AI is just another tool

 

Every so often, the world becomes frantic about a “new” technology that is going “change everything” or replace entire industries.

Recently, I uploaded a professional photo to my LinkedIn profile, and when I say professional, I mean just that. I did use AI, but not to enhance my appearance or make me look younger, change my complexion, or alter who I am. I simply wanted a clean, polished headshot style that, not too long ago, we would have paid a photographer good money to produce. The reality is, I still had to use a real photo of myself, gray beard, and all. AI simply helped create the right background and presentation, and it cost me nothing.

It was interesting some of the comments I got when I posted it; most were positive, some were playful teasing, however, some bothered me a little because the first thing they said was “AI!” in a derogatory manner, and I was not even hiding the fact I used AI.

Why the vehemence? It is just a tool!

It reminds me when we started using calculators in school and teachers (me included) did not like that, but then they figured out that calculators do not solve everything you still had to learn the formulas. “Garbage in garbage out” we used to say because you still had to use your mind.

AI works the same way. It can enhance the work that you do, but cannot replace your creativity, your judgement, your passion, and your style. The real conversation should be about how we use the tool responsibly and effectively, not whether we use it at all. That debate is already over. It is here!

AI is just a tool, and we should not be afraid to use it, we should embrace it and make sure it gets used to make life better (not necessarily easier, because easy isn’t always better).

What are your thoughts on AI and the use of it in the workplace?

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam

One step away from disaster

 

The job market today is unstable in ways that are difficult to capture with statistics. Headline unemployment rates look reassuring, but they ignore two critical groups: those who have stopped looking after months or years of failed searches, and those who are highly qualified yet continually overlooked due to subjective, opaque hiring practices. The reality that people are living does not match the numbers we are being shown.

Many Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck, so it doesn’t take much to tip a stable life into crisis. Picture this scene, because versions of this story happen every day.

You and your spouse both work. The bills are paid, your children are in college, and although nothing is extravagant, life is steady. Then, without warning, one of you loses a job. Suddenly your two-income household becomes one-income overnight, and that one income isn’t enough to sustain where you live. Unemployment benefits help, but only briefly; they were designed as a temporary patch, not a real safety net.

Before you’ve recovered, a medical emergency hits. Now the spouse who still had a job can’t work either. The home you’ve rented for a decade is being sold, and you are given 60 days to move. Even if you scrape together the money for first month’s rent and a deposit, you can’t qualify without the “three-times-the-rent” income requirement. Your credit takes a hit from months of instability. And within six months, despite doing everything “right,” your family finds itself on the brink of homelessness: in the richest country in the world.

This is not hypothetical. This is the lived experience of thousands of working families. Too many people are one step away from disaster, and we rarely acknowledge how fragile the system really is.

So, the question becomes: How do we build a society where one setback doesn’t destroy an entire household? Until we answer that, millions will continue balancing on the edge with no margin for error.

Thoughts?

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam