[ednite]

The difference I was trying to highlight isn’t that AI was “right,” but how confidently it answered, and how quickly that persuaded me.

If my wife had made the same arguments in the same polished way, I probably would’ve caved just as fast. But she didn’t, AI did... and what struck me wasn’t the answer, it was how fast my own logic switched off, as if I’d been wrong all along.

That’s what feels new to me, sitting in a meeting for hours while a non-tech person confidently tells execs how “AI will solve everything”, and everyone nods along. The risk isn’t just being wrong, it’s when expertise gets silenced by convincing answers, and stops to ask the right questions.

Again, this is my own reflection and experience, others may not feel this way. Thanks for your comment.

[fragmede]

What was the name? Naming things is highly subjective. In the abstract, sure abdicating responsibility to anyone else in the room, an AI, Google, your partner, the CEO, the investors; someone else having the authority when you're used to it being you stings a little the first time, but you get used to not always being right eventually.

[ednite]

Agreed, creativity is very subjective. My point wasn’t about who was right or wrong. What unsettled me was how, the moment AI gave its opinion, my own questioning and reasoning almost instantly disappeared.

That’s really what the piece was about, how quickly I found myself giving up my own judgment to AI.

[em-bee]

those AI tools are designed to please: if you ask them: is this a good idea? they will always say yes.

what would be better is to ask: give me three good arguments for this, and then: give me three good arguments against this, and finally compare the arguments without asking the AI tool which is better.