AI, Efficiency, and Our Obsession with Doing Things the Hard Way

Someone recently commented on an article I wrote: "You could at least try not to make it obvious that you used AI." It was intended as a criticism. Instead, it made me reflect on something much bigger: our relationship with AI, productivity, and the stigma often attached to using perceived "shortcuts."

My writing process is simple. When inspiration strikes, I record my thoughts using a transcription app. I then use AI to help transform that transcript into a structured article. From there, I review, edit, challenge, and refine the content. The ideas are mine. The perspective is mine. The final accountability is mine. What has changed is the speed.

What once took weeks, finding time to write, organizing my thoughts, and working through multiple drafts, can now be accomplished in a fraction of the time. AI hasn't replaced my thinking. It has reduced the friction between having an idea and sharing it.

An editor, not an author

That's why a commonly quoted statement resonates with me: "You won't lose your job to AI; you'll lose it to someone who knows how to use AI." The quote is probably an oversimplification, but there's an important truth behind it. AI has significantly increased my output. I'm approaching the point where I can produce nearly twice as much as before, not because AI is doing the work for me, but because it allows me to execute faster on ideas I already have.

That distinction matters. There's a difference between asking AI to create something from scratch and using AI to refine, structure, and elevate your own thinking. In my case, AI functions more like an editor than an author. It helps improve flow, organize ideas, and remove unnecessary friction. Whether I'm writing an article or building an agentic solution, the direction, judgment, and decision-making remain mine. The human stays firmly in the loop.

The discomfort with shortcuts

What fascinates me most isn't the technology itself; it's the social reaction to it. There seems to be a growing tendency to shame people for using tools that make them more effective. The criticism is often framed as a defense of hard work, as though choosing a more efficient path somehow reduces the value of the outcome.

But if the outcome is better, why should the shortcut be the problem? If the goal is to communicate ideas, solve problems, create value, or increase productivity, why would using a tool that accelerates the process be viewed negatively? Throughout history, we've embraced tools that help us work smarter. Calculators, spreadsheets, search engines, design software, and countless other innovations have all reduced effort while increasing capability. AI feels less like an exception and more like the next step in that progression.

Of course, transparency and authenticity matter. If someone asks AI to generate an entire article with no personal input, that's a different conversation. But when AI is used to sharpen original thinking, streamline workflows, and amplify human creativity, it becomes less of a replacement and more of an accelerator.

Perhaps the real conversation is not about AI at all. Perhaps it is about our discomfort with perceived shortcuts. We often associate effort with value, and when someone arrives at the same outcome more efficiently, it can challenge our assumptions about what work is supposed to look like.

The comment that inspired this reflection was intended as criticism. Instead, it highlighted something worth considering: why are we so quick to shame people for using tools that help them become better, faster, and more effective?