You’re Not Competing With Another Practitioner. You’re Competing With the Model.

The myth that clients can’t use AI as well as you do rests on one assumption: that AI is an extension of your hands. It isn’t. The person who beats you isn’t using it for execution — they’re using it for judgment.

While everyone panics about finding a stable earning strategy in the age of AI — which I haven't seen work reliably yet — I keep running into one assumption I keep seeing. Generalized, it sounds like this:

"The client won't be able to use AI as professionally as a professional. As me."

The weak point in this argument is this: Here is the issue. It depends on one question.

Continue reading “You’re Not Competing With Another Practitioner. You’re Competing With the Model.”

«Judgment Must Stay Human» — Or Are You Just Guarding Your Chair?

The word «must» in «AI can execute, but judgment must stay human» is not a law of nature. It’s a doctrine protecting a comfortable seat.

People often say this as if it were self-evident:

— AI can be an excellent executor, but judgment about the result must stay with a human!

It sounds confident and tidy. And every time I hear it, the same question surfaces: why, exactly, must?

Continue reading “«Judgment Must Stay Human» — Or Are You Just Guarding Your Chair?”