John, I really appreciate how difficult and important this read is. Many people probably knew that they were coasting in their roles and then got extremely annoyed when AI came along and showed that up. However, I wonder if there's a way that we can encourage people to embrace the opportunities that AI creates to be more creative and free in their roles or future roles, rather than, as you say, bemoan the fact that it's automating aspects of their jobs that they were probably never excited about in the first instance.
So there won't be 100s of millions of people spending hours in booths call handling and doing data input whilst customers burn time in queues ? What new vision of the world will replace this dreamscape we live in?
This is a provocative and honest read, that makes me think, for that I'm greatful. I still think the perspective taken here is too narrow (for example the line about it being a paradise for founders and investors. Not many people belong in this category, and the implications has farther reach than that). But I agree with your general thesis, this is a turning point and you need to develop the skills a machine doesn't (yet) have, and use the tech where your average output can be improved.
Yep this post is spot on, especially the “we did this to ourselves” angle.
In my other life for the last ~25 years I owned a construction company that entitled and developed raw ground, and built everything from custom homes to big multi-family projects. The one constant across all of it was… you figure it out. If there’s a leak over someone’s kitchen or god forbid a structural issue in a building they live in, “I don’t know, the tools failed me” isn’t even close to an acceptable answer. You learn, you adapt, you take responsibility, because these are real people’s homes.
What worries me now is how many people seem to be using AI as an excuse to think less, when it should be an invitation to think and learn more, “ I don’t have to understand this, ChatGPT says it’s fine.” Same mindset that leads to shortcuts on a job site, oh it’s good enough, it’s fine… right up until it absolutely isn’t 🙄🤦♂️.
I’m on the other side of this, my team are extensions of skill, not replacements for craftsmanship. Let the AI help you see more options, check your work, compress a week of reading into an afternoon, but the judgment and responsibility is still on us. AI didn’t steal our greatness, most willingly handed it over because being great takes consistency and hard work… while being mediocre with new shiny toys is easy.
Anyway, thanks for writing something that pushes people back toward personal responsibility and owning their work, instead of just outsourcing it to autocomplete.
I agree, the discomfort isn’t really about quality, it’s about exposure.
AI hasn’t lowered the bar so much as revealed how much of our output was already sitting at “acceptable but forgettable”.
There’s solid evidence behind that unease too, an MIT study found readers struggle to reliably distinguish AI-written text from human writing when the content is generic.
That explains why rough edges are being fetishised, they signal intent and perspective rather than polish.
The opportunity now feels less about defending craft and more about sharpening point of view.
So the real question might be, what are we prepared to say that a model wouldn’t dare to?
John, this was an excellent read! The “AI as mirror” framing hit hard. This line especially: “We’re furious because AI held up a mirror, revealing the mediocrity of our work.”
I’m living this right now. Upskilling teams on AI at work, and the resistance pattern you describe is everywhere. The first response isn’t curiosity. It’s defense: “This isn’t as good as MY work” or “AI can’t understand the nuance.”
The path forward you outline (ruthless integration, becoming the cyborg) is right. But in practice, I’m finding most people don’t know what differentiation looks like when all the execution disappears. They’ve spent careers in execution mode.
The real question they’re avoiding: what would I do with my time if all this execution work vanished?
Curious how you help business owners identify their actual differentiation beyond tenure and credentials?
Zain, appreciate the enthusiastic perspective and share. For teams, and inside established orgs, I think the change management and time allocation question has to be focused and answered relative to new capacities and business or technical know-how that the company would like to optimize against.
It’s not so much about doing more of the current responsibilities…it’s about what is new or additional that I can learn to become an integral contributor around.
John, this is an uncomfortable autopsy. You’ve made it clear that AI didn't 'murder' the internet; it just supplied the shovel for our own race to the bottom. We mistook Velocity (how fast we can ship) for Veracity (whether it’s worth reading).
AI raises the floor of competence but lowers the ceiling of genius because it fundamentally averages data. By removing the human friction—the struggle where 'greatness' actually happens—we are voluntarily flattening our own variance.
While I agree this is a failure of will, isn't it also a failure of market incentives? We are seeing Gresham’s Law of Content: 'Cheap, infinite AI slop drives out expensive, scarce Human insight.'
The strategic question for us as Operators isn't just 'How do we stop being lazy?' but 'How do we signal the Human Premium so effectively that the market pays for the difference?'
Indeed and that's the great value of AI at collective level. It raises the bar. But at individual level not everyone is Picasso or Olympic level athlete. Unfortunately or fortunately mediocrity - which is a synonym for average - still pays the bill. So not easy to jump on the train for most people and I empathize with the situation
It's almost as if I now have a word, "AI-ish" for anything I find too formulaic and not as engaging. Some food for thought here on how to leverage AI. I like the idea of using it as a forcing function than anything else!
John, I really appreciate how difficult and important this read is. Many people probably knew that they were coasting in their roles and then got extremely annoyed when AI came along and showed that up. However, I wonder if there's a way that we can encourage people to embrace the opportunities that AI creates to be more creative and free in their roles or future roles, rather than, as you say, bemoan the fact that it's automating aspects of their jobs that they were probably never excited about in the first instance.
Embracing and thinking of new ways to advance. AI is a leap forward, not a silver bullet. I like to think of AI as the Jarvis to my Iron Man.
