What struck me in this article the automation conversation is reframed from technical capability and toward human intention. The exercise of asking what we want to automate and, more importantly, what we would never automate forces leaders to confront the difference between tasks that drain us and tasks that define us. The automation boundary framework is one of the clearest tools I’ve seen for separating efficiency from meaning. In a time when AI can remove almost any inconvenience, we are reminded here that some forms of friction are not just acceptable; they are actually essential to agency, connection, and growth.
The article well demonstrates that automation can deliver gains in access, affordability, and safety. Except there is a warning label folks: eliminating the wrong struggles, risks hollowing out parts of life that create capability and community. The distinction between virtuous and vicious friction can help us as individuals and leaders to think more responsibly about where AI should accelerate processes and where it should intentionally stop. This balance, of leveraging automation without drifting into dehumanization, is the nuance we need right now, and it is well articulated here, with rare clarity.
What struck me in this article the automation conversation is reframed from technical capability and toward human intention. The exercise of asking what we want to automate and, more importantly, what we would never automate forces leaders to confront the difference between tasks that drain us and tasks that define us. The automation boundary framework is one of the clearest tools I’ve seen for separating efficiency from meaning. In a time when AI can remove almost any inconvenience, we are reminded here that some forms of friction are not just acceptable; they are actually essential to agency, connection, and growth.
The article well demonstrates that automation can deliver gains in access, affordability, and safety. Except there is a warning label folks: eliminating the wrong struggles, risks hollowing out parts of life that create capability and community. The distinction between virtuous and vicious friction can help us as individuals and leaders to think more responsibly about where AI should accelerate processes and where it should intentionally stop. This balance, of leveraging automation without drifting into dehumanization, is the nuance we need right now, and it is well articulated here, with rare clarity.
I enjoy the historical stats Zack includes in these newsletters. They give helpful perspective on our current opportunities and challenges.
I value the lens of "virtuous friction" versus "vicious friction" to differentiate decisions that build meaning from those that diminish life.