Tag Archives: insight

AI Insights

Leave a reply

I recently got some insight on my AI insights from an AI.

I decided to ask ChatGPT:

I’ve written a fair bit about AI, see tags: https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/artificial-intelligence/
and https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/ai/, please share with me:
1. What is a prediction I most likely will get right.
2. Where am I missing the mark?
3. What’s the most uniquely insightful idea that I’ve shared? 

Here is ChatGPT‘S response… and I find it quite insightful:

I enjoyed thinking about this because your AI writing has a recognizable worldview. It isn’t a collection of disconnected opinions—there are a handful of core principles that recur across many posts. 

What follows isn’t a prediction of whether you’ll be “right” or “wrong.” It’s my best assessment of which ideas I think are most robust, and where I think your model of the future could be incomplete.

1. The prediction you’re most likely to get right

Your prediction that AI’s greatest near-term impact will come from amplifying ordinary people—not from becoming an autonomous supervillain.

This idea appears repeatedly in your writing.

Rather than worrying primarily about “AI takes over the world,” you focus on AI enabling:

  • bioterrorism,
  • industrial-scale scams,
  • personalized fraud,
  • cybercrime,
  • misinformation,
  • one malicious individual having disproportionate power.

I think history is already bending in your direction.

Technology almost always scales existing human intent before it replaces humans.

The printing press spread propaganda before democracy.
The internet scaled fraud before education.
Social media amplified outrage before civic engagement.

I suspect AI will follow the same pattern.

I think twenty years from now people may look back and realize that “AI as force multiplier for humans” was a more important story than “AI replacing humans.”

That feels like one of your strongest forecasts. 

2. Where I think you’re missing the mark

Interestingly, I don’t think you’re too pessimistic.

I think you’re not pessimistic enough about adaptation.

Your writing often assumes exponential technological improvement translates fairly directly into exponential societal disruption.

Technology often is exponential.

Institutions rarely are.

People aren’t either.

For example:

Autonomous driving may become technically solved long before regulators, insurers, unions, municipalities, and consumers allow full replacement.

Likewise, AI lawyers, teachers, doctors and programmers may become technically capable years before society reorganizes around that capability.

You’ve written about the “frog in the pot.”

I wonder if there’s another metaphor:

society as a giant flywheel.

The flywheel eventually turns—but much more slowly than the engine powering it.

A second place I think you’re underestimating something:

Humans don’t optimize as much as economists think they do.

Many of your work-related predictions assume organizations will aggressively replace humans because it’s economically rational.

Sometimes they will.

But humans also buy:

  • trust,
  • relationships,
  • status,
  • ritual,
  • authenticity.

Coffee shops still exist despite home espresso machines.

Live concerts thrive despite Spotify.

Teachers continue to matter despite YouTube.

I think there will be more “human luxury markets” than your writing currently anticipates.

Ironically, AI may increase the value of demonstrably human experiences.

3. The most uniquely insightful idea you’ve shared

This one surprised me.

I don’t think it’s UCI over UBI.

I don’t think it’s AI risk.

I don’t even think it’s “This is the worst AI it will ever be.”

Those are all interesting.

The idea I keep coming back to is this:

Students choose. AI delivers.

It’s deceptively simple.

But it’s actually a profound inversion of how educators have framed educational technology for decades.

Most discussions ask:

“What should teachers do?”

Your framing asks:

“What kind of learner will this student choose to become?”

That’s a much deeper question.

Because AI is fundamentally an amplifier.

It amplifies curiosity.

It amplifies laziness.

It amplifies expertise.

It amplifies ignorance.

The technology isn’t making the decision.

The learner is.

I think that’s an idea with legs well beyond education.

You could almost generalize it into a broader principle:

Humans choose. AI delivers.

That might become one of the defining philosophical ideas of the AI era.

It explains why the same technology can simultaneously create brilliant research, convincing fraud, deeper learning, and effortless cheating.

It’s a remarkably compact framework. 

One more observation

Reading a large cross-section of your AI posts, I noticed something that I hadn’t fully appreciated before.

You’re not really writing about AI.

You’re writing about human agency in an AI world.

The recurring characters in your essays aren’t GPT, robots, or neural networks.