So there won't be 100s of millions of people spending hours in booths call handling and doing data input whilst customers burn time in queues ? What new vision of the world will replace this dreamscape we live in?
Brilliant read. Thanks John ! So many thoughts this creates in me as we embrace the dynamism that's all around us.
This is a provocative and honest read, that makes me think, for that I'm greatful. I still think the perspective taken here is too narrow (for example the line about it being a paradise for founders and investors. Not many people belong in this category, and the implications has farther reach than that). But I agree with your general thesis, this is a turning point and you need to develop the skills a machine doesn't (yet) have, and use the tech where your average output can be improved.
Yep this post is spot on, especially the “we did this to ourselves” angle.
In my other life for the last ~25 years I owned a construction company that entitled and developed raw ground, and built everything from custom homes to big multi-family projects. The one constant across all of it was… you figure it out. If there’s a leak over someone’s kitchen or god forbid a structural issue in a building they live in, “I don’t know, the tools failed me” isn’t even close to an acceptable answer. You learn, you adapt, you take responsibility, because these are real people’s homes.
What worries me now is how many people seem to be using AI as an excuse to think less, when it should be an invitation to think and learn more, “ I don’t have to understand this, ChatGPT says it’s fine.” Same mindset that leads to shortcuts on a job site, oh it’s good enough, it’s fine… right up until it absolutely isn’t 🙄🤦♂️.
I’m on the other side of this, my team are extensions of skill, not replacements for craftsmanship. Let the AI help you see more options, check your work, compress a week of reading into an afternoon, but the judgment and responsibility is still on us. AI didn’t steal our greatness, most willingly handed it over because being great takes consistency and hard work… while being mediocre with new shiny toys is easy.
Anyway, thanks for writing something that pushes people back toward personal responsibility and owning their work, instead of just outsourcing it to autocomplete.
Great points. If AI can replace you, what does that mean? Mediocre code is the point.
I had some thoughts about this here: https://jdubyou.substack.com/p/why-smart-engineers-miss-the-biggest?r=cg7qh
Did you intend to have multiple typos in the article?
Didn’t intend. Just failed to get it perfect during editing. Some weeks I’m better than others. Also, thanks for reading! 🤓🙏🏼
I agree, the discomfort isn’t really about quality, it’s about exposure.
AI hasn’t lowered the bar so much as revealed how much of our output was already sitting at “acceptable but forgettable”.
There’s solid evidence behind that unease too, an MIT study found readers struggle to reliably distinguish AI-written text from human writing when the content is generic.
That explains why rough edges are being fetishised, they signal intent and perspective rather than polish.
The opportunity now feels less about defending craft and more about sharpening point of view.
So the real question might be, what are we prepared to say that a model wouldn’t dare to?
John, this was an excellent read! The “AI as mirror” framing hit hard. This line especially: “We’re furious because AI held up a mirror, revealing the mediocrity of our work.”
I’m living this right now. Upskilling teams on AI at work, and the resistance pattern you describe is everywhere. The first response isn’t curiosity. It’s defense: “This isn’t as good as MY work” or “AI can’t understand the nuance.”
The path forward you outline (ruthless integration, becoming the cyborg) is right. But in practice, I’m finding most people don’t know what differentiation looks like when all the execution disappears. They’ve spent careers in execution mode.
The real question they’re avoiding: what would I do with my time if all this execution work vanished?
Curious how you help business owners identify their actual differentiation beyond tenure and credentials?
Zain, appreciate the enthusiastic perspective and share. For teams, and inside established orgs, I think the change management and time allocation question has to be focused and answered relative to new capacities and business or technical know-how that the company would like to optimize against.
It’s not so much about doing more of the current responsibilities…it’s about what is new or additional that I can learn to become an integral contributor around.
Would love to chat more. Drop me a message.
And thanks again for the support!
- j -
John, this is an uncomfortable autopsy. You’ve made it clear that AI didn't 'murder' the internet; it just supplied the shovel for our own race to the bottom. We mistook Velocity (how fast we can ship) for Veracity (whether it’s worth reading).
AI raises the floor of competence but lowers the ceiling of genius because it fundamentally averages data. By removing the human friction—the struggle where 'greatness' actually happens—we are voluntarily flattening our own variance.
While I agree this is a failure of will, isn't it also a failure of market incentives? We are seeing Gresham’s Law of Content: 'Cheap, infinite AI slop drives out expensive, scarce Human insight.'
The strategic question for us as Operators isn't just 'How do we stop being lazy?' but 'How do we signal the Human Premium so effectively that the market pays for the difference?'
The argument that AI isn’t stealing value so much as exposing how much of our work was protected by friction feels uncomfortably true
Great read! And I agree a lot of people out here sound an awful lot like my toddler.
Definitely is time to be bold and creative and embrace AI as a tool that can help us solve problems
Indeed and that's the great value of AI at collective level. It raises the bar. But at individual level not everyone is Picasso or Olympic level athlete. Unfortunately or fortunately mediocrity - which is a synonym for average - still pays the bill. So not easy to jump on the train for most people and I empathize with the situation
So good, every bit of this! Thank you
It's almost as if I now have a word, "AI-ish" for anything I find too formulaic and not as engaging. Some food for thought here on how to leverage AI. I like the idea of using it as a forcing function than anything else!