Are You Qualified to Challenge Your Team on AI? - with Geoff Woods, Author of The AI-Driven Leader

**Geoff Woods** (0:00)
I want to create such a profound transformative experience that they deeply internalize that this is not IT's job, this is my job. I do not have to become an AI expert, but I do have to become an AI-Driven Leader, meaning I personally use the technology every single day to elevate the impact that I make in the organization. And as a result, I'm qualified to now cast a vision for the future. I am qualified to define strategy for how I'm going to win, and I am qualified to lead the team from practice, not theory.
I'm Geoff Woods. I'm the author of the number one bestseller, The AI-Driven Leader. I was on the show 18 months ago when my book first came out, and I'm back again as my updated book is now being released. And we are talking about what has changed over the last 18 months and why I still believe AI is here to enhance you, not replace you. Can I start with a question? There is this architect called Bjarke Ingels, who I used to serve in his board. He's a good friend of mine. And we were at this cool conference last week called Brilliant Minds. And I've been working on this manifesto because I think the world needs basically more positive versions of what could a future look like when AI kind of like roll through. And so I show him this manifesto, and he takes on his glasses and he looks at it and goes like, did you write this yourself? And I replied, of course not. Because I don't write anything fully myself anymore. And then he looks at me and goes, well, if you can't be bothered taking the time to write it, I can't be bothered to take the time to read it, right? Which then kind of obviously started, I mean, it wasn't like meant in a harsh way, right? It's just like we're starting having conversations. And obviously, I've spent a lot of time on this document, right? You know, I've spent endless amount of time. I've had like different modules that I brainstormed with Claude on, and I created an obsidian folder with all the background research. And then together, when Fable was out, at Fable helped me write some of it, right? So this was good writing. And so it started this, I think, very interesting conversation for me is when the length of copy is no longer the proof points of effort that you put into it.
What is? How do I know if what you sent me is AI slop, that you just kind of did one prompt and you just sent me whatever random long text that you got back, or that you spend like six to eight hours actually really working through this document, and I don't have a good answer for it. So I'm posting it to you guys.
Do you need one? Well, you know what?
I think I do because I also get AI slop and I find it to be annoying when somebody sends me something and I get halfway through and it clearly is just kind of like their first shot. Yeah. And I also want to be respectful. Have I sent something to you, Geoff?
I would want you to feel that I value your time and if you, for a second, felt that I didn't, I would feel embarrassed by that. I have thought about this. And again, the role of the human is to be the thought leader. AI is your thought partner. As thought leader, you're in the driver's seat of the car. As thought partner, they're in the passenger seat.
I write every word, but I use AI to write every word. And so for me, I can tell when somebody has just one shot at it and sends it across, you're right. That does not leave a good impression. The question that I find myself asking is, did they as thought leader review this and approve this? Did they put their stamp of approval on this to say, this is my voice. This is the message I'm trying to deliver. Do I believe this is the appropriate length? Did they apply judgment and discernment to the message? When that happens, I love it. When that's void, that's when I judge them.

**Jeremy Utley** (3:47)
Part of the challenge is this bias. I mean, yes, I agree, of course, everything he said. Yes.
Bjarke's problem is his bias.
And I don't think Geoff has, no one, none of us have a chance to give a well-reasoned, that implies that he's willing to engage. There's something interesting Henrik there, which is he sees the document. It sounds like he didn't read it, right? He doesn't read it and instead he asks you whether you wrote it, and then he decides whether he's going to read it. Which is that's a pre-consumption, hesitation, bias, etc. I wonder.