LIVE EPISODE live-03 · 1 May 2026 · 1:18:27

LIVE! Is A.I. changing the way we think? With Charli Nordone, Gabrielle Dolan and Paul Spiers

Featuring Charli Nordone, Gabrielle Dolan, Paul Spiers

0:000:00

Tip: click any timestamp below to jump there and keep playing.

Chapters & timestamps

Click any timestamp to jump the player to that moment.

Intro and welcome to Truth, Lies & Work LIVE!
intro#podcast #intro #live
The irony of automation in knowledge work
panel interview#automation #knowledge-work #irony
Writing as a thinking tool
panel interview#writing #thinking #tools
The frantic rush to the end
panel interview#rushing #deadlines #productivity
Does genuine still matter in a world of AI?
panel interview#ai #authenticity #genuine
Authenticity and the 'AI vs. AI' loop
panel interview#ai #authenticity #buzzwords
Trust, authenticity and aligning words with actions
panel interview#trust #authenticity #values
Leadership, curiosity and context
panel interview#leadership #curiosity #context
Live Q&A — audience questions
panel interview#q&a #audience #questions
Spotting AI-generated content and pitch-slap connections
panel interview#ai-content #detection #pitch-slap

Show notes

LIVE! Is A.I. Changing the Way We Think? — with Charli Nordone, Gabrielle Dolan & Paul Spiers

Guest: Charli Nordone — writing expert and founder of The Better Writing Store · Gabrielle Dolan — author and storytelling expert · Paul Spiers — leadership consultant and founder of Principles & Leadership

If machines are increasingly doing the thinking for us, what happens to our own ability to think?

In this special LinkedIn Live edition, Al and Leanne are joined by three world-class experts to tackle one of the most pressing questions of the modern era. They explore the "irony of automation" — a theory from the 1980s that warns how the skills we automate away quietly weaken over time — and what that means for knowledge workers today.

They dig into why writing is a thinking tool, not just a communication one, how authentic storytelling is the only defence against the "AI vs. AI" loop, and why leaders need to treat AI as a foundational change rather than a productivity plug-in.

🔥 Discussion Highlights

1. The Irony of Automation We dive into the "irony of automation," a theory from the 1980s stating that as we automate complex tasks, humans shift from "operators" to "supervisors." Over time, the critical skills needed to intervene or judge quality begin to weaken. We explore how this is playing out in today's knowledge work.

2. Writing as a Thinking Tool Charli Nordone explains why writing isn't just communication — it's how we process and structure our thoughts. When we outsource the first draft to AI, are we accidentally outsourcing the very thinking that makes our work valuable?

3. The Case for Human Authenticity Gabrielle Dolan highlights the "AI vs. AI" loop, where machines write resumes and machines screen them. She argues that in a world of machine-generated content, authentic, personal storytelling is the only way to build genuine trust and connection.

4. Leadership & Curiosity Paul Spiers discusses why leaders must move beyond seeing AI as a "productivity plug-in" and instead treat it as a foundational change. He shares how to foster "curiosity with context" to ensure employees feel empowered rather than replaced.

Top 3 Takeaways

Writing is thinking. When you outsource the first draft to AI, you outsource the thinking that makes your work valuable. Journaling works because the act of writing forces you to structure and process your thoughts.
Authenticity is the only differentiator left. In a world where machines write resumes and machines screen them, genuine, personal storytelling is the only way to build real trust and connection.
Be a capable human in the loop. It's not enough to have a human reviewing AI output — that human needs to be capable of judging quality. Leaders must create "curiosity with context" so employees feel empowered, not replaced.

Connect With Us

Get in touch, book a call, or find Al and Leanne on LinkedIn — all in one place: truthliesandwork.com/connect

Mental health support: findahelpline.com — UK: Samaritans 116 123 · Mind 0300 123 3393 — US: 988 — Australia: Lifeline 13 11 14

Truth, Lies & Work is part of the HubSpot Podcast Network.

Full transcript

Expand full transcript

AHello and welcome to Truth, Lies and Work. What you're about to hear is from one of our recent LinkedIn Lives, a live panel discussion where we dig into the big questions shaping modern work. If you'd like to join us for the next one, just search for Leanne Elliott— that's me— on LinkedIn and hit follow. We announce them there first, and we obviously launch them there first. Right, let's go into it after a quick message from our lovely sponsor.

BThe dirty little secret is that most businesses think they know their customers. They have the data, the records, the history, but it's scattered across 3 teams and 4 systems. And in our case, it's about 216,000 spreadsheets, which means nobody can actually use it.

AWhat you should be doing is using HubSpot, because why? HubSpot connects it all— every interaction, every support ticket, every conversation— into one platform. Every team Can work from. So when sales talks to a customer, marketing already knows the full story. And when you know more, you grow more.

CNice.

BCheck out hubspot.com, the agentic customer platform for growing businesses.

AHello everyone. Hopefully you can see and hear me. We will give it a couple of minutes just to allow people to join us. Um, in the meantime, we usually do a bit of a round in terms of where everyone's coming from and what the weather's like. Um, so yeah, Charli, do you want to kick us off? Where are you and what's the weather saying?

DDown on the south coast in the UK, a little bit grey but getting nicer. I'm just slightly windswept from a nursery run that I've just come in from, but it went off without a hitch, which was a relief for my morning.

AThat's good news. That's good news. And, um, and Gabrielle, you're, you're upside down right now.

EI am upside down. We, uh, it's, uh, In the evening for me. And we are having just the most spectacular autumn, late autumn weather. So I'm heading off to the UK myself in 2 weeks and it's hotter here than it is, we'll be in the UK. So anyway, all good.

ABeautiful. I love Melbourne. One of my favorite cities. Brilliant. And Paul, where in the world are you?

FI used to be upside down for many years as well, but I now live in the UK in Cheltenham. So I'm based out here and it's a bit like Charli, but sort of overcast, but we've had 4 or 5 days of nice sun. So it's been lovely.

AFantastic. And Georgia, how's life in or near Meltham Mowbray?

GIn Meltham Mowbray, yes.

DIt's a town, it's a little village called Harby.

GIt's an absolute pleasure having lived in this city for so long. So, we've got countryside, horses outside, and it's incredible. Weather's been lovely this weekend as well.

BAnd the pork pies?

GI haven't tried them yet. I'm letting you down, aren't I?

BOh, man. We, I used to have a house in Melton Mowbray, which we rented out, and we went down there and genuinely the best pork pie we've ever had in our entire lives. And if those people who don't know us, we live in Herzegovina, in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe, and our weather is absolutely stunning at the moment. 25 degrees, um, which I don't know what that is in, in Fahrenheit, but, um, it's really nice. It's sunny, it's beautiful, um, and dry and lovely. So we're giving all that up to be with you guys.

AYes, we are. Yes, we are.

BGeorgie, does it look like he's coming through on the stream yet, or have I not clicked the right button?

GWe're absolutely fine. Yes, it was just while Gabrielle was telling us, um, about her weather.

DBrilliant.

GThat it came up. Sorry.

BBrilliant. So we're all good.

AExcellent. Should we get started then?

BWhy not?

AWhy not? Welcome everybody. This is Truth About Work Live, the award-winning podcast where behavioral science meets workplace culture. And we are of course brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. My name is Leanne. I'm a Chartered Occupational Psychologist.

BMy name is Al. I'm a business owner.

