Hi everyone!
Over the past few months I have been increasingly aware of the moral intensity that seems to accompany conversations about AI, particularly when it comes to designing, writing or creating. The debate is rarely neutral. It is framed in language about authenticity, effort and legitimacy. I hear people say that using AI is cheating, that it removes the human touch, or that it undermines real creativity. While there are important practical and ethical questions to consider, I find myself less interested in the tool itself and more curious about what sits underneath these reactions. To me, this feels less like a technology debate and more like an identity conversation unfolding in real time.
History tells us this is not a new pattern. When email first arrived, there were concerns that meaningful communication would erode. When word processors replaced typewriters, writers feared craft would be diluted. Even photography was met with resistance from painters who believed something essential about art would be lost. Each time technology expands what’s possible, we do not only debate capability; we question legitimacy, value and who gets to belong within a profession.
What makes AI feel particularly charged is the way it reshapes access to skills that have historically been tied to identity and status. For many working in creative and knowledge-based roles, their sense of self has been built around being able to do something that others could not. Years of practice created a form of professional scarcity. When a tool lowers the barrier to entry, it does not simply alter workflow; it disrupts the narrative people hold about their relevance and contribution. It asks a confronting question: who am I when the thing that defined me is no longer scarce?
In leadership conversations, I see two equally human responses. Some lean into AI to maintain relevance in a rapidly changing landscape. Others resist because they want to preserve humanity, integrity and meaning in their work. Neither response is wrong. Both are attempts to stabilise identity at a moment when the ground feels as though it is shifting. When leaders interpret resistance purely as fear or stubbornness, they risk missing the deeper signal that people are trying to make sense of who they are becoming.
This is where leadership has an important role to play. The work is not simply about faster adoption or technical training. It is about creating the conditions for people to redefine their skills, their relevance and ultimately their identity in a way that feels grounded rather than diminished. If AI can generate a first draft or structural outline, the human contribution does not disappear. It moves up a layer - towards judgement, interpretation, ethical discernment and the ability to shape meaning within complexity.
We have seen this evolution before. New tools rarely erase human value, but they do require us to renegotiate what excellence looks like and how we recognise contribution. When a core skill becomes widely accessible, distinction shifts. The conversation moves from proving technical capability towards cultivating wisdom, relational intelligence and the capacity to hold complexity without rushing to certainty.
Beneath the debates about tools and productivity sits a more personal inquiry that many people are navigating quietly. Who am I when my core skill is no longer scarce? Helping people explore that question with curiosity rather than defensiveness may be one of the most important leadership tasks of this moment.
Rox x