The AI conversation in tech feels increasingly polarised.⁣
⁣
One camp believes AI is the end game - that software engineers, analysts, designers, maybe even founders, will soon be optional.⁣
⁣
The other camp dismisses it - citing non-determinism, hallucinations, and the lack of long-term proof.⁣
⁣
Both positions, in my view, are intellectually lazy.⁣
⁣
AI is neither apocalypse nor illusion.⁣
⁣
It is a tool - a powerful one. It accelerates some tasks dramatically. It performs brilliantly in narrow contexts. It is unreliable in others. And like every tool before it, it will evolve.⁣
⁣
History offers perspective.⁣
⁣
When Canva emerged, it didn’t eliminate designers - it expanded the design market. When Figma accelerated collaboration, it didn’t reduce opportunity - it increased the velocity of product creation.⁣
⁣
Tools reduce friction.⁣
Reduced friction expands ambition.⁣
⁣
AI will likely democratise information processing and lower the barrier to building. But building systems is not the same as generating outputs.⁣
⁣
Architecture. Accountability. Trade-offs. Long-term consequences. Context.⁣
These are not prompt-level decisions.⁣
⁣
The real question isn’t “Will AI replace us?”⁣
It’s “What becomes more valuable when execution gets cheaper?”⁣
⁣
That’s where the real debate should be.