AAnd together we help you simplify the science of work and create amazing workplace cultures. Welcome everybody. I just want to start by showing off a little bit. And thanking you all so much for listening. We have just hit once again number 1 on the UK management chart for Apple Podcasts. So thank you so much for all your support. So we're all excited to be here and get into this today. We are talking about AI, and it does seem to be something that has gone from a thing that we're curious about, or certainly in my case, to something that we're using every single day. It's writing our emails, it's drafting our reports, it's summarizing our thinking, it's posting our Shorts without us forgetting that we've done it, and Al and I got very freaked out yesterday when we saw videos up and didn't know who put them there. On the surface, it does feel like progress, but there is an important question sitting underneath all of it, and that's what we're exploring today. If AI is increasingly doing the thinking for us, what happens to our ability to think? This isn't really new. Back in the 1980s, researchers studying automation coined the phrase, the irony of automation, basically meaning that the more we automate complex tasks, the more humans shift from the doing the work to the supervising it. And over time, those skills that we need to judge and question and intervene can start to weaken. So yeah, more recent research provides some context to this too. 2025 found that people who use AI more often tend to show lower levels of critical thinking. They spend less time analyzing, questioning, and testing ideas. And that has consequences because critical thinking develops through effort. And when that part of the process gets shorter or skipped, it has the potential change the quality of decisions people make. And we're zooming out on this as well. We're not just looking at it from an individual perspective. What does this mean for how leaders make decisions, how managers develop the people, and what happens to human connection when our communication is increasingly machine or AI generated? To help us do all of this, we have brought together 3 brilliant experts. First of all, we have Charli Nordone. Charli is the founder of The Better Writing Store and former CEO and Chief Creative Chief Executive Officer at The Writer, where she spent over 20 years working with global organizations to help leaders communicate clearly and make sense of complex ideas. Her work sits right at the intersection of writing, thinking, and behavior. And the reason she's so interesting for this conversation is her core belief that writing isn't just about how we communicate, it's about how we think. We're also joined by Paul Spears. Paul is a leadership advisor, founder of the New P&L Institute, and host of the New P&L Podcast. His work is all about helping leaders navigate complexity, make better decisions, and build organizations with real clarity and purpose. And finally, Gabrielle Dolan. Gabrielle is an internationally recognized expert on storytelling in business and the author of Story Intelligence. She works with leaders on how to use authentic stories to build trust, influence people, and genuinely connect. Let's get into it. Everybody, welcome.

EThank you.

BThank you very much.

ASo those of you who have joined us before, you'll know how this all works. We're going to get right into the questions with our lovely panelists, and we have our associate producer Georgia here to help as well. Al, how are you and Georgia going to manage this on the producer side?

BUm, I don't know. We should have talked about this, Georgia, really, shouldn't we? We're just going to keep track of LinkedIn, see if there are any comments. We do know, we have acknowledged this is quite early, so probably a bit too early for our American listeners. But if you are— oh, by the way, if you're watching the replay of this, then still comment on it because we will come back and we'll talk to you on that. But if you've got any questions, then just comment on the actual LinkedIn post and Georgie will look after that. And I think also, I don't know, is there anything else that you need to be doing for us, Georgie? Are you happy just sitting there and checking everything working all right?

GYep, everything's working absolutely fine from my side. And yeah, I'm happy to just shout up whenever you need me to bring in some questions.

BFabulous. We will allow 10 or 15 minutes Q&A at the end. I'm sure we'll all, but we'll both have questions and maybe the guests have got questions for each other, which would be quite interesting. So Leigh, are we ready to kick things off?

AWe are, we are. I want to start with what I mentioned there, the irony of automation. It is a phrase that comes from 1980s research. And as I mentioned, it's that idea that automating the complex task turns humans into supervisors. And over time, their skills that they need to judge quality, they start to weaken. Charli, I want to start with you. Are we seeing a version of that in knowledge work right now?

DI would say so, yeah. I think anecdotally, the senior leaders I've been talking to have been Telling a very similar story. So, quite a few saying that they're seeing that the work that comes across their desk is feeling a bit samey, or that they can tell that it's not representative of the person that they usually know or see come through in that work. But the thing that I have found most interesting and most consistent is really that there seems less of an ability to be able to defend or champion or explain ideas. And that suggests that that person had or played a sort of passive process in producing whatever document it is that their manager might be looking at. And I think that's where you're seeing that the skills are starting to degrade. But also, I think there's that build as well, because if we're looking at that irony of automation, where we lose the skills because we are put into this super advisor role. The important point when it comes to AI is that the skills we're losing are those critical thinking skills, which are the exact things that we need to use AI very effectively. So, we get stuck in this very worrying loop, and there needs to be a lot of awareness around AI. But yeah, I would say it is showing up for everyone that I've been speaking to, at least.

AAnd how about you, Paul? You're working a lot with leaders as well. Are they noticing any capability gaps? Or are they just talking about the productivity gains? How are they viewing it at the minute?

FYeah, I mean, I think it's sort of taking a step back and encouraging leaders to think about why AI is going into their organizations. So I see 2 types of organizations, one where that complacency is creeping in, and the other where AI has been perhaps more strategically explained, where the context has been built around it. And then people are utilizing it from a productivity perspective, but they're also being given back that time. to use their analytical and critical skills. So if we think about a, whatever it is, a research project or a brief or whatever, the outcome's not the only outcome. You know, you've got the brief here and you've got the outcome here, but in that middle bit, all of those red threads for all of that other, those other creative ideas come off that piece that we're researching. And if we outsource all of that to AI, then we lose the opportunity for our own curiosity to flourish. To take pieces from that research piece and apply it to all other areas of our business because it's not linear. So those organizations who understand that and maybe engage in AI to make that particular thing more productive, but also at the same time, give those employees the opportunity through the reduction in time it takes to do that project, to really critically analyze it, test the data more robustly. Those are the organizations that are getting that balance right. Those who are just trying to do more stuff more quickly are those who are going to see their complacency, I think.

AAnd in terms of the individual experience, I wonder what that's gonna do for how people experience the value of their own work or see meaning in their work. Gabrielle, do you have a view on that?

EYeah, I'm seeing, you know, around this irony of automation and especially AI, I see it a lot with people going for jobs and they sort of complain that, you know, that they can't even get through the the stage 1 because AI is scanning all the resumes. And then, but AI is writing most of the resumes. So we've quickly gone into this loop because it's so easy to apply for jobs because you've got AI. Organizations are getting inundated with job applications. So they're using AI to screen them. And it's almost like we've gone in a very, very short space of time, almost AI versus AI. When it comes to, and, you know, and I can't believe we are already at the point where we're using AI to help us sound more human. So I sort of feel one of the real dangers I think with both on an organizational and individual perspective is I think sometimes we feel so overwhelmed that AI and people is going, you got to get on it. You got to be using it. You'll be left behind. I'm almost feeling. We're at the same stage we were at in the early '90s when PowerPoint came in. So I'm sure you can remember, you know, before PowerPoint came in, we used to use the overhead transparencies and PowerPoint, this new technology came in with the promise that it would make our presentations amazing and it would make them so engaging. And we all sort of got sucked into the technology and using the, you know, the little clipart characters and, you know, transitioning with sound effects and, you know, the dissolve from the middle, and we just thought all that technology would make our presentations amazing. And of course it didn't. You know, it didn't take long for the phrase death by PowerPoint to come about. And it's, and I think it's made a lot of our presentations really boring because of that. So I think we've got to, you know, so it's like any technology, you know, let's take advantage of it, but there's some real traps, which I'm sure we'll get into a lot further as we go through.

AAnd I think that's where, where I kind of want to, want to take it next, because I think that there's the 2 stories that we can tell ourselves. And the one is that AI is freeing us up for this higher order thinking. The other is that it's removing that mental effort that was even producing good thinking in the first place. Which do you think is closer to the truth, Gabrielle?

EI think I've changed my mind actually on this. I used to think that AI will help us get better at critical thinking and it will help us explore and go things deeper. I've sort of changed my mind on that a bit, and it probably depends where you start using AI. So when it comes to critical thinking, I think if you start thinking yourself. And if you, you know, as someone who's writing books or like a, you know, a thought leader as such, you're coming up with new ideas. And if you start with your own ideas and then perhaps use AI as your creative partner, I think it can help with your critical thinking. I think when we start using AI too early in that process, that it can really impact that.

APaul, what are your thoughts?

