Nowadays, we increasingly discuss the application of artificial intelligence in our professional daily lives and beyond. It is true that small and large-scale AI applications are gaining ground, securing their place as useful assistants in the tasks we need to perform. This is how I came to ask myself: What is the difference between an artificial and an intelligent CEO? The most widespread AI tool today, none other than ChatGPT, helped me explore this question.
The answers were fascinating. An "artificial" CEO, I was told, would be one that utilises advanced algorithms, data analysis, and machine learning to make decisions, optimise processes, and enhance business strategy. On the other hand, an "intelligent" CEO is expected to have a deep understanding of their industry, a strong reputation for the company, and the ability to manage complex business challenges. It is clear that an intelligent CEO refers more to personal qualities rather than the technological aspects that artificial intelligence can provide. AI itself recognises this distinction, identifying human characteristics as the true source of intelligence. If you had asked me just a few minutes earlier, I would have hesitated before deciding whether intelligence stems from human attributes, the ability to analyze data, or even the speed at which this analysis is conducted.
Decisions Belong to the Right People
Artificial intelligence enables machines to understand their environment, solve problems, and act toward achieving a specific goal. These systems can adjust their behaviour to a certain extent by analysing the consequences of past actions and autonomously solving various issues. However, in the previous paragraph, we mentioned two key words that reveal a challenge we must address when it comes to AI: “past actions.” This phrase represents the Achilles' heel of most systems today. As we know, history rarely repeats itself in the same way, and even more rarely does it produce the same outcomes. Therefore, if AI-based analysis relies on the assumption that history will repeat itself, we should be cautious about the accuracy of the insights we receive.
This is precisely why I strongly support the idea that when imagination and creativity are required—or even better, demanded—final decisions should be made by humans. Not just any humans, but the right ones.
Innovation today is entirely linked to technology and artificial intelligence, while the race for dominance in the “new frontier” of the artificial brain appears relentless. In this evolving landscape, human experience and expertise remain central to progress. Training and retraining—topics we have discussed for years—become pillars of inclusion, especially for older generations, in the new business reality. However, for the rest of the century, the real demand in the corporate world will be for all employees to be visible, respected, and treated as valued members of the organisations to which they dedicate at least a third of their lives. The reason behind such a demand is the need for more happy people, rather than simply making people "happier." After all, happiness is immeasurable and inherently subjective.
A New Era
Alright. If we have identified key issues related to AI advancements, if we have confirmed that we are not innovating deeply, and if we acknowledge our fundamental human need to belong and be recognised, are there truly new elements that technology is shaping? Like everyone else, I cannot be certain, but it seems we are standing at the threshold of a new era.
Our world consumes more energy each year than ever before. Energy consumption has been rising because technological tools drive this increase at a rate of 30% annually, with no signs or reasons for this trend to change. Efforts to reduce consumption in vehicles and other sectors, along with systematic research to lower energy use across industries, have not yielded significant results. Whether I agree or disagree is of little consequence when the demand for more energy is global, uniform, and class-transcending.
However, it is worth noting that discussing sustainable development is meaningless if we do not first ensure our own sustainability.
Greece is still far from achieving digital literacy at a level that would allow it to follow the successful models of technologically advanced nations like Estonia and Israel. The frameworks are different. In Estonia, they have leveraged the digital divide and invested in cutting-edge technologies, securing hundreds of billions in intermediary investments. Their future will depend on their participation in the investments yet to come. Israel, on the other hand, has paved roads in technology, taking risks, changing their education model, creating companies, and—most importantly—leaving behind those who could not keep up.
Many tell me that Greece cannot become Estonia or Israel. I ask them: Do we want to? Because if we do, that is the only thing that truly matters.
I know that many associate investments with money and view the lack of money as some kind of "curse" that must be avoided. But money is neither good nor bad. It is energy, a means, a mechanism, and it should always be the result of what we do.
There is nothing wrong with having money. However, we must not assume that having money guarantees good investments, just as we should not assume that we are incapable of following a successful model.
One thing I do know: If we find dozens of difficulties for every possible solution, the problem will never be solved. Not even with artificial intelligence…
Comentários