Thought of the Day
The Prosthetic Test
Every company claims to be empowering its people with AI. Almost none of them can pass the simplest test: are their people sharper with the tool, or just more dependent?
I have a question I ask every time I see a company rolling out AI internally: after six months of using this tool, are your people sharper or softer?
Not faster. Not more productive. Not cheaper to operate. Sharper.
Can they see patterns they could not see before? Can they make calls with more confidence because the tool expanded their judgment, not replaced it? Can they walk away from the system for a week and still perform — maybe even better, because the distance forced them to internalize what the tool had been doing for them?
If yes, you built a prosthetic. Something that extends the human. Something that makes the person more capable and then steps aside when they no longer need it.
If no, you built an IV drip. Something that keeps the output flowing while the person underneath slowly loses the ability to generate output on their own.
The difference is invisible on a dashboard. Both look like productivity. Both show up in quarterly reports as wins. But one is building capacity and the other is draining it.
Most organizations cannot tell the difference because they never ask. They ask about ROI. They ask about speed. They ask about headcount reduction. They never ask whether the person on the other end of the tool is more human or less.
That is the real deployment question. Not "does this save time" but "does this make the person more dangerous in a good way."p>
A prosthetic should leave you taller. If it leaves you shorter, you did not buy a tool. You bought a subscription to your own erosion.