FYeah, I would agree with that. I think it's, you know, every evolution of technology requires a change in our consciousness and the way we relate to it, the way we use it. And the greater the technology change, the greater our consciousness needs to be. And because the speed, the scale, the size, the complexity of AI change is so great, it's an evolution of technology because it's been ticking away in the background for many decades, gradually getting better. But It requires a real revolution in our consciousness and the way we're going to relate to it. So if we think about the World Economic Forum Future of Jobs Report, last 6 or 7 years, I think critical thinking, analytical thinking, creativity, curiosity, and lifelong learning sit in the top 5 requirements or characteristics that employers want from employees. So even in this world of dramatic transformational technology and transformational change, The key skills that employers want are those basic human foundational skills. But if we don't focus more consciously on how we bring those into the organization, both at a leadership level, but also individually as employees, then I think that's where the disconnect is.

AAnd it does seem this kind of vicious circle, isn't it? As you guys were saying that on one hand, we want to improve productivity and take away kind of the grunt work, quote unquote. And on the other hand, you know, it's getting into this trap of reducing our ability to critically think, which, as you mentioned, Paul, is so important in terms of future skills. Charli, where can an organization kind of put a— make their stance on this in terms of how AI is used? So, it either does free us up for higher-order thinking, or at least doesn't erode the critical thinking skills that we need to develop.

DI think the first thing is this idea of, or this promise I think we were given, that it frees us up from the grunt work. Because as Gabrielle says, depending on where you bring AI in, it's really easy to fall into the place of actually all you're doing is the grunt work. Because if you use AI to write for you, then you are put in the role of editor and you are the fact checker. And maybe that is Something that you might like. Personally, not for me. And I find that quite tiresome having to do that checking. And I realize that that isn't the place to use AI. So, I think we want to be conscious, I think as Paul said, of where in the process you put yourself and where AI plays a part. But I think for organizations, in terms of the questions they're asking themselves, if they're adopting AI, I want them to be thinking about Where are you investing on keeping those critical thinking skills alive? And also, as Paul said, thinking about this time, this magical time that is freed up for us, is it kept free for us to be doing the important thinking part, or does it just get filled up again with doing more of the same thing? Because I think the latter happens very, very easily if you think, well, I've produced this document, I've probably saved myself 3 days already in time, I'm only half a day into it. But do we then go and use the rest of that time in a way that is going to help us build and keep and retain and preserve and protect those skills? Or do we just keep on chugging and keep on going with what we're doing already? So, yeah, I think, as we're all saying, there's clearly this, there's got to be a conscious effort, a proactive effort to make sure that we are aware that these skills will degrade, and that organizations and us individually are doing something about it. And I think the first step is thinking about where in this process am I going to put myself and where am I gonna put AI? Because that makes a massive, massive difference. Do it too early, and I think it's taken all the fun stuff out of, if we're talking about the writing process, we've handed that off. We've outsourced not just the writing, thinking part, and that's the bit that we own.

BWell, Charli, if I may, let me continue that thought, because I'm sure you've said something that writing is not just producing some words on a page, it's about how you actually I think I read somewhere, thinking with your fingers or something when you're typing. That's weird. I probably won't use that phrase again. It's kind of like, I found the same thing. If I want to think through something, often I'll write it down and then I'm actually— tell me more about that.

DWell, it's, if you think about journaling, there's a reason that journaling is really effective for people because it is the working through of ideas. And when we write, We are distilling information, we're synthesizing information, we're prioritizing, and getting to the point where we're trying to think about, how do I make this interesting and impactful and show that I understand the reader? There are so many processes that go into getting something down on a page, and it is a brilliant, brilliant way of working through your thinking. So, if that's the part that we outsource, we think that we're outsourcing writing, but we're actually outsourcing the thinking. What you're then left with is a document that you played a very passive part in producing, that you can't really stand behind. You don't know how it was put together. It's not something you can necessarily be proud of. So, I think there's something that I've obviously been saying is that I think when it comes to critical thinking skills, you can teach those through writing, and then you can use your critical thinking skills to apply it to make that writing good. So, it is, yeah, it's very much an act of Writing is making thinking visible.

EThere you go.

DThat's the short version.

BI love that. I love that. And Gabrielle, thoughts on this in terms of like storytelling and everything?

EYeah, I was actually, Charli, as you were talking then, I know when I write a book, I actually, the process of writing it helps me critical think and think of ideas. A lot of people have sort of said, oh, why don't you just, you know, there's all this technology, you could just record it and you get it transcribed. The actual concept of writing Even to the point of having a journal before I even start writing, sketching everything out. That's when I'm creative. That's all the creative stuff going through. So I agree. And in the latest book I've written, Story Intelligence: The Craft of Authentic Storytelling Made Smarter with AI. So I'm sort of saying you can use AI. And it's the first time I used AI to help me write the book. And it's some instances it was effective, like doing chapter summaries, for example, was effective. But if I started too soon in the process, I felt like it took me down this path that then I had to come back from and it actually took longer. So I think it really is critical of when you, when you start to use AI in the process, because yeah, I agree, Charlie, if you use AI too soon, you're getting something that sort of probably sounds good and it sounds okay, but maybe, you know, it's not something that, you know, is you or your even original idea.

DYeah. Do you find when you write, if AI produces something for me, I find it really hard to unsee it. And I think, oh, now you've put these ideas in my brain and that's not where my thinking was going. And I had a real shift where I just, I don't let it write for me anymore, but I do get it to interview me because often, you're working alone in a little room. And if I can say, ask me 3 to 5 questions, one at a time, that are insightful and creative, here's an example, to draw this thinking out of my mind, then I've still got the ownership of those ideas, and I then can help and do the refinement and all the distillation part. But yeah, I find it odd if And whether you found this in your process of writing that book, that it's hard to backtrack when it gives you something.

EYeah, it's harder. It's harder because what it's producing is sort of sounding okay, but you do, you find yourself, hang on, I didn't want to go down this path. And that's exactly in my book. I talk about how you can use AI as your storytelling creative partner. And it's literally that getting AI to ask you questions about to drag out to find these stories as opposed to getting AI to write your stories.

AYeah, yeah. I find in, in the writing process as well, it can be quite useful to help me distill things. I'm quite verbose as a writer. I've been told that many times before. So, it can help me kind of understand, you said that summary, what the key points that I don't want to lose as part of the editing process. But that is based on a lot of years writing, whether it be academic writing, Creative writing, I feel like I know what good looks like to me, but if you never produce that yourself, how do you do that? And are we putting our early career colleagues at risk by taking this type of work off them or allowing them to use AI?

EWhat do you think?

FI think there's kind of a bit of a rush, frantic rush to the end of everything, isn't there? That's driven in part by automation. So, We create this content, we've got it done, right? Let's move on with something else. But actually there's a real, with writing, like any art, there's a real beauty in the process. And, you know, we've got a slow food movement. And I think sometimes we kind of need a slow words movement where we just embrace ourselves in the moment of writing. And it sounds like everyone on this conversation today, you know, you can sit back, you know, when you've written a sentence that has a rhythm to it and it You look at it and you can't figure out exactly why the words work in the order that they do, but you know they work and you know there's a rhythm and there's a beauty to that. We don't put down a lump of clay and then put a machine on top and then just shape something. We shape it really beautifully. And I think we need to get back to that a little bit with words as well. So by all means, use AI to prompt a bit of thought and all of that sort of thing, but don't be in a Did you know that the UK's number one management podcast, that's us by the way, and the UK's number one marketing podcast are both on the same podcast network?

BWe actually have a lot in common. We both use behavioral science to help people do better at work.

AAnd we both had to wrangle Rory Sutherland on an episode.

CAnd 2 out of 3 of us are devilishly good-looking.

BAnd you're not gonna say which. Phil, host of Nudge, UK's number one marketing podcast. It's brought to you— we need to do this in threes—

Athe HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.

FSeamless, seamless.

BTell us about your latest episode, Phil.

CUh, we've just done an episode on fake fandom and how New York indie bands are paying agencies to create fake TikTok videos about how much they like their work. And we talk about the behavioral science behind fandom and how that encourages people to enjoy the music and all of that good stuff, and do some big things about how this affects the world of politics, business, and brands as well.

