We all know that proverb. I’ve heard it attributed to Steve Jobs and the entire continent of Africa, but no one really knows where it’s from.
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."
Although it’s a lazy piece of pith, I wish more tech leaders would repeat it to themselves now as they respond to the acceleration of AI tools.
Pumping up the automation in the short term seems like an attractive option for financial performance; robots are cheaper than humans. That’s what going fast alone (or with machines, more precisely) looks like. But the backlash will come, whether that is from customers who are fed up with not being able to get through to a human or employees who feel undervalued and exploited.
I’m thinking specifically of the about-face that Duolingo’s cofounder and CEO pulled recently after overwhelming criticism of a new “AI-first” policy. After vowing to replace contractors with AI and only grant more headcount in cases where no more automation was possible, among other things, Luis von Ahn backtracked: “I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do… I see it as a tool to accelerate what we do, at the same or better level of quality.”
Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski, who has made trumpeting AI efficiencies a core part of his IPO campaign, has also had to retreat. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that the buy now, pay later giant will hire more customer support roles after trying to hand much of the work over to machines; Sifted reported last year that after Klarna outsourced 750 roles in 2023, unresolved customer and merchant queries quadrupled. Klarna did not respond to a request for comment at the time.
As our proverb-of-suspicious-origin suggests, only companies that strike the right balance will be able to go far. The jury is still out on the true impact of newer, Gen AI tools on the bottom line. More than 80% of respondents to a McKinsey survey say that Gen AI tools have not had a tangible impact on company-level EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes). Carnegie Mellon University researchers ran an experiment by creating a company completely staffed by AI agents; the best performing model completed only 24% of jobs, the worst, 1.7%.
Speaking to CEOs and leaders frequently, I think the most bullish are the ones who don’t actually use AI on a regular basis in their tasks. And lest we forget (like that law firm that submitted made-up citations in a court filing) — GenAI tools are wrong, a lot of the time.
Going far, together
So what does a company that goes far together — both with AI and supporting its employees and customers — look like?
An engineer who recently rose to an executive position at his small tech firm told me that for every percentage increase that the use of AI tools brings to the company, he’s going to return half of that as salary increases to his employees. There is no other way that they will understand the benefit (if there is one) to using these tools, he said.
Employees are also not going to just magically teach themselves how to harness AI tools. It’s great to let them experiment, but people also need real training. If you’re a marketing team who will be using AI to help you create more content, make sure the team has the time and the development budget to explore the possibilities — and the limits. The feedback that comes from these kinds of explorations can also provide valuable input to leaders so they don’t overinvest in AI tools that don’t actually deliver.
Finally, it’s up to investors to see through the hype and put pressure on companies for real transparency over the impact of AI on the businesses that they are backing. How much automation was actually present before spending more on AI tools? What are the company’s policies about hallucinations caused by Gen AI tools? If the IPO market does start to open up, this will be more important than ever.
Companies that invest in the hard work of integrating AI thoughtfully will build sustainable competitive advantages — and go far.