They’re:

  • the student deciding whether to think,
  • the teacher deciding what to assess,
  • the scammer deciding whom to target,
  • the policymaker deciding what to regulate,
  • the employer deciding what work is worth paying for.

AI is almost always the catalyst, not the protagonist.

I actually think that’s the thread you could develop even more.

Many writers ask, “What will AI become?”

Your more distinctive question is:

“What kinds of people will AI encourage us to become?”

I think that’s your most original contribution—not because nobody else has ever asked it, but because it’s the lens that quietly ties together almost everything you’ve written on the subject. It’s a more enduring question than whether a particular model reaches AGI in 2028 or 2032, because it remains relevant regardless of how quickly the technology advances.

The life you want…

Leave a reply

I’m a fan of the comedian Jimmy Carr. I wasn’t really a fan until I heard him interviewed on the Diary of a CEO podcast and realized how insightful he is. He often shares his insights when he’s doing crowd work.

Tonight I saw a clip from his act and he said something quite profound. I don’t think it’s his original quote, I’ve heard variations of it before, but I like his version of the quote:

“The life you want is on the other side of the work you are avoiding.”

I spent a lot of years being a master procrastinator. I thrive on deadlines. I’ll meet them, I’ll do a good job. But I’ll stress the crap out of you if you are new to my last minute style. That’s not bragging, that’s not a superpower, that’s a coping strategy.

It’s also not the life I want. The problem is that my procrastination time is not always productive. My work avoidance leading up to an impending deadline is seldom time well spent.

Parkinson’s Law states that work will expand so as to fill the time available for its completion. Give me more time, I’ll fill it, but you won’t necessarily get a better result.

That said, time and again I’d get praise for the work I’ve done. But this quote is kind of a gut punch. It reminds me of all the things I’ve wanted to do, but avoided because I didn’t create the deadline and pressure to get things done.

To remedy this, I often share my goals publicly. This is how I hold myself accountable, how I stop avoiding the work I need to do. I announce my plans, share them widely, then I stop avoiding the work because I feel pressured to keep my word… and when I do this, I’m very effective.

I’ve been exercising regularly for years after putting it out into the world. I’ve written on this blog almost every day, minus a couple social media blackouts, since July 2019. I can commit to the life I want. I know I can. But that doesn’t mean that this quote doesn’t still hit me.

I know there are things I still avoid that I shouldn’t. I know there are times in my day and week that are very poorly used. As I head into retirement, I’m keenly aware that I’m going to have more time on my hands than I have had in the past. Am I going to fill that time unproductively, doing not much more than normal, with more procrastination time?

I’d like to think not.

I’m heading on holidays for a bit, but when I return, expect me to share some new goals… with deadlines.

The Wisdom Gap

Leave a reply

It’s easy to espouse and share wise words. It’s much harder to empathetically and meaningfully live by those words.

The gap between saying and sharing insightful thoughts and actuality representing those thoughts with meaningful action is what really matters.

Empty words or words demonstrated? Vapid ideas or insightful endeavours? Wisdom in platitudes or wisdom fully expressed in a measurable way?

How big is the gap?

It’s easy to say the right thing, it’s only when we do what’s right that we truly show how wise we are.

Accept and place

Leave a reply

I heard this phrase and it really struck a chord with me:

“Accept people as they are, but place them where they belong.”

There are 2 really big ideas here.

First, we are often quick to want people to change, and the disparity between who people are and who we want people to become is often too large of a gap. Step one is accepting people for who they are.

The next step is a bit more challenging. We often spend way too much time on people that are not worth our time. We don’t ‘put people where they belong’. We take amazing people for granted and we focus too much attention on people who aren’t worth our time.

The task sounds simple: accept people for who they are, then place them in your life accordingly.

There are people who would do anything in the world for you. And people who you in turn would do anything for. When that’s the same person, well then you need to prioritize your connection to that person. They deserve a special place in your heart and in your life. They deserve your attention and time. Not the person that cut you off in traffic, not the annoying co-worker, not the friend in need that is never there when you are in need.

“Accept people as they are, but place them where they belong.”

Wise words to live by.