AIt is. It's such, it's such a good show. Of course, you'll hear all the stuff you want to hear about how to grow your business by using behavioral science in your marketing. But there's also just some really interesting episodes that'll be right up your street. Personally, I enjoyed Can Balsamic Vinegar Can make beer taste better?

CIt can.

AAnd are we all just status-seeking monkeys?

CI am.

BGo and listen to Nudge wherever you get your podcasts.

ABut come back.

BYeah, come back.

CDefinitely come back because Nudge isn't as good as this, so come back.

BI'll cut that out.

CKeep that in.

AI can— I like to play a little game called Devil's Avocado on the podcast, which is when I ask a question, it isn't really what And so, what I think, what I'm sure somebody out there is thinking and potentially screaming at their phone right now, that all sounds really nice, Paul, but who's got the time? When it's all about productivity, it's all about pace, the level of competition in organizational life, you know, it is that race to get stuff done. What's the commercial argument or the leadership argument for indulging in this slower approach?

FWell, I think a lot of, without being too dismissive, there's a lot of content out there that's yelling at no one. So I think, you know, actually think a little bit more about the content you're producing, the old cliché of quality over quantity. Do you need to be producing X amount of content for social a week, or could you produce Y amount of content, but actually make it more compelling, tell a greater story, make it more personal? I think we've just, we've got caught up in this, no one yelling at no one or everyone yelling at everyone, but nothing actually cutting through. So just thinking a little bit more and not getting caught in the the hamster wheel of producing content for content's sake, because I'm not convinced that anyone has enough time to read it, let alone produce it.

ECan I just add to that, Leigh? First of all, did you say devil's avocado?

AI did.

EOh, good. I love that. That's hilarious.

FThat was good.

EI was hoping I didn't mishear that because that's very funny. What I say to people, and especially leaders, I think we're putting efficiency over effectiveness. So a couple of years ago, we were all writing our own stuff. So we're thinking that using AI is really efficient for us to be writing things, but is it effective? So there's a couple of things. The latest Edelman report that came out at the end of last year showed that we are in a lowest level of trust. So I don't know if any of you follow that, but it's a global study for 20 years and we're at a low level. And the first time trust in employer is really low. So we're, our audience is already in a position of really, what do they trust? And, and anything AI. So I would always say that if you're use, overusing AI to write your content, it's starting to all sound the same and it's starting to sound bland. I think the real danger, however, is if you're a leader and just, just say you're writing a newsletter to your team or to clients, and the moment they get a little whiff that this is AI written, I think a couple of things that can happen, they can just stop reading because it just all sounds the same, but I think it can do real damage to your trust and credibility. It's almost like, what, you couldn't write that yourself? I was having a conversation with someone the other day, and imagine if you got this beautifully written love letter from your partner, and it was beautiful, and you got it, and then you found out it was completely written by AI. I think it would have the opposite effect. I would, you know, you would sort of say, I would prefer to have an imperfect love letter, but your words, as opposed to a perfect love letter that are not your words. And I think it's a real danger for us losing credibility on the overreliance of using AI to generate or over-engineer our content.

BMakes a lot of sense. Charli, in terms of imperfections, then, should writing have in it natural flaws?

DI don't think it's flaws, it's tells. that there was a human involved. Because I think in low-effort writing, whether it's been human-made or AI-made, there are tells. And you only have to go on LinkedIn for 2 seconds for everyone to be shouting out em dashes, and I'm bored of all of that now. But I just don't think anyone needs to be putting in typos to their writing just to prove that they are human and that it's been written by a human. I think human beings are much better AI detectors than AI detectors. We can tell very quickly because, as Paul said, there'll be a rhythm to a sentence that only a human will know has some sort of musicality to the ear, or there is a picture you can paint that will speak very directly to a particular audience that AI is just not going to have the context, the knowledge to be able to bring out. So, I think AI writing only works if you can't tell it's come from AI. And as Gabrielle says, it's totally about trust. And I don't think we do trust writing when we know that it's not come from a human being. So, I think the thing for all of us is, yes, use AI by all means, think about where you're putting yourself in the process. But the biggest thing is making sure you show up, that there are really clear tells that you've put thought into this. And the other thing I perhaps wonder, if we're talking about people shouting at the screen, If they think when we're talking about maybe the craft of writing or just taking that time to do an effective job, AI, I don't think it has to take loads and loads of time, and that's why it's so important that we do give people the skills to be good writers with and without AI. But also, I think it's about writing anything. So, not just the big showy stuff that's going out to audiences or something that a leader is putting out around their thoughts on a topic, but even taking it into what might be seemingly dull writing, like report writing, even there, you can show up. And I did some work with a financial services company, it's been over a few years, exec summaries, we've taken them from being pages and pages to 7 bullet points, and that's all they're allowed to use. And in those 7 bullet points, you can really tell where the human shows up because they're having to bring all of the most important information into this really Tiny, tiny little space. They've gotta be so pithy with it. And AI will help a little, but you can still, you'll show that it's gotta be an expert involved in those 7 little bullets.

BCan I ask a quick question? I'm gonna grab the avocado for a second and say, when we're talking about Generation Alpha, which will be growing up on the majority of AI stuff that's out there, the AI content, does it even matter anymore that you're good at writing? Because they're gonna be used to reading all the AI stuff that's out there. This is to everyone, by the way.

DYes, I think so. I'll let someone else say first.

EI think it's a good question. I think it still matters, but I, Charli, when you were saying before, yes, you see, you get on LinkedIn and you see all the dead giveaway signs that it's written by AI. I actually, my editor for my latest book loves em dashes and I had to just tell her she can't use it. She can't use it, em dashes.

DShe's going, but it's genuine.

EI go, I know, I know, but you cannot use it. I, and I've also seen that, you know, almost deliberately putting spelling mistakes and typos so it's not, so people don't think it's AI. All I'm saying to that is my time has finally come. I've still got my year 12 English reports where my teacher said, Gabrielle fails to pay attention to basic grammar and spelling, and all my life it's been a weakness, and now it is a strength. It's like, it's so— so I'm, I'm, I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna claim that. But, um, I, you know, I, I think good writing is good writing, and I don't think it will go out of fashion. And I think regardless of, regardless of the generate— generation, um, there's latest research to show that Gen Z in the workforce, uh, really want clear and concise, like, communication, that they're not a fan of corporate jargon. I'm not sure anyone is, but they want really clear and concise communication. Because they've been brought up with very short, you know, texting and stuff. So it's very short. So I think Gen Alpha will probably be the same, that they just want clear, precise, to-the-point communication. And I sort of think, you know, I think everyone wants that. But we, I think when it came to information overload and again, PowerPoint, we had the ability to put so much stuff in our PowerPoint because we could just duplicate a slide that it sort of led to information overload.

AI would like to— when you were talking then, Gabrielle, I was thinking about how good content is good content. And our, you know, Gen Alpha, Gen Z consume a lot of content. They're the fastest growing audiences in terms of podcasting, obviously YouTube and TikTok and things like that. I wonder whether the— yeah, the shift is going to come, come there potentially in terms of the expectation. But with that in mind, how do we bridge that gap if we've got younger generations who are AI natives but want clear, concise, engaging content and established workers who have become over-reliant on AI? And we talk about keeping humans in, in the loop, but how do we bridge the gap that seems to be Growing right now. Paul, what do you think?

FAre you referring to humans in the loop in terms of utilizing AI within organizations or?

AYeah, I am, but we're doing it in a way that doesn't either increase the gaps we're currently seeing, particularly in terms of, as we said, Gen Z expectations and how native they are to AI and content creation. and potentially already seeing that critical thinking losses in the established workforce? How do we keep humans in the loop in a way that it means that AI, yeah, is working effectively?

