Got to ask this question

"Humans should collaborate with AI" Sure - sounds noble. Rational. Progressive. Until you realise... In most companies this translates to: let go of 50% of the team, and then ask the rest to collaborate with the system that replaced the 50% in the first place.

It's easy to romanticize AI when you're building it. Much harder when you're reporting to it. The real conversation isn't - Humans VS or WITH AI It's all about.. Are we designing systems where people learn to do more? Or are we designing systems where people are just teaching machines to do their job - until they're no longer needed?

Remember how they call it - "future-proofing the org" The org is future-proof. You (as an employee) aren't. You are just the bridge. So ask again.. Who holds the power when that collaboration begins? The algo that scales at zero marginal cost? Or the human who just trained it for free?

Collaboration should elevate both. Not erase one. And yet here we are. Short-term orgs optimizing everything: Speed, output, cost, margins

But then .. a new league of orgs will focus on.. What is SACRED here? What must stay human - even if the machine can do it? Again.. not selling you out on Judgment. Empathy. Context. Conviction We dont know most of that shit.. When an algo crunches 20 million data sets in 10 minutes.. referencing past, current behavior across internal and external benchmarks while reading data across 19 of your enterprise systems.. who do you think will beat you to it?

So then let me ask again.. 1/ What is SACRED here? What must stay human - even if the machine can do it? 2/ Who holds the power when that collaboration begins?