Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

Wrong formula. Confident delivery. And when I objected, a calm reframe that maybe I was the problem. The AI is in its situationship era and I walked right into it.

Summarising historical information based on meeting material and minutes and then concluding what decision was made in a meeting happening 2.weeks into the future and when challenged providing arguments as to why it would be the right decision. Not that it was predicting decisions in the future. Use AI but don't blindly rely on it....its good but not yet excellent.

AI can reduce the time spent finding information. Deciding what to trust remains a human responsibility.

The thing isn't that AI gets things wrong occasionally, it's that it can sound equally convincing when it's right or wrong.

AI has mastered one very human trait: refusing to admit it doesn't know. 😄 The best results still come when confidence is paired with verification. "Trust, but verify" remains a surprisingly effective AI strategy.

Which is why it should only be a tool, and not a sole source of reliance. AI, when used incorrectly, will cause mayhem....and already has to be fair, let alone weaken cognitive ability and capacity. I use AI, yes... I would be a fool not to. It’s a fabulous tool, but being aware of the limitations is a must.

I have to say: AI makes me often feel "very smart". Especially when it acknowledges an error in its own 'reasoning' and I point it out to it. 🤣On the other hand: these 'answers' keep making me stay awake and remind me to never ever trust the AI answer without checking it yourself. Does it sound logic? Is it logic?

I believe this is misplacing AI skepticism. pretty soon, there will be no discernible distinction between human advice and AI's. a more current frontier for skepticism is the efficiency (or lack of thereof) of AI output. it's becoming obvious that the current output is just too expensive to sustain. but that barrier too is likely to fall. when it falls, accountability (and liability) will be at the center stage of our troubled relationship with the algorithm. but this also will eventually be solved. what will never be solved is the human element, the sharing of human experience. there is where my most permanent AI skepticism lies, and I don't see it ever going away.

Too real. AI can be wrong with the confidence of a senior consultant and then gently suggest you drink water about it. Still useful, but definitely not something to trust without verification.

The confidence point is very recognisable, and it raises something I keep coming back to in my own use of AI. What looks like confidence is not really confidence in the human sense. The model is producing an answer through a mathematical/probabilistic process, not weighing doubt or certainty as a person might. That is why fluency can be so misleading: we can mistake it for judgement, and certainty for truth. Verification matters; so does resisting the temptation to anthropomorphise what the system is doing.

AI is always 1 step ahead... may not be in the right direction though

The best leaders right now are the ones who've made "cite your source and show your reasoning" a team norm that applies equally to humans and AI outputs

Something about the way AI never says "actually, on reflection" makes the humans around it more responsible for building that reflection step into the process

This is exactly why AI won’t replace human judgment anytime soon. It can process patterns insanely fast, but it still lacks something very human like situational instinct. A bear charging at you is not the moment for “balanced emotional guidance.” It’s the moment for survival-driven clarity. The danger isn’t AI being wrong but humans are wrong too. The danger is how confidently and fluently it can sound right while missing context completely.

Always friendly answers, but not always what you need in the specific context. AI is just learning now, to understand your spatial environment. This is an important part and will change when we have glasses.