Business Unusual

AI systems that perpetuate historical biases should be banned regardless of their superior performance outcomes.

If your AI reflects real-world bias, do you fix the system — or kill the mirror? The answer says everything about how serious you are.

Trust calibration in AI systems is fundamentally broken when 66% use what only 46% actually trust.

66% of workers use AI. Only 46% trust it. If that doesn’t bother you, pretend it’s a plane you just boarded. Still feel fine?

Should companies be required to preserve "meaningful human work" even when AI is more efficient?

If “preserving meaningful human work” looks like protecting people from AI-powered invoice processing... maybe we’ve lost the plot.

Corporate responsibility for retraining displaced workers becomes mandatory when AI eliminates more jobs than it creates.

If your AI replaced 10,000 workers, shouldn’t that show up on your balance sheet—not just in your headcount slide?

Is the 150-year-old billable hour model dying because AI makes legal work unmeasurable by time?

If your pricing story falls apart without a timesheet, AI didn’t kill your business model — it just showed clients what’s behind the curtain.

Workers deserve legal protection against algorithmic hiring, firing, and performance evaluations without human decision-makers.

If your algorithm auto-fires employees and no one can explain why—did a manager ever really manage? Or did the spreadsheet run the show?

Requiring human oversight for AI systems that outperform human-AI collaboration is fundamentally unethical and harmful.

AI isn’t coming for your job. It’s coming for the parts of it that never really mattered—and forcing you to face the ones that do.

Does algorithmic transparency become meaningless when AI systems are too complex for humans to understand?

If “algorithmic transparency” means handing you 175 billion puzzle pieces and calling it clarity, maybe it’s time for a different strategy.

Shareholders should have voting rights on AI governance frameworks just like executive compensation decisions.

Most AI “strategies” aren’t strategy—they’re fear in a blazer. Before you hand shareholders a vote, ask who’s actually steering the ship.

When 82% of leaders plan AI agents as team members, who gets fired when the AI makes a catastrophic mistake?

If your AI “teammate” can’t be fired, demoted, or held accountable—why are you letting it make decisions that *you* will answer for?