Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Most founders frame this as an AI capability discussion. It's actually a system governance layer problem. In my audits of B2B SMBs implementing AI, I consistently find a Growth Ceiling where the deployed AI tool exacerbates existing Operational Waste, costing around $10K-$30K per month in lost efficiency and re-work. The mechanism is simple: AI amplifies existing decision architecture flaws; without clear human governance over data input and output interpretation, the system automates and scales previous human biases or inefficiencies. This creates a Brand Contradiction when the AI-driven output doesn't align with the promised value, leading to customer churn in 8-12% of cases I've tracked. The problem isn't the AI's intelligence; it's the lack of friction-as-design in the human-AI loop. What's scaling isn't intelligence. It’s unexamined structural leakage.

“not a handbook of rigid rules, but rather “a process of shared discernment” this is how I see principled governance especially board governance. And you are right, a document like this needs reflection.

Paolo Spada I’m also using Class Companion to generate a revision trail showing how texts were constructed over multiple submissions. Its feedback is immediate and the majority of students seem to be very much in favour of writing with it. I’m currently developing a new version of an academic writing course that is tailored to the situation in my university, and integrates AI as a tool for students to interrogate and improve on. We hope to publish it as an OER soon

Exactly, Jeremiah. Isolated layers can’t deliver the full value of enterprise AI.

It is the responsibility of all governments in the world to NOW care for their people to not get left behind in the AI revolution coming to all of us - by caring for maximizing equality of wealth coming from the unprecedented innovations ahead of us. If they don't, this wave will erase the wealth of the many and it will let explode the wealth of the few to incredible heights. Sadly, I do not see governments act appropriately yet, as if they did not yet get it at all. So in result of this, there will be a very hard phase for the many until the corrections have been made. Better to act now! Think about what you vote for!

Helen Shaw in my class in which I have added it as a requirement 70% did it. I assume some asked AI to do it and then among them the smart ones cross-check well by reading the paper. But given the level of concept stretching I feel that 30% only did a mechanical check, they just searched the pdf for the existence of the word in the page, ending up with superficially correct references. The smartest one probably realised that is faster to do the check manually because doing the cross-checking well takes as much time as reading, or maybe hybrid, use AI, but then read. In the dissertation only the few students that took my class added pages everywhere, because the university asks for Harvard that does not have page references for indirect references.

Well said, Dr. Jessica. System design matters far more than individual capabilities alone.

Six years in HR and the pattern was remarkably consistent. The people who got promoted weren't always the most technically skilled. They were the ones who could read a room, handle a difficult conversation without making it worse, and own a mistake without making everyone around them feel the need to manage their reaction to it. Number three on this list — pause before reacting — is the one that separated the high performers from the high maintenance. Emotions are just information is one of the most useful reframes I've ever come across. The people who internalized that stopped being reactive and started being effective.

Right, Susan. Fragmented systems struggle because the layers aren’t aligned properly.

EQ is not what you say about yourself. It shows up in how people feel after dealing with you. If your team feels tense, something in your control is still off.

Michelle Kassorla, Ph.D. "My experience is a literature professor: this was happening, Long before AI." Yes. In fact, I am becoming convinced that AI has not created a single new problem for education. It has exposed a large number of problems which already existed, but had been successfully hidden from sight.

EQ gets talked about like a buzzword, but in real work it’s just how you show up when things get messy

I think it is an excellent paper and I agree with it entirely. I believe that coherence as a species is fundamental before we go much further with AI. If we zoom out (and zoom in) we are the only incoherent system operating in the observable universe. So, how can we construct artificial coherence when we haven't even fixed the root cause in ourselves first?

Clara Hawking Totally. AI literacy is not just teaching how to prompt, which is often the miss conception, but as you said, understanding when to use or not AI and understand how the outputs are created. I deeply feel that with better AI literacy, moving from the fear monger or AI hype, just the in between is what will make "humanity" or shall I say "society" better face this revolution.

I like to hear voices asking what kind of humans we are becoming, not just what kind of tools we are building.

EQ is such an underrated skill. Technical skills may open doors, but emotional intelligence is what helps people build trust, lead well, and grow long-term.

Definitely, strong models alone can’t compensate for weak architecture and governance, Michelle.

Most successful leaders are experts in emotional intelligence and must be very good at people management. These are helpful tips, Justin Wright

Clara Hawking — Clara — your framing of governance as "a process of shared discernment" is the line I will carry from your reflection. It reframes everything. You are right to call out the speed of confident summaries. I read it on the day — Bank Holiday Monday, hottest May day in British history, dog on the balcony — and I was honest with myself: this is a first read, not a deep read. What I could do was notice what resonated. Three things did, immediately and deeply: that AI is not morally neutral, that a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few, and that someone must always be answerable — an algorithm cannot be. Pope Leo XIV opened his encyclical with a question: are we building a new Tower of Babel, or a city where humanity can flourish together? I think that question deserves a serious answer — not from theologians alone, but from every engineer, every executive, and every board that is currently making decisions about how AI enters their organisation. Thank you for modelling what slow, serious reading looks like. I will be coming back to your reflections as mine deepen too. Magnifica Humanitas is worth reading. Whatever your faith, philosophy or practice.

Beautifully said. The point about slow reading feels essential. A document concerned with AI, truth, education, freedom, work, and social cohesion should not be metabolized at the speed of the feed. What resonates most is the framing of governance not as a static checklist, but as a process of shared discernment. That may be exactly what AI governance now requires: not only rules for systems, but institutions capable of helping us remain human while those systems reshape the conditions around us.