The ego and the way

Leave a reply

Intelligence is blind to ignorance. While it is true that the smarter you get, the more likely you are to realize how little you know; It is also true that the smarter you get, the less likely you are to listen to opinions and ideas which you do not agree with. You easily dismiss opposing views, you do not challenge the ideas as much as you challenge the intelligence of those that share them.

Imagine an upside down bell curve. On the X-axis is level of intelligence, on the Y-axis is knowledge of your intelligence.

I think both extremely intelligent and unintelligent people are aware of where they are on the scale, but most people are in the middle. They are somewhat intelligent, and yet blissfully unaware of where they are on the scale. They don’t know what they don’t know, and so they think they are more intelligent than they are. Their knowledge of their intelligence does not match their actual intelligence. I think here, where most people live on the scale, their egos get in the way. Not too many people think, “I am dumber than most people think,” while many would consider, “I’m smarter than people give me credit for.”

And so most people in the world think they are smarter than they are. For that reason, their political, scientific, economic, technical, social, and cultural perspectives are ‘correct’. For the same egotistical reasons, the views of others that oppose them are perceived as less intelligent. I fear that sometimes I too may be guilty here.

And so we live in a world we’re people are egotistically unaware of their lack of intelligence. Crazy conspiracies fool them. Legitimate conspiracies are dismissed. Intelligent sounding pseudoscience convinces them while counterintuitive facts and evidence get easily dismissed. They are smart enough to think they are smart, while scoring high enough on the Dunning-Kruger scale to be easily fooled. Smart enough to do their own research, but not intelligent enough to evaluate that research with intellectual rigour.

And so egos grow with intelligence, and in turn intelligence wanes when the ego interferes with the wisdom that should come with intelligence. Meanwhile, the best and the brightest, the ones who are truly both intelligent and wise, they know just how little they still know. They give up trying to convince the ones who let ego cloud intelligence.

They find themselves lonely, uninterested in bickering over opinions that dismiss and alter facts to win petty arguments. They are labeled as the crazy ones. Their wisdom ignored; they are helpless to bypass the egos and support intelligent growth. Because for most of the world the ego gets in the way.

Visually acclimatized

I’m sitting in my basement and on the floor in front of me is a framed painting that should be on the wall. It’s one of a pair that used to side-by-side, but they need a couple Velcro strips to get them aligned. Unfortunately the strip unstuck from the one that’s currently on the floor, and I removed it because it looked way too crooked on the wall.

It’s an easy fix, but I haven’t done it yet. It’s interesting that although I’m downstairs a lot, before looking at the painting on the floor just now, I’ve barely noticed the fact that it’s on the floor and missing from next to the matching frame on the wall.

How many things are like that for us? Items sitting inconspicuously in the absolutely wrong spot but we are visually acclimatized to where they sit? We go about our day ignoring the fact that items have a new home in a location they shouldn’t have?

I wonder if that’s the same for our brains and the way we think about things?

Hindsight is 10/20

When we look back at things in our past, we really don’t see things 20/20. There is no perfect memory, no perfect reflection on things long past. We don’t have 20/20 hindsight vision, it’s more like 10/20.

You remember that amazing moment that you cherish? …You probably don’t remember the struggle to get you there.

You remember that infuriating exchange with someone? …You probably don’t remember the insight you gained, or how you changed your behavior for the better afterwards.

We recall special memories, (hopefully far more good ones than bad ones)… the stories we tell and retell with nostalgia, held up as if they are 100% true. Perfect reflections of what actually happened. But each of these memories are tempered with emotions that require our memories to fit the story we want to tell.

Our we making them up? Yes and no. No we aren’t fabricating them with an intent to misconstrue what actually happened. But yes, we are making them up because we are only choosing to tell the part of the story that fits the narrative.

Hindsight is far from perfect. It’s just us highlighting the parts of our lives that give us meaning and purpose. If it was 20/20 we wouldn’t hold on to the memories the way we do. We need to cloud our vision of past events to make them worth keeping.

Naturally Funny

I mentioned yesterday that I was introducing one of our Principal retirees at a dinner last night. It was about a 4-minute bit, and it went well. I know my friend appreciated it. It was heartfelt and struck a good cord with him and his family. I knew it would because I know him well enough to get it right.