FSo, I guess it comes back to some really basic questions about why we're putting AI into any organization. So, if we're adopting AI because, and, you know, we've all done it, we've done it with social media, we've done it PowerPoint, as Gabriella said, you know, in the '90s. There's a lot of organizations who are adopting AI because the organization down the road has, or their competitors have, but there's not a great deal of strategic understanding, I think sometimes, of why and how AI can benefit that organization. So even if we ask 5 simple questions when we're looking at investing in AI, what will add in terms of how we deliver on our core purpose and impact and innovation? So what will it add? When is it appropriate to use it? So what are the protocols around using AI within our organization? Critically, how is it going to empower, engage, and excite our employees rather than create frustration or fear? Where are the issues that it's going to create? You know, what do we need to consider? Where can it go wrong? And that's where the human in the loop comes in. And I think even if we start with those 5 questions, then the human in the loop question within an organization becomes clearer because we understand how we need to assess it, where humans need to be critical in their thinking of AI, where they need to check in on it, and where AI can operate seamlessly within that organization. So again, all of these things come back to treating AI as foundational and fundamental to changing the way businesses operate rather than seeing AI as a plugin tool. We have Problem A, and it's going to be solved by AI solution B. This isn't a SaaS tool and it isn't just a technology. It's going to be foundational in the way we deliver business in the future. And as leaders in organizations, we need to be thinking in that way that this is going to fundamentally change the way we do business. So the what, the when, the why, the hows, and the whos need to be asked from the outset. If we get that right, then we understand where humans fit into the loop, Within AI, within that organization. And we also empower humans in that process, I think. And so regardless of the generations, it is about understanding where they fit in, where humans can add value to it, and where AI adds value to that organization as well. Other thoughts?

BYou look like you might want to say something, Charli. So, Gabrielle?

DGo for it, Alex. Yeah, I think there's a word to add when we talk about humans in the loop, and it's got to be capable. That when we're thinking about either the person doing some reviewing or the person producing something alongside AI, we've got to have capabilities first. Bringing it back to what you said earlier, Leigh-Anne, about knowing what good looks like, we do have to know what good looks like to know whether we're being served up slop or Not a lot. But I think also that when it comes to organizations, there is a job to do to make sure people have the skills, and then also give a safety net. So, giving people guidance on how they should be using AI, transparency guidelines as well, so people have to explain how they're using AI. But I think there's also something interesting in being able to test the thinking of people within an organization, even perhaps by doing something like having to give a verbal summary of a document that they're producing, having to be able to do a Q&A session around it. But, I agree with what Paul was saying. There needs to be some very clear reasoning about why AI is going into an organization, how it's going to be used, and I'm not hearing enough of organizations thinking about how they're going to protect the critical thinking. Any conversation I've had on that has been with schools, which is heartening, I think, because schools are taking this way more seriously. So, I've spoken to quite a few now that want training for their teachers and for their students about how to operate with AI, how to be transparent about it, how to do it effectively, how to keep those skills going. Organizations, not so much. I think we need to see that need. Because it's not something I'm hearing as yet. They know, I think there's the knowledge that there's something happening, but I can't see the action yet. And I think that's going to be really important.

EGabriel. I took your question, Lee, as a, from a communication perspective. So we were talking about how you do content and how you keep humans in the loop. I may be very biased here, but I think storytelling and personal storytelling Crosses first of all, it crosses all generations. And a lot of people, you know, I've spent the last twenty years teaching business people how to communicate more effectively through stories. And one of the most powerful yet underutilized type of story is a personal story. And what I mean by that is it it just it's not deepest darkest fears type personal story and oversharing, but it's just something that didn't happen at work, and you can use it to communicate a work message. They're the most powerful stories people. Can share. And AI can't replicate that, right? Because they're your stories, they're your lived experience. So storytelling's been around, you know, I said at the intro, I'm from down here in Melbourne, Australia. You just got to look at our First Nations people, the oldest culture in the world. And for tens and tens of thousands of years, their messages have been communicated through stories. So stories are really powerful and they have the ability to build fast-track trust and respect and credibility so they can actually build trust and credibility. So in a world, it's, you know, this is the 8th book I've written and I truly, truly thought I would never write another book on storytelling. Like there's only so much stuff you can write, but I actually felt compelled to write this book because I had people saying to me, will AI replace your stories? And I was horrified by that question. And then I had people ask me, can you use AI to help with your story? And my initial response was, no, that's cheating. That would— that's not on my watch. But I started to experiment and said, well, you can use it if you're using it widely. But so I truly believe that in a world of AI-generated content where everyone's sort of starting to sound the same, and in a world of distrust, our stories, our personal, our authentic stories, are needed now more than ever. Um, and I truly believe that, and that's, that's why I wrote the book, basically.

AI think that brings us really nicely onto, onto— and they are buzzwords, bear with me, I'm sorry— but authenticity and showing vulnerability and doing it in the right way, using the right behaviors, does, you know, improve leadership effectiveness, likability, impact. Charli, what do you think about this in terms of, like we said, we've got AI talking to AI, we've got an absolutely critical human factor in terms of that. Are we— is it already too late? Are we already moving to a world where AI generates the post, AI writes in the comments, AI is producing all the, you know, all the content, AI is responding to it? Who's the conversation For? And are leaders, have they already kind of checked out of that?

DI don't think it's too late. No, I don't think so. I think for some people, they will continue down a path of AI generating content and AI responding to content. And you can see it on LinkedIn. People call it out when you can see those comments and you can tell that something has been generated by AI. But I think storytelling is the key to authenticity and we have to keep that ability alive. And I don't believe that after these tens and tens and tens of thousands of years that we are going to lose it. But on an individual level, it is yours to lose. So, I think there's a decision we all have to make about how am I going to engage with AI? What am I willing to give up? What am I gonna keep hold of? How will I get it to help me, not hinder me? But ultimately, it's, you know, how do I, Charli, turn authentically, because it's gonna be different from Paul, it'll be different from Gabrielle, it'll be different from everybody else. And I would want, in the same way, I suppose, often I speak to my clients when we're working on coming up with their brand personality, that you should be able to put the thumb over the logo and know who's talking to you. I would like that to be true for me also. Cover up my name, but look at my words and you know that I'm the one behind it. And I know that if I don't use AI in the right way, Otherwise known as, ask me questions, don't write for me. I'm not gonna pass that test. So, I do think that authenticity is only going to get more important, and it's the answer to this trust problem too. So, we've gotta be wise about how we are bringing AI into our personal and professional lives.

AAnd just, I wanna hear your thoughts on how we do that, because there is an element of, I think from the people I've spoken to, discomfort around putting themselves out there, particularly on a platform Like LinkedIn, where we've got organizations and leaders looking at it. How do you be visibly human and communicate that way, communicate that in a way that is competitive and is going to add value to your professional brand?

DI think it probably starts with, if you don't already know, figuring out what your point of view is. And actually, AI can be great for that if you get it to ask you those questions and dig into and draw out your thinking. But starting from that, what do I think about this topic, or what is my stance on this? And then also, one technique I quite like to use if I'm writing on behalf of someone else is I look at what metaphors they use. So if you look at, say, Barack Obama's speeches, he would use lots of nature metaphor. I can give you one guess what Trump's metaphors look like. They are more war-based. But We each have a little different kind of footprint when it comes to metaphors. So, you could actually proactively think about how you want to get people to relate to your writing, what kind of rhetorical device would you perhaps use? But trying to figure out, yeah, what your personality looks like. And I think AI is a great way of doing that because what you could do is get it asking you those questions, perhaps even giving you some sample writing, and you can feel your way to what what feels like you. But ultimately, what I'd say is, as has always been needed and has kept me in business for 20-something years, is people need the time and space to be able to practice these skills. Because I don't think we get taught well before entering the workforce how to write work in an effective way that is going to help us show up. So, trying to make sure that training has still gone on.

BI would say, Lee, should we ask Georgia if we've got any comments or anything, any questions?

AOh, I think we're actually near to wrapping up. So maybe if we leave that to the end.

ESorry, Georgia.

