My read on why AI talk feels exhausting: we do not have one debate — we have two.
Room 1: The Converts.
They have seen the upside. Faster cycles, better drafts, useful agents. Their question is not why aren't we doing even more?
Room 2: The Pre-Adopters.
Smart, responsible people who are still unsure. Their question is: why rush into unknown risk when the ground keeps moving?
I get both takes. But as a former boss of mine used to say: their conversations miss each other like two ships passing each other at night.
Converts speak in speed and wins. Pre-adopters hear hype and risk. Converts ask for pilots. Pre-adopters ask for proof. Converts want it now. Pre-adopters want context first.
Result: meta fatigue. Not from AI itself, but from misaligned premises and trying to have a conversation that starts on the wrong floor.
The way forward:
- Start over.
- Ask the same questions.
- Put yourself in the other person's shoes.
- Compare notes often.
- Spread out roles: someone drives the pilot, someone defines KPIs, a third person measures outcomes.
That way, an ongoing exchange is built in. Ownership is shared. Success is in everyone's interest.
Then debate after data.
To wit: a "success" can also be the insight that this use case does not warrant pursuit or further investment. Curiosity first, certainty second.
Takeaway: if we cannot be in the same meeting room, let us at least chat in the hallway.
Agree? Disagree? Observations to share?
