Listening to the AI
I use commonly available AI to generate the commentary on my articles. And I listen to it and think about it as how the articles might be perceived. Of course it gets a lot of things wrong (including inaccurate direct quotes). But here is some of the commentary that I found interesting (from last month's article).
The direct approach
I am probably different from most folks in my view of communication. Maybe it's my age, upbringing, genetics, fields of study, experience, or some other such thing, but when I ask a question like "How many X are there today?" I expect an answer in the form of a number. And when I am asked that sort of question, I try to answer with a number. I don't always succeed, having been a professor and thus able to talk for an hour about even the simplest issue, but I try.
So when the AI says "It's so blunt", I might take this as a compliment. But I think it's not intended that way, given the context and vocalizations used. Here's the thing, I talk to maybe 45 people each Thursday, 35 of whom I have never met before in a 1-1.5 hour online meeting, each taking turns pitching something. If I took the pleasant approach to conversational discussion, that would take too much time and likely the other 29 folks on the call would be bored stiff. And if I didn't interrupt some of them, I would never get a sense of them, but rather would have a sense of their ability to repeat their pitch, which is not the skill I am looking for.
I am a conservative radical
If you are at the extreme liberal side of politics, business, science, engineering, or whatever, you likely see me as being conservative and driven by minutia, and if you are on the radical conservative side, you likely see me as being an undisciplined liberal throwing out wild ideas. But that's because of where you are, not because of where I am.
the notion that I use "a radical restructuring of the mentor/mentee relationship" (or of anything else) seems to me to be hyperbole. But on the other hand, maybe it's just how things are pushed in the modern world. A radical restructuring might be a good thing to you, but to me. I am just doing sensible things for sensible reasons. I guess it means my perspective is far from the standard the large language models are used to.
Whose burden is it?
The notion that anything "shifts the burden of agency onto the founder" is about the most pathetic assertion I have seen from AI. To be clear, the burden is always on the seller to explain to the buyer, and the buyer to ask questions and demand meaningful answers. If you are trying to get help or an investment, and you expect me to do more than I already do to be helpful, you are missing the point. You get out what you put in, and if you don't put up (your effort) you should probably shut up (your company).
For the AI'ish among you, I will have AI restate that:
If you’re reaching out in hopes of receiving help or exploring the possibility of an investment, first let me say how much I respect the initiative that takes. Building something, asking for support, and putting your ideas into the world require courage and commitment. That effort matters.
At the same time, meaningful collaboration works best when it’s mutual. The energy, preparation, and thoughtfulness you bring to the table directly shape the quality of support you'll receive in return. When you invest time refining your ideas, clarifying your goals, and demonstrating your own dedication, it creates a strong foundation for others to contribute in a meaningful way.
In other words, the more you put into your work—your planning, your persistence, your follow-through—the more others will be able to amplify and support it. If the effort isn't there yet, that’s okay; it simply means there may be more groundwork to do before seeking outside assistance.
I believe in encouraging people to rise to their own potential. When you bring your very best, it not only strengthens your company, it invites others to bring their best as well.
Feel free to ask AI to do this so you can be happier with my statements, even if it might mischaracterize me...
I was educated as an engineer
It might have been a long time ago, but I grew up in an era and in an environment when and where "stand and deliver" was the requirement. If you weren't prepared for what was coming at you, you would look like an idiot, end of conversation. And in many cases, the time frames for responses were short and the punishment for missing the window was substantial.
When I hear people make proclamations about cultural sensitivity, I wonder how sensitive they are to the culture of others. Some people scream at the drop of a pin, some people won't speak up against authority when it kills innocent people, and it's not usually because they don't care. It's just that they deal with different situations differently.
I am offended when I see things like this: "the engineers mindset applied to conversation", even if I said it first. I can say it about myself, but when you say it, I twinge a bit, and when AI says it about me, I am offended. It's because when I say it, it is to be interpreted with humor, when you say it back to me I am not sure you understand it, and when AI says it, I know it is speaking from ignorance.
Conclusions
I think many of the so-called safety protocols of AI are bad ideas poorly executed. I wish they would focus on understanding my cultural approach for me, and of course yours for you. But I also think current AI is a reflection of humanity, and we should use it as a mirror into our own behavior and how it is perceived.
More information?
Join our monthly free advisory call, usually at 0900 Pacific time on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of the month, tell us about your company and situation, and learn from others as they learn from you.
In summary
Listen to the AI, but don't be offended. It's just how others likely view you. If you don't want to be seen that way, change.
Copyright(c) Fred Cohen, 2026 - All Rights Reserved