In military terms this is fighting for information reconnaissance .
Or movement to contact.
=====
Are you quite sure the learning boundary can even be respected unless learn by trial and error?
The evil flip-sides being ;
1) competence lost . Much knowledge has already been lost in the “upgrade” to new technologies. Seen it.
2) I have yet to see the tool managed competently by an incompetent. If you can’t fly an aircraft or navigate on the ground with a map… the latter will get lost, the former flies her helicopter into a passenger jet.
Almost all firms will learn the hard way through trial and error.
I've seen evidence of knowledge loss in offshoring and outsourcing throughout my work life.
You won't be able to design the end-to-end agentic AI workflows and have it run smoothly if the requisite institutional knowledge was made redundant 10 years ago.
The AI evals you write won't be at the level required to win. If firms are outsourcing/offshoring this sort of work, they're doomed.
To win in this era, executives need to "do the work" and get on the tools themselves to hold their project leaders accountable.
That's unlikely to happen, so I guess many incompetent executives and board directors will be exposed over the next few years.
You can see the press release / PR spin vibes with many AI initiative announcements - these are not "serious people"...yet they are sitting in the hot seat.
Such a sharp articulation of what many are sensing but haven’t quite framed yet. I’ve been writing about a similar shift, especially how curiosity, psychological safety, and emotional alignment are now prerequisites for real transformation. What this framework surfaces so well is that AI pressure doesn’t just expose technical gaps, it reveals foundational incoherence. That’s where the real work begins.
Thanks. I've been doing a lot of research and reflection on this and have noticed that more and more "things" will have to be entirely redesigned or reimagined. I initially treated AI as "just another technology," but it's clear, as you mention, that a lot more real work is needed upfront, or nothing will work properly.
Thank you for reading and writing comment. I am exploring this field more and will continue writing about it. If you have findings or aome thoughts I will be happy to hear
it's called institutional inertia - certain 'group ideas' are so heavy and cumbersome; so many pensions and benefits depend on that 'institutional inertia' - laziness and status;
In military terms this is fighting for information reconnaissance .
Or movement to contact.
=====
Are you quite sure the learning boundary can even be respected unless learn by trial and error?
The evil flip-sides being ;
1) competence lost . Much knowledge has already been lost in the “upgrade” to new technologies. Seen it.
2) I have yet to see the tool managed competently by an incompetent. If you can’t fly an aircraft or navigate on the ground with a map… the latter will get lost, the former flies her helicopter into a passenger jet.
Almost all firms will learn the hard way through trial and error.
I've seen evidence of knowledge loss in offshoring and outsourcing throughout my work life.
You won't be able to design the end-to-end agentic AI workflows and have it run smoothly if the requisite institutional knowledge was made redundant 10 years ago.
The AI evals you write won't be at the level required to win. If firms are outsourcing/offshoring this sort of work, they're doomed.
To win in this era, executives need to "do the work" and get on the tools themselves to hold their project leaders accountable.
That's unlikely to happen, so I guess many incompetent executives and board directors will be exposed over the next few years.
You can see the press release / PR spin vibes with many AI initiative announcements - these are not "serious people"...yet they are sitting in the hot seat.
Such a sharp articulation of what many are sensing but haven’t quite framed yet. I’ve been writing about a similar shift, especially how curiosity, psychological safety, and emotional alignment are now prerequisites for real transformation. What this framework surfaces so well is that AI pressure doesn’t just expose technical gaps, it reveals foundational incoherence. That’s where the real work begins.
Thanks. I've been doing a lot of research and reflection on this and have noticed that more and more "things" will have to be entirely redesigned or reimagined. I initially treated AI as "just another technology," but it's clear, as you mention, that a lot more real work is needed upfront, or nothing will work properly.
Thank you for reading and writing comment. I am exploring this field more and will continue writing about it. If you have findings or aome thoughts I will be happy to hear
it's called institutional inertia - certain 'group ideas' are so heavy and cumbersome; so many pensions and benefits depend on that 'institutional inertia' - laziness and status;
The inertia is definitely a worry