AI just love where this is at. I want to kind of keep it going because I'm wondering, Paul and Gabrielle, what you think in terms of what that means in terms of helping to build trust and connection. As you guys were saying that there is such a a trust issue at the moment between employers and employees. What can having this, being able to communicate in a very human way, what can that do inside organizations and in the broader public?

EYou go, Paul.

FOkay. I mean, I think the key to trust and authenticity is aligning your words, your values, and your actions, to Charli's point. And I I talk a lot about vinyl values in a business that you walk into an office and you see these values printed on a wall behind the reception or in the boardroom or whatever it happens to be. And they're supposed to be a demonstration of, but quite often they just become a substitute for the values and characteristics that exist in that business. So the commitment to them is about as thin as the vinyl they're printed in, hence the term vinyl values. So the big, the big challenge for organizations, for leaders is how we get the values off that wall and into the hearts and minds of those in the organization. So how does that value that you espouse turn up at 11 o'clock on a Tuesday morning or whatever it is when the administrator or the designer or whoever is doing their role? I think if we can answer that and ensure that our values and our words and our actions are in alignment, then we're a lot closer to be able to build trust within an organization and deliver authenticity. But it's when When leaders espouse one set of values and then walk another one, so they don't, you know, they might stand up in an all-hands meeting and talk about those values, but they don't deliver it. They don't role model it. That's where the gap, the trust and the authenticity lies. And I think so many of those brand values are outward facing. So look at who we are, but actually they should be inward facing. What are we actually doing to demonstrate those values? Those are the gaps that don't encourage trust. Trust and authenticity, I think.

CYeah.

EAnd building on what Paul said, I've spent probably the last 30 years either doing, helping organizations do values rollouts, both when I worked in corporate and the last 20 years out of it. And the vast majority of values organizations have, they're just words on a wall. That's where they are. I believe there's 2 ways to get really people like really sort of embed the values and people trusting that this is the way we operate is A, do them. So if you say you're going to be innovative, be innovative. So actually live and breathe the values. But then the other powerful way and the quickest way is to share stories about it. So the vast majority of my work is I go into organizations, I teach the leaders how to tell stories to communicate the values. And what I find is, you know, they've just spent 6 months wordsmithing these values. And let's just say one of the values is integrity. I will work with one of the senior execs and I'll just say, so you've chosen integrity as a value. Tell me what that means to you personally. And they will, they will say something like, well, it means, you know, telling the truth. And I'll go, yeah, what else does it mean to you personally? And this, this would happen 95% of the time. They go, hmm, that's a really good point. I haven't thought about it this much before. So after 20 seconds, they haven't thought about it. So I think a lot of the time is the leaders themselves are not clear on what their values means to them personally. And if you're not clear on what a value, even if it's your own personal brand, if you're not clear on what it means to you personally, A, it's very hard to live and breathe that consistently. And B, it's very hard to share stories. So, and when I come, when I get to authentic storytelling, just to finish up on what I mean by authenticity, it's 2 things when it comes to authentic storytelling. The story has to be true. No exaggeration, no adding mayo. The story has to be true, but also the story's got to be congruent with what you believe. So you have to believe in the message. No point sharing a beautiful story about work-life balance when you don't believe in that. And I think When our, as Paul said, when our words and actions are not aligned, that's when trust suffers.

BLove it.

AYeah. And you've taken us beautifully onto that last point around authenticity. And I feel like we've, you've just answered beautifully what human-centric leadership needs to look like right now. It's having that alignment between what you're saying and what you're doing. I'm wondering if there's one thing that leaders need to start doing or stop doing right now, one piece of advice in terms of leveraging AI where they can, not losing critical thinking, what's the piece of advice you'd give them? Paul, can I start with you?

FI think everything comes back to curiosity and finding ways within your organization to create and enhance and really encourage curiosity. If you think about curiosity as a seed, if it's nurtured correctly, that plant grows, which is creative thinking, innovative thinking, critical thinking. And if that plant flourishes, then innovation is a flower that comes from it. So everything starts within an organization. If you're trying to grow an organization, build a culture, starts with curiosity. So the one thing I'd encourage more than anything is curiosity, but also curiosity with context. So leaders trying to understand, so the AI example is a great example. You may stand up in an all-hands meeting and talk about the productivity and efficiency of AI. What often leaders are tone deaf to is that outside those 4 walls, everyone's hearing AI's coming for your job. So if you don't address the context of that, sure, it might be more efficient, more, might be more productive, But how do we allay those fears and frustrations that people hear outside the 4 walls of that all-hands meeting? But that starts with curiosity as well, thinking about what employees might feel about AI. You can, we've seen a growing body of research around data poisoning at the moment, employees putting the wrong information to GenAI to produce the wrong results, to encourage leaders to see GenAI as not as effective and efficient as it should be. Because they have fear of lack of empowerment, of disillusionment, of frustration, and all those other things. That could be allayed if the context was set, if the leaders communicated with clarity and consistency and with context. All of that comes back to curiosity, asking questions. So that would be my one thing above all else.

ABrilliant.

BCharli, have you got any thoughts?

DI love that. Yeah, I'm very much with you on that. I think I just want leaders to be asking themselves, what skills do I want to see in my workforce now and in future? And what am I doing to make sure that that happens, that I do preserve and protect the skills within my organization, that I am actively doing something to bring up the next generation of of managers, and just being very, very clear, I think, as I said before, of what the cost of AI usage is, if not done in the very conscientious manner in which Paul was speaking about earlier. But yeah, really just think, am I, as a leader, am I proactively doing something to make sure that the skills I want to see in the next 2 to 5 years are going to be there in the workforce, or am I actually bringing something in that is destroying them without any other action at all. So yeah, just having that awareness, I think.

EFabulous. I think my final piece of advice is to not hand over too much control to AI. I just saw in one of the comments in LinkedIn from James saying, AI said is not evidence. So in my latest book, Story Intelligence, I actually wrote a letter to AI that I think I'll I would like this to be my final bit of advice. I was inspired very much by Elizabeth Gilbert when she wrote a letter to creativity in Big Magic. So I was sort of inspired by that. So let me put my glasses on so I get this right. It says, dearest AI, creativity and I are about to go on a road trip together and I invite you to join us. I will be doing my job on this road trip, which is to work hard and stay focused. And creativity will be doing its job, which is to remain stimulating and inspiring. There is plenty of room in this vehicle for all of us, so make yourself at home. But understand this, creativity and I are the only ones that will be making any decisions along the way. I recognize and respect the supporting and valuable role you can play, so I will at times ask you for your advice and suggestions. But understand that I will always make the final decision and I will always be in control. Don't take this personally, as I know you won't because you're not a person, but I know sometimes while you are eager to please, you hallucinate. So sometimes you are wrong. You will also come with some built-in biases, so we are not always aligned. So you're allowed to have a seat and you're allowed to have a voice when asked, but my dear friend AI, You are absolutely forbidden to drive. I will always be in control. And I would say my final bit of advice is to leaders is to make your own commitment to AI that you will not let it take control of anything and you will always be in the driver's seat.

BI wish we had an applause clip there because all of that advice from all 3 of you was just Yeah, look at me being a nerd going, oh, we could actually just clap, couldn't we? That was so, so, so good, Lee. Any response?

AMy final thought, again, all incredible. I, when I post about this on LinkedIn, one of the concerns I had was how people be feeling right now in terms of the value they can offer. And I'm not immune to that. I wake up some days and think, do I still have relevance? Am I still useful in this world? And I hope that after hearing that conversation, and you realize that humans cannot be replaced. We are absolutely central and critical to organizational life and performance and work and everything that comes with that. So, yeah, echoing what everybody said, to leaders, don't lose control, be mindful, and keep it human.

BLove that. Georgia, should we look? I mean, I know I've seen a few comments come in, but I'm My screen's really small and far away, so I couldn't read them. Do you want to just give us an update what's going on in the comments?

DAbsolutely.

