Legitimize Learning
“Your job is to 1) learn and 2) share. Never forget that.”
That’s what a post-it affixed to my computer monitor constantly reminds me. At some point during the pandemic, I realized that the world expects teachers to teach. Which means that most meetings I attend, where I’m the “teacher,” it’s my job to talk. To have the answers. To have the ideas.
Except often, I don’t. I realized I needed to fill my own tank. My material was getting tired. I wasn’t authentic in my expression. And I was self-conscious of this until I realized, “My job is to learn! I don’t have to know everything!”
What that simple reframe enabled was for me to start prioritizing learning, to legitimize it as a valuable use of my time. Instead of just taking more and more meetings where I’m the one who’s talking, I started creating space for learning.
And no one else was making the time for me to learn.
I had to take matters into my own hands. And what a ride it’s been! The single-most enjoyable hour of work each week is the hour I deliberately shed the “teacher’s” cap and put on the student’s. Instead of showing up to talk, I show up to listen.
It’s critical to validate learning by making time for it. And protecting that time. It’s the first thing that we are tempted to toss out the window, because often, it’s not the most urgent thing. But in the long run, it’s hard to imagine something more important.
Click here to subscribe to Paint & Pipette, the weekly digest of these daily posts.
There are levels of AI augmentation: Some people use AI to draft emails. Josh used it to run 27 agents on a single problem, from his mobile on the road, with all the context of his laptop at home. Those are not the same thing.
Andrej Karpathy hasn't typed a line of code since December. That sentence has a blank in it — fill it with your word, and something shifts.
When Manu Ginobili raised his hand during a Spurs AI session and said "Could AI...?" — that was the ball game. The answer to almost every "could it" question is yes. The problem is most people don't have a question yet.
There are two fears circulating in the age of AI. One is fuel. The other is self-fulfilling. A neuroscientist recently explained why — and it changed how I think about every AI conversation I have.
This Week: Guest Post from Brice Challamel , Head of AI Strategy and Adoption at OpenAI — If AI can draft the memo, build the deck, and prototype the product, what exactly is the professional's contribution? Brice says it's not "less" — it's "different." Read his case for the shift from authorship to stewardship.
A 40% quality boost, available to anyone. Taken up by fewer than 3% of the workforce (and that number is going down, not up). At Wharton this week, I accidentally said the thing that explains why.
The engineer who experiments with 40 prompts shows up on the dashboard. The finance manager who quietly kills three recurring reports doesn't — even though she's the one who actually changed. A guest post from Logitech's Head of Global AI.
AI can make you 100x more productive at work, and make being present at home feel 100x more expensive. That tension isn’t just personal weakness. It’s a new economic reality.
I almost moved a family trip for two business opportunities. That moment made me ask a question I think every AI power user needs to sit with: What if your biggest AI risk isn’t bad output, but a misallocated life?
A real concern is not a valid conclusion. An EVP in finance emailed me last week about AI sycophancy. Most people raise that concern as an off-ramp. He made it the curriculum.