I leverage a variety of AI tools, predominantly LLMs, constantly throughout the day. As I look at how I use the tools and how many in selling and business leadership use these same tools, I’m starting to see sharp contrasts with the way too many others are using them.
There are many using these tools as “thought partners.” They use the tools to evaluate/debate strategies, model different competitive scenarios, challenge assumptions they may be making about certain opportunities. As I look at their prompts, I see fascinating questions, challenges, and a give and take. And they use these exchanges, less to give them the answers or do the work, but to help clarify their thinking. But they generate their own POVs and action plans based on what they have learned in the exchanges.
There are others, I suspect the majority, leverage these tools to do the work and thinking for them. Whether it’s writing an email, scripting a call plan, creating social posts/responses, blindly responding to queries, they are engaging the LLMs to do the work and “thinking.” for them.
Both groups are using the very same tools, for very different purposes and outcomes.
How we leverage these tools have dramatic implications for our organizational intellectual capital, our own growth/innovation strategies, our ability to create differentiated value with our customers, and our competitive edge. The question is, “Are we using the tools to enhance our strategic and tactical competitiveness, or are we, unwittingly using them to erode these capabilities?
What is the cost of this “cognitive outsourcing?”
Where one of the greatest values we create, both within our own organizations and with customers is our creativity and critical thinking, there is an emerging trend of outsourcing these to these AI/LLM tools. We are having them do our thinking for us.
Recent Microsoft research is showing that people relying heavily on these tools, for these purposes, experience decreased critical thinking.
Quantitatively, when considering both task- and user-specific factors, a user’s task-specific self-confidence and confidence in GenAI are predictive of whether critical thinking is enacted and the effort of doing so in GenAI-assisted tasks. Specifically, higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking. Qualitatively, GenAI shifts the nature of critical thinking toward information verification, response integration, and task stewardship. Our insights reveal new design challenges and opportunities for developing GenAI tools for knowledge work.
Stated more plainly, we run the risk of reducing our confidence and capabilities to do the things most important in driving our own organizational strategies, and in creating value with our customers.
We have a dilemma. These tools offer such great power in complementing and enhancing our cognitive skills when used well. Or they can have exactly the opposite effect. What do we do?
I’m not sure I have the answers, but perhaps some ideas to start:
- Practice LLM skepticism: Having a healthy skepticism of the “answers” we get–not just looking for outright lies or hallucinations. Constantly questioning and debating the responses, looking less for the answers provided, but for how it provokes your own thinking.
- Teaching strategic LLM prompting: In many of our workshops, we provide assignments, expecting them to use the LLMs. In debriefing the assignments, we care less about the answers the participants get, focusing more on the prompting strategies they use to get the answers.
- Build training programs around curiosity, critical thinking, collaborative conversations, and problem solving. Just like we go to the gym to build muscle, build the skills and confidence for people to think for themselves.
- Focus on the things the LLMs and AI can’t do, building our skills and expertise in those areas, then complementing it with those things these tools do very well.
The more we use these tools to do the work and thinking for us, the faster we lose our ability to exercise human judgment, creativity, critical thinking, and collaborative problem solving.
And, as a result, we create less value within our own organizations and with our customers. We lose our competitive edge, our customers will see less need to engage us in working with them.
These tools are very powerful and can amplify our creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving capabilities. Or they allow us to dumb ourselves down. The choice remains in our hands….
Afterword: There is another fascinating article on this: brAIn drAIn. Be sure to read it!
Afterword: This is the AI generated discussion of this article. I was worried about the AI characters discussing themselves on this. It’s actually a fascinating conversation. I loved the way they took the issues I identified, both doing thoughtful discussions and giving great examples. There are areas where I disagreed with some of what they were recommending, but the “thinking” and POV was fascinating. This is really worth listening to! Enjoy!
Leave a Reply