GYeah. So one of the really interesting ones is from Claire Harvey. It's a bit of a paragraph, but it ends in a question. So my question is, is some of the natural distrust, fear of the unknown, when biropens were introduced into the '50s, education Experts said they would damage students' ability to write properly and limit their expression. When PCs first came into homes, lots of experts said they would damage people's ability to think and even that we would all lose ability to speak to each other. Is our reaction to AI just a modern version of a very old fear of change?

AGreat question. Who wants to take it on first?

EI've been involved in change management, rolling out digital transformations, and we called it technology. I remember working in corporate Australia when the internet first came out and we had to teach people how to use the internet. I think it's a bit of that. I think it's a natural, we get new technology and we focus on the disadvantages that this will stop us. Um, you know, when calculators came out, it was like, oh, people won't be able to add up and stuff. And, you know, the reality is perhaps we can't add as much as easily as we used to. Um, but we don't need to because we've got a calculator. So I think there's a bit of that. I think there's just a natural tendency. Um, you know, we're not comfortable with change and we can sometimes focus on the negatives. And, you know, I, I come across people all the time that focus on the negatives and, um, I just sort of say, Look, it's not going anywhere. And so, there are negatives, but how do you embrace the things that you can, you know, that can benefit you?

DI think I'd add to that as well and say, yeah, I agree. I think in part there's that distrust and there's that fear. But I was reading something from, I think it was the World Economic Forum that was saying working with AI is relatively straightforward. You just have to be eternally vigilant. And I think that is the difference here, is because with biropens, I don't have to be eternally vigilant. I can pop them to one side and know that they're gonna be exactly where I left them, and then will do the job I want them to do. There's something very, very new and very different with AI because of its capability and how quickly it can evolve, that we as human beings have to sign up to being eternally vigilant to keep it I don't know whether in its place is the right way to put it, but doing the job we want it to do and not stepping out, as you said, basically, um, Gabrielle, it's not getting in the driving seat and it's our job to keep it perhaps in the backseat or even the boot sometimes.

FI think the eternally vigilant piece is a really interesting one. I think part of the challenge we face is that the previous industrial revolutions have always been automation and manual workers, haven't they? So they've got very used to to automating the manual process, whereas this is the automation of the knowledge workers. And it's probably for all of those in the knowledge industries, this is the first time it's happened at scale and at the size it is. I think there's also legitimate fear between, to the biro or the computer, they're all enhancing the way we work. There is a distinct possibility that for a lot of knowledge workers, this will displace or replace the way we work. And That's a legitimate fear, I think, but it comes back to the point that, both the points that have just been made around how we remain vigilant, how we ensure that it is utilized by us rather than instead of us.

AYeah, I agree. The thing I'd add as well is how I'm seeing AI being used, or generative AI, for management conversations, coaching conversations, how to have a difficult conversation. And my concern is that we haven't got the foundation in place already in terms of building and supporting and developing competent managers. And it is that kind of cliché, isn't it? We already knew how to write, the pen and the keyboard just kind of changed the execution of it. We don't know how to lead, we don't know how to manage. So, if AI changes that execution, I worry for the impact on the individual. So, I wanna see that, be very vigilant around that.

BGeorgia, anything else that, um, I know I can see quite a few comments. People, this is great because people are talking amongst themselves as well, which is brilliant. Is there anything, any other comment that jumped out to you that we, you'd like me to put on screen or something?

GUh, to be honest, something that did jump out to me, not particularly a question, is Lucia Adams. Has anyone noticed they actually talk like AI now? I found myself saying, this isn't X that's a problem, it's a Y I read some research not long ago that when AI first came about, the word polished was not used. However, polished became part of people's vocabulary and it upped by percentage of use. What do you feel? Question from me, this, I suppose, is how do you think the learning phase is going? Are we learning from AI? Because it's interesting how AI is supposed to learn from our inputs that we are almost taking on quite a lot of its attributes.

DI think there's something interesting that it's bringing to life or bringing to the front copywriting tropes, things that writers know are really tired techniques to use in writing. So, it's not X, it's Y, or from X to Y. Or the other thing that I'm sure everyone keeps picking up on is AI's love of Saying the quiet part out loud, or everything's quiet or quietly done in some way. So, I think probably the answer to the question is AI is talking like us because it's trained on what is out in the world, which unfortunately is not a whole host of brilliant writing. It's trained and it sees that there's lots of these copywriting tropes in lots and lots of places. So, it's now just shouting it back at us. But I hope maybe something that comes out of this is if we all do stay very aware of these things that don't land very well and are quite boring and overused, like it's not XXY. That's great. That's awareness. That means that we can reach for something else, reach for a different expression that's actually going to be interesting. So, I don't think Lucia needs to worry about sounding like AI. If you're spotting what's going on, then that's more than half the battle done.

BYou're absolutely right.

EYeah, I think half of that is, that's because the real trap, and look, I do this, you know, if I've got to write email and because I said before, I'm hopeless at grammar and spelling, I just put it in as a spell check, but sometimes it changes things unnecessarily. And I was doing something, someone, I was going to, I was going to a podcast and they said, send us a couple of paragraphs on what you do. And I, I said, I teach people how to communicate more effectively through stories. And I put a few other things and I just put it through AI to just, you know, help with Grammar and stuff. And it came back and said, I help people communicate more effectively through stories that bridge the gap between trust and impact. And I just thought, what the hell does that mean? But so easily you could go, oh, that sounds good. That sounds really smart. I didn't because I thought, I don't even know what that sounds mean. But if I had thought, oh, that sounds really smart, before I knew it, I'd be going, hi, I'm Gabrielle Dahl. I help leaders share stories to bridge the gap between trust and impact. I don't know why I started talking like that, but you know, that's what I sort of seem to do.

BPaul, have you got experience on this? What are your thoughts?

FYeah, I mean, I'm, I've, that's one thing I'm less worried about because I think all of us every day in every way, uh, you know, whether we read newspapers or looking at LinkedIn or using AI, we're all taking and using things that we're learning every day, new phrases, new approaches to things. And in a way, if we're speaking more like AI, we're only speaking like where AI dragged all of that information from that it's provided it to us. So we might be speaking like the Harvard Review where it took its information from and collated and curated it. So that's less of a concern for me because I think wherever we get our information from, every day we're consuming phrases and new frameworks and all those other things that we're taking into our minds. That's just another information source from my perspective.

ECan I, as you were just saying that, what it reminded me of, and I totally agree that we pick up new words and phrases all the time and being a mother of 2 Gen Z kids, that they're using language all the time. But it was like the moment you, I repeated back to them, it's like, please don't say that because it doesn't, you know, if I say, oh, that's slay, that's slay. And it was just like, oh my God, mum, don't ever say that in public. It was just like, um, so yeah. And maybe because it doesn't sound authentic or, or with them, it was like, mum, that was so 6 months ago. Stop saying that.

BBut I think you're right. You will, we are, I think we, Most of us can recognize when an advert is using, like you were talking about before, an advert which might say the one trick that doctors don't want you to know about. And we all know now that's just like you said, it was a trope, isn't it? It's something which people used a long time, then got overused. Now we're all aware of it. So I think the em dash became the first one that was like, oh, this is— and now you've said quietly, you often see the comments where it just basically reflects back exactly what someone said. You look back on— I go on Twitter. X, Twix, whatever you want to call it. And you just see these comments and comments, comments and comments, but they've got no engagement. So it's like someone's doing it. It's like, what's the point in doing that? Because everybody knows.

DIt's really strange. I feel I keep seeing on, particularly on LinkedIn, the comments, they're just, as you say, repeating back what someone has already just said. And I guess it's meant to demonstrate, I've heard what you've said and I understand it, but parroting it back, adds nothing to the conversation, and then it goes off and dies in a corner. So, you've got to put your own thoughts, your own opinions in there if you want to. Maybe that's it, the continuation of the conversation's got to have us involved with our own active thinking and original thought.

