with creators who are operating at 7-12x the audience size. Pretty impressive, right?

I wanted to understand what makes that happen. Not in a "post more" or "add a hook" way. More like: what is he consistently doing that makes busy, enterprise-minded people stop scrolling and think?

Here's what stood out:

• Philip wins with clarity over hype - he makes AI feel like infrastructure, not theatre.
• He uses contrarian-but-reasonable reframes that executives actually share with their teams.
• His writing has a distinct rhythm (short lines, clean pivots, tight bullets) that feels native to LinkedIn and easy to skim.

---

Philip Miller's Performance Metrics

Here's what's interesting: the raw audience size is modest, but the engagement efficiency is elite. A 45.00 Hero Score signals that the audience isn't just passively following - they're reacting like people who trust the voice and come back for the next take. And at 2.5 posts per week, he isn't flooding the feed. He's showing up consistently enough to stay top-of-mind, but not so often that the message turns into noise.

Key Performance Indicators

---

What Makes Philip Miller's Content Work

Before we get tactical, a quick side-by-side helps. All three creators are strong, but they win in different ways.

Creator Snapshot Comparison

Now, Philip's strategies.

1. He makes AI feel "boring" in the best way

So here's the first thing I noticed: Philip keeps pulling AI out of the demo zone and back into the "this is how a serious company works" zone. He repeats themes like governance, trust, workflows, infrastructure, and outcomes. Not because he's stuck on buzzwords. Because he's building a mental model for the reader: mature AI is not exciting. It's dependable.

If you work anywhere near enterprise tech, that message lands. It gives people language to push back on shiny-object pressure without sounding anti-innovation.

Key Insight: If you want authority fast, stop selling "possibility" and start selling "dependability".

This works because the market is tired. Leaders aren't short on AI ideas. They're short on AI systems that don't create risk.

Strategy Breakdown:

2. He uses reframes that are contrarian, but not annoying

A lot of creators try to be contrarian by dunking on people. Philip does it differently. He sets up a familiar belief, then pivots with a calmer "But what if..." that feels like an invitation to think.

And that matters. Because the audience he's attracting (AI leaders, CIO-adjacent folks, enterprise builders) doesn't want drama. They want a sharper lens.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

What surprised me is how often he uses contrast pairs: "This isn't about X. It's about Y." It sounds simple, but it's a cheat code for clarity.

3. He writes for skimmers without dumbing anything down

Philip's posts feel visually easy. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs. Clean spacing. Bullets that land like decisions.

But the content isn't shallow. It's just well-edited. The reader gets the idea quickly, then gets 3-5 supporting points that are actually useful.

This is where Kyle Poyar is a fun comparison.

• Kyle often goes deeper into step-by-step playbooks and case studies.
• Philip stays slightly higher level, but punches through with framing and decision language.

And Jarno?

• Jarno's strength is reach and recognisability: topics that travel, conference energy, big-picture AI shifts.
• Philip is more "let's make this workable inside your messy org".

4. He uses light wit to keep the tone human

I didn't expect this to matter as much as it does, but Philip's understated humour (self-aware comments about dopamine hits, badges, "boring" being the point) makes the expertise feel accessible.

Not clownish. Just human.

It signals: "I'm confident enough to not perform confidence." And honestly, that lands well in AI right now.

---

Their Content Formula

Philip's formula is more consistent than it looks at first glance. It isn't gimmicky. It's a repeatable structure that makes complex topics feel manageable.

Content Structure Breakdown

The Hook Pattern

Philip often opens with a line that feels like a well-timed interruption.

Template:

"This isn't about [popular AI talking point]. It's about [boring thing that decides outcomes]."

A few example hook styles that fit his vibe:

• "If AI is still your headline, it probably isn't ready for production."
• "We talk about alignment like it's new. But the real challenge is older than technology."
• "The next wave won't be defined by flashier demos. It'll be defined by trust."

Why it works: it creates curiosity without demanding attention. It also signals he's speaking to people who build, govern, and deploy - not just people who repost.

The Body Structure

He moves quickly, then uses clean pivots to keep momentum.

Body Structure Analysis:

And a small detail I keep noticing: the bullets are not "features". They're "implications". That makes the reader feel like they're getting an executive brief.

The CTA Approach

Philip's CTAs are rarely "comment below". They're usually:

• An invitation to read something specific
• A prompt to apply the idea ("pressure-test against your roadmap")
• A simple "If you're dealing with X, this one's for you"

The psychology is subtle: it respects the reader. It assumes they can choose. That tone tends to attract a higher-signal audience.

---

Where Kyle and Jarno Differ (and what Philip borrows)

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Philip isn't succeeding in a vacuum. He's in the same feed as creators like Kyle Poyar and Jarno Duursma, and you can learn a lot by comparing the tradeoffs.

Side-by-side: Value Type and Content Assets

Philip takes a little from both:

• From Kyle: the discipline of being useful. Not just interesting.
• From Jarno: the willingness to be a recognizable voice in AI, not just "another practitioner".

But Philip's twist is that he plants a flag on something most people avoid: boring.

And it's sticky.

Posting cadence and timing (practical stuff)

We only have timing guidance at a high level, but it's consistent with what tends to work for professional audiences.

If you post like Philip, timing matters because your content rewards focus. People read it during "thinking time", not just dopamine time.

---

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

1. Write one "boring" sentence on purpose - Take the flashy AI idea and translate it into governance, workflow fit, and risk controls (that's what gets funded).

2. Use the contrast-pair opener - "This isn't about X. It's about Y." It forces clarity and makes your post easier to share internally.

3. End with a soft professional CTA - Try "Worth pressure-testing against your roadmap" instead of "Thoughts?" and watch who shows up.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Philip's advantage is trust language - governance, workflows, and outcomes are not sexy, but they are shippable.
2. His writing rhythm is LinkedIn-native - short lines, clean pivots, bullets that feel like decisions.
3. He competes with much larger creators on efficiency - Hero Score 45.00 with 8,097 followers is a real signal.
4. Kyle and Jarno show the other paths - tactical playbooks (Kyle) and broad AI mindshare (Jarno), but Philip's calm enterprise framing is uniquely sticky.

If you try one thing, try this: write like you're briefing a smart exec who has five minutes and real accountability. That's the vibe. And it works.

---

Meet the Creators

---

This analysis was generated by ViralBrain's AI content intelligence platform.