When the topic of AI comes up in conversation, and I share that I’d rather not use it, I almost always get the same response:
“Yeah, but if you don’t embrace AI, you’ll get left behind”
or the other one….
“You won’t lose your job to AI; you’ll lose it to someone using AI”.
Initially, I found these arguments difficult to disagree with. Of course, I wasn’t happy about the reality because of the many ethical issues I have with AI, but I myself also struggled to see any other reality, especially in the context of my career.
But after hearing this argument said in a million different ways over the past couple of years, I’ve had ample opportunity to sit and question what these statements actually mean, and more importantly, what they’re leaving out.
AI isn’t an added skill
The “you’ll get left behind” argument presents AI as an upskill, something new to add to your CV. But when you outsource your analysing, researching, strategising, reviewing, and decision-making to AI, you aren’t adding a skill; but giving up the practice of several.
Use it, or lose it
Skill decay is the gradual decline in your ability to perform a task or skill when you no longer practise it regularly.
We’ve seen this already. People who have used GPS for years now struggle to navigate without it. A study found that doctors using AI to identify early signs of cancer became less effective at detecting those signs without AI, and further research shows an association between heavy AI use and lower critical-thinking performance.
In summary, the more we outsource cognitive tasks, the less opportunity we give ourselves to exercise and maintain that ability.
So why do we still think AI use is an upskill? Why don’t we care about our ability to do those tasks independently?
Is it really a fair trade?
Where will they learn to think?
I spent over a decade of my career without AI. That experience and knowledge are what allow me to look at AI-generated output and determine whether or not it makes any sense, whether it’s factually and logically correct, and whether it actually meets the objective.
Ask AI a complex question in a field you know nothing about, and you’ll get a fluent, authoritative response. It sounds good, so you accept it as true. But show that answer to a specialist in that field, and they would find errors, inaccuracies, and flawed assumptions you missed - because you lack the knowledge and experience needed to judge the output.
Now think about graduates. People are walking straight into jobs where they’re expected to use AI for almost every aspect of the workflow, before they’ve built that foundational judgement for themselves.
If these formative tasks are outsourced to AI, where does that leave the next generation of the workforce? How will they ever develop that judgement if there’s no forum for them to exercise it?
Real skills matter more
This is why I believe the “left behind” narrative has it backwards.
Learning to write prompts takes weeks. Building real judgement and expertise takes years. And as more of the workforce depletes their skills in the pursuit of AI proficiency, real skills will become scarce, and subsequently more valuable.
What about calculators?
When I was at school learning maths, I’d often complain that I couldn’t see the point, because I could just use a calculator. Teachers would come back and say, “Well, what happens when you don’t have one with you?”.
The same argument is now being used for AI. Why does it matter if I lose my skills? We have AI and Google. We have unlimited information whenever we need it.
But as I’ve said in blog posts here before, there’s a difference between having access to knowledge and actually possessing it.
We tell ourselves that having a phone in our pocket and access to the internet means we know everything, but it’s not owned; it’s rented by a third party that controls the price, terms, and availability. The knowledge itself isn’t embodied or practised, but borrowed. When the phone is gone, the internet is unavailable, and the service changes its terms…
What happens when you need to think for yourself?
For businesses, there’s a more significant risk. If your entire workflow depends on AI, what happens when the costs increase, or the technology becomes unavailable? And if your whole workforce has become dependent on prompting rather than developing the underlying skills, what then?
Final thoughts
So, next time you hear this argument…or feel the urge to say it yourself… instead of asking whether we’ll get left behind if we don’t use AI, maybe question what we’ll leave behind if we do. And whether we think that trade-off is truly worth it.
Laura xx
Let’s keep talking!
This post is part of my ongoing exploration into AI and technology, and its impact on the human experience.
If you enjoyed this post and want to read more, you can join the Cozy Life Diary community, and as a thank-you, you’ll receive my free printable guide: 50 Offline Hobbies - a collection of hobbies and activities to help reclaim your attention and reconnect with the real life.