What it wasn’t was funny. I have a good enough sense of humour with family and friends but I’m not naturally funny. The introduction before mine was absolutely hilarious. It wasn’t only funny, it was completely respectful and relevant to the person he was introducing. It was absolutely delightful to listen to.

I love how some people are naturally funny. It’s a gift. If I tried to pull off half of the things that were said in this humorous introduction, they really would not have worked in the same way. But also, if that’s what my friend wanted, he wouldn’t have asked me.

I don’t know if it’s a natural gift or if people genuinely work at it, but I love listening to someone who can get a whole crowd laughing. What I do know is that’s not me. I’ll throw a one liner in here are there but I fully recognize that I’m not naturally funny, and I stay in my lane and don’t try to be. Just like watching a natural entertainer is enjoyable, watching someone try to be when they are not is painful. I’ll leave the jokes to those who know how to deliver them… and get the laughs.

Rhyme (and) reason

Sometimes something happens without rhyme or reason, with no logical reason for it to happen. Other times it is abundantly clear… to some people but not to others. So while an observer can see and make connections between events or experiences, the person in the situation believes there is no rhyme or reason, no connections at all. I witnessed this first hand in a conversation recently.

I was talking to someone who was very upset with the behaviors of another person. Why couldn’t this other person understand how to help themselves? Why did this other person not do what needed to be done? There was much frustration because this other person wouldn’t respond well to feedback. Then the person I was talking to shared a personal struggle, and it was abundantly clear to me that the rhyme and reason for their struggle was identical for them as it was for this other person. The situation was completely different, but the points of struggle were the same.

Isn’t that fascinating how we can see and be frustrated with the challenges we see others struggle with, and yet be blind to how we struggle in similar way? Simultaneously asking ‘Why can’t this other person see what needs to be done’, while being oblivious to the fact that we struggle in the same way in other areas of our own lives. Maybe I’m being unfair in saying they are oblivious? Maybe the frustration they see in themselves is precisely why there is frustration in the other person.

‘I hate seeing this other person struggle, because in this other person I see the thing I least like about myself.’

I saw the rhyme and reason. But that doesn’t mean I handled it well. On the contrary, and upon reflection, I could have navigated the conversation much better. I realize this only after the fact. The person I was talking to knew the other person wouldn’t respond well to feedback because they knew they wouldn’t. When I saw the connection, the parallel relationship, I should have realized the it was the wrong time for me to offer feedback. It wouldn’t be well received… it wasn’t well received. The pattern was there for me to see, but I missed it.

We don’t always see the rhyme and reason for why we do what we do. But maybe it’s easier to see this in other people… maybe we project our own insecurities and frustrations on others because we struggle ourselves. The very reason it bugs us in others is because it bugs us in us. But even knowing this, it hurts to hear it.

Changing Our Opinions…

I recently wrote Certainty Versus Evidence, and concluded with, “Seek out wise people who are smart enough to be humble, and uncertain, and as curious as you are… And don’t let yourself get stuck in concrete thinking.”

It really comes down to the idea that we need to be willing to change our opinions and our point of view when more information comes our way.

This means:

  • We need to respectfully listen to alternative points of view.
  • We need to ask clarifying questions.
  • We need to challenge our own assumptions.
  • We need to be humble enough to recognize that we don’t know everything.
  • We need to keep learning.

It always surprises me the that changing of one’s opinion is seen as weak. To me it’s a sign of strength. Openly admitting that you’ve changed your mind based on new evidence is a superpower. It means you don’t have a fixed mindset.

The difference between this and being gullible is that you aren’t easily persuaded, but rather data driven. You aren’t blindly believing new information, you are discerning, measuring, calculating, and being inquisitive.

We aren’t having our minds changed, we are changing our minds.

It’s not hard to do this when your new opinion fits with the views of those around you, but if that’s not the case, a simple change of opinion could be very challenging. I think both Copernicus and Galileo would agree with me.

It’s a big step to openly change your mind on a challenging topic. It takes strength of mind and will to do so, and it is a sign that you are willing to learn and grow. Certainty is the enemy of understanding, compassion, and growth. Ultimately if we are willing to change our opinions, we are willing to change and grow.