Stop Complaining About AI: Focus on What Matters

Every time someone shares a sharp idea or a well-crafted post, there is always that comment , snide, smug, or passive-aggressive , trying to sniff out whether AI was involved.

Ah, the Godwin point of IT: 'Did you write this yourself, or did ChatGPT help?'

As if that is the argument-ender. As if discovering AI involvement somehow disqualifies the thought.

Let us be clear: AI is a tool. Just like a calculator, a search engine, or a pen. One learns to use it. One shapes it to serve thinking. One rides it to go faster and further. Or one lets it take control, and the output becomes shallow, generic, and forgettable.

Here is the uncomfortable truth:

AI sharpens the sharp and exposes the shallow.

Used well, it amplifies vision, sharpens argument, and accelerates clarity. Used poorly, it exposes confusion and hollowness. It is not a shortcut to brilliance. It is a multiplier. If the inputs are weak, the outputs will be faster and louder ... but still weak.

So when someone shares something meaningful, well-structured, and engaging, and the first instinct is to question whether it was AI-assisted, one has already missed the point. It is, in the classic sense, like staring at the finger when someone is pointing at the moon.

This obsession with detecting AI use is rarely intellectual. More often, it is emotional: frustration, fear, defensiveness. The world is moving faster. Others are producing more. Instead of adjusting, some mock. Instead of adapting, they reduce.

Yes, AI can produce junk. So can people. AI can echo platitudes. So can PowerPoint decks. But the real question is not whether AI was used. It is how it was used. Was it guided with intent? Was it shaped by experience? Did it serve something larger than itself?

We do not dismiss a photograph because a digital camera was used. We do not discredit architects for modelling with CAD software. We do not accuse developers of cheating when they use an IDE. The tool is not the problem. Misuse is.

AI does not replace critical thinking. It demands it. It does not create substance. It exposes whether there was any to begin with. It is easy to flood timelines with fluff. It is far harder to direct the tool toward insight.

When someone uses AI well, it shows. There is restraint. Rhythm. Structure. There is evidence of judgment. And that is the point. It is not about automation. It is about amplification.

So before leaping to discredit others' work based on suspected AI involvement, consider this: perhaps the discomfort is not with the tool, but with the pace of change.

Real use cases make the point even sharper. We continuously shape a system thinking model to leverage companies' potential, the Fluid Organisation model, and spend working hours refining intelligent metric systems with AI as a partner. We ask it to challenge OKRs so that they are built in good spirit and anchored in reality.

We accelerate report writing by feeding the right ideas and letting the tool amplify clarity and tone. We even ask for critical feedback to test our framing, stand corrected, and expand our intellectual openness.

It is a time accelerator. In an environment where fragility increases and people are decreasingly engaged and increasingly overloaded, it is a gift to have a sparring partner that can challenge you on conceptual ground.

The instinct to dismiss is not critical thinking, but insecurity in disguise.

Smart people are riding the wave. Some are even shaping it. That option remains open. But it requires effort, humility, and a willingness to learn.

You can get sharper. Or you can keep yelling at the surf.

Your call.

Yes, I used AI to shape this. Because I have better things to do than fight the tide when I can ride it.