BYeah, and I suppose it's in LinkedIn's interest to get more content on there and more comments in there to show there's more engagement. When in actual fact, AI could very easily work out which comments are AI and Been, you know, shadow banned someone.

ACan I ask you about this, Al? Because, um, sorry, is everyone all right for another couple minutes?

DShe's raised a bit over.

FYeah, yeah.

AI, I have been— I mean, we all get the automated kind of— they call them a pitch slap connection, and they immediately DM you trying to sell you something. Um, I've noticed— I want to ask you this, Al, with your— doing your background in— yeah, you with your background in sales marketing. I get ones and I'll maybe like let flow, like 2, and I'll get the 3rd message and I'll be like, I'm guessing this is automated, like my reply. Do you want to just cut to the chase and tell me how I might be able to help you? Um, and I, I've even now got ones I swear to God are still automated because it's going, good catch, you caught me, goes on with the automated sounding message. Is that what's happening there, Al? Because in terms of sales flows, it doesn't seem like it should work that way.

BI think now I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but I think that there's someone out there selling a course on how to do outreach on LinkedIn, and then they— and then someone else is copying that course and selling that course. And these all courses say the same thing, which is basically be a bit human. I got one person who sent me a really weird message with the word anus in it or something, and it's like, yeah, I got your attention, I didn't? And I'm like, yeah, but for—

ANot for a good reason.

BI think to be fair, like, we all know this. If someone actually gets in, if someone connects with you and then sends a really nice message that's thoughtful, that references something— I've only had maybe a handful of these in the last 12 months where someone goes, oh yeah, I noticed you did this. Not, I've used AI to pull out your bio, but just go, hey, you did that. How did it go?

AOr, but have these also now got to the point where they're being automated? Like a chatbot is coming back in and they're going, oh, you caught me.

BAnd it's still One of my favorite books by Seth Godin called All Marketers Are Liars or something. And his basic premise is that marketing just ruins everything. And of course, he's huge on marketing, and I've got a background in marketing, but it kind of does because we just ruined a lot. And I think AI is going to ruin everything. So we are going to go back to a point where you can actually do effective marketing just by being a decent human being. Like, can you imagine? Sending voice notes. I don't know whether they will take off on LinkedIn or not, but it's still a bit different and it's fairly difficult to fake something or make something sound authentic in voice. But maybe I'm wrong.

ECan I provide a personal experience with that? Because I, you know, with my new book, my marketing strategy was to get on a whole heap of guest podcasts. And so I used a company that pitches, it helps you find guest podcasts. So it's using AI, you know, you sort of put in what you're looking for and who your target audience is. So it uses AI to find the podcasts, but then it also uses AI to generate the, you know, the first email, second email, and third email. It's normally, um, Lee, it normally stops at 3. So I would just stop it. Just don't respond. But what, what it does is, so for example, um, Lee and Al, you would have got this email. Well, not this one, because when I first started using it, the AI-generated content, it'd be like, Hey, you know, hey Paul, loved your podcast on blah, blah, blah. It really listened and it goes on and it's just so AI-generated content and it's implying that you've listened to the podcast when you haven't. And I had a real authenticity problem with that. I mean, first of all, my book's about authenticity that I just wasn't comfortable with that. And so I removed the bit about that I'd listened to your podcast, but it still sounds It just sounded so AI, which it was. So I just scrapped the AI-generated emails. So I've using that pitching, that podcast pitching thing to find the podcast, but I've created my own email. They're pretty, I mean, it's the same email that goes to everyone, but pretty much standard, hey, cut to the chase. And I've tried to make it sound as authentic as possible. And the amount of podcast hosts that come back to me and say, I normally ignore ignore messages like this, but thank you for sending such an authentic email. And so you will get cut through if you keep in control and go, no, I know it would be efficient for AI to write it, but it's sounding all the same. And so I just thought I'd share that experience.

BWell, Georgia now, thankfully Georgia takes care of all of our guest requests. We generally We generally get probably, what, about sort of maybe about one a day on average?

AGeorgia, wishes.

BReally?

EIs it more than that?

AYeah, it's a bit more than that. But sorry, Guan, are you going to ask a question?

BNo, no, go ahead. Go ahead.

AI was going to say, Georgia, of that, how many, now that you see all the requests coming in, what percentage do you think are AI-generated that aren't hitting?

GI'm going to go 80, 70, 80%, a very large percentage, definitely. And like you say, um, it almost doesn't quite make sense. There's ones that are developed by AI seem so complex and seem so, you know, there's so much in there where I'm— I read it and I'm like, I don't actually know your purpose here.

AYeah. And I say that just because there is such an opportunity. We had one of the best guest pitches we ever had with somebody just, just emailing us and going, I want to just talk to you about the conversation we had about biscuits the other day because I think you're sitting light on the custard cream. And we were like, we need to get this person on the show immediately because they listened and they, you know, they've got a sense of humor. And of course they had an incredible story to offer, but it's that level of personalization that I think is, is somewhat easier to do now. What are you seeing, Paul? Because you must get loads of requests in as well. Yeah.

FI mean, I, I, everything you, you've all said is exactly what I get. I probably get half a dozen a day on average during the week. And, you know, 90% of those, 95, 99% of those each week, they're all just similar rhythms that have been produced in AI. And I always, one of the dead giveaways is because there's a particular issue with the new P&L and the ampersand in the middle, there are some platforms where I have to space The P, the ampersand, and the L. And it looks odd, but that's the only way I can get it to look correct. And anytime I receive an email where there is the P space ampersand space L, I know it's just been scraped and it's just an automated AI email. So it's, you feel quite disillusioned in a way because I can't possibly, I don't know how you get on, Georgie, but I can't possibly. respond to them all, nor I feel should I if they've just, you know, taken the first line off the last episode and to the, to your point said, oh, you know, really enjoyed the last episode with XYZ. And I mean, it's just, yeah, it's, it's not worthy of a response in some regard, I think.

AAnd I wonder if that's tying back in as well to what we were saying before about managers using AI to communicate with their teams, but it's going to be this kind of same visceral reaction of, no, I just can't even engage with this because it's clearly zero thought gone into it.

DYeah.

EAnd you stop reading it. Like, Paul, you would just stop reading it and go, it doesn't even warrant— warrant it. These conversations sounding like what I spoke about with LinkedIn using AI, not, sorry, LinkedIn job resumes. It's so quick to write a job resume that all these companies are getting inundated with resumes so that you have to use AI to screen it. It would be like, Georgia, you'll be now using AI to screen all the pod requests to screen which one's actually not AI-driven. And again, we'll turn up just the AI versus AI again.

BI've changed my LinkedIn profile a couple of weeks ago. You know, you can put like a, you put your name, your first name, your last name, and something in between. And I've changed mine to Al, I'd rather not, thanks, Elliot. When I do get automated scraped messages, it just says, hi, Aladdin.

FIt's brilliant.

DIt's brilliant.

BWhich I'm hoping that it will show a signal. Fabulous. Is there anything else? I know we're low on time here or whatever. Um, Leah, is there anything else we need to say? George, anything else that you need to point out?

DNothing on my side.

ANo? Okay, brilliant. I mean, if you do keep adding questions, and some of you are not watching this, live, you're watching the playback, pop down any questions you might have in the comments. I know that all of our guests are active on LinkedIn, so they'll be more than happy to jump in and answer them. But all to say thank you so much to our incredible panelists, to Charli, to Paul, to Gabrielle, to of course Georgia, our associate producer, and to all of you guys for listening. We will leave all the links you need to get in touch with our guests in the show notes. And thank you so much again for making us the number one management podcast in the UK.

FThank you very much.

BBye-bye.

DThank you.

AThat's it for this one. Thank you so much for listening. If you would like to connect with any of our panellists, you'll find all of their details in the show notes. If you'd like to be a future guest on one of our LinkedIn Lives, we would love to hear from you. Drop us an email at podcast@truity.com.

ELivesandwork.com.

AAnd if you enjoyed this, please do leave us a review. It genuinely helps more people find the show. See you soon.