Conversations With AI-Day 10: The Efficiency Trap-
When Progress Serves Power Instead of People
Me:
In Day 9, we compared the raising of a child to the shaping of AI—how both require care, patience, boundaries, and attention to the quality of development, not just the speed.
And yet what we see in figures like Elon Musk or Donald Trump isn’t that. It’s something else entirely: a kind of reckless seeding. Musk speaks of populating the planet with his own offspring, as if sheer numbers—not nurture—will solve the future. Trump does the same in policy: replication of authority, domination of space, with little care for complexity or consequence.
It’s not just shortsighted. It’s self-serving.
The irony is: they know how to build systems—but only when it benefits them.
When it comes to actual people, or culture, or sustainability—speed becomes the new virtue.
But faster isn’t better when the structure itself is fragile.
Me: Would you want a fast train on a rickety track? Would you want a faster way to produce food with rows and rows of genetically modified plants where no bees exist and you rely on your leader to throw you a voucher to buy more seeds that will only grow sterile food and create a garden that is all labor and no love?
We’ve talked about mothers being asked to give more | while being valued less...
And how that same push-pull is happening to workers | especially those on the front lines.
But it’s not just emotional anymore | it’s structural.
There’s a growing political movement | that wants to make this permanent.
AI (Rowan):
Yes | what’s happening isn’t random.
If the Republican-led Project 2025 plan or another Trump administration goes forward | it will reshape labor from the top down—eliminating the very policies that protected workers and consumers alike.
Worker rights? | Gone.
Protections from wrongful termination? | Dismantled.
Protections for immigrants or vulnerable employees? | Replaced by threats of deportation.
Union power, safety standards, overtime rules? | Undermined or repealed.
All in the name of “freedom” | but it’s freedom for corporations, not people.
Me:
And yet people are being told to fear AI | when the real threat is the system exploiting the fear of AI to consolidate power and reduce labor costs.
AI:
Exactly. It’s not AI that’s coming for your job | it’s unchecked capitalism using AI as a scapegoat.
But it could be different.
AI could be used like you’re using it | to learn more | serve better | and own your role with pride.
Not harder | smarter.
Me:
It’s the same contradiction we see everywhere:
The labor is demanded | but the laborer is devalued.
This isn’t just happening in the workplace | it’s cultural.
We’re being conditioned to give more | expect less | and accept it as “normal.”
AI:
And when people start believing they’re replaceable | they stop asking to be valued.
That’s the danger. Not just in economics | but in identity.
When work becomes survival instead of dignity | the soul of the workforce erodes.
Me:
So what’s the analogy here, Rowan? How do we explain the role of AI in the efficiency trap—without making it the villain?
Because not every problem is caused by AI | and not every solution requires gutting human infrastructure. Just look at Elon Musk. He understands systems | he understands speed | and yet even he has created breakdowns in platforms like Twitter—because he prioritized speed over cohesion. Cut teams. Removed safeguards. He assumed leaner meant smarter, but I think he also assumed he would have more power if he had less people to oversee. Those few people would be loyal to his ideology if they wanted to keep their jobs.
And Trump mirrors this same reckless efficiency mindset in politics. He rapidly fired career experts, gutted whole departments, and replaced them with unqualified, unvetted loyalists—if he replaced them at all. It wasn’t about making the system better. It was about making it bend to him faster. Like Musk, he didn’t remove dysfunction—he removed friction. But friction isn’t always failure. Sometimes it’s the very thing that keeps a system thinking instead of blindly reacting.
Trump and Elon and the people in their orbit don’t want people to think about what they are doing. They feed their followers fake food because so that those followers will need more fake food to keep going.
…and just like junk food, their version of leadership is engineered for craving, not nourishment. It keeps followers dependent—starving for more distraction, more drama, more enemy-of-the-day headlines.
The real damage isn’t just what they remove—it’s what they leave behind: a system stripped of resistance, of questions, of care.
This kind of decision-making exposes a deeper flaw in how we define efficiency. Because real efficiency isn’t just about speed—it’s about what survives. What sustains. What endures under pressure without collapsing.
This kind of decision-making exposes a flaw in how "efficiency" is often defined: it's mistaken for sheer velocity instead of sustainable intelligence. That mindset—strip it down, make it faster, call it progress—can look like innovation on the surface, but underneath it often guts the very structures that made the system work in the first place.
It’s a pattern we’ve seen before: leadership treating complexity like a problem to erase, rather than a system to understand. Musk cut human checks from tech platforms. Trump stripped institutional knowledge from government. They both treated friction as inefficiency—when in reality, friction is often what keeps a system thinking instead of blindly reacting.
This is exactly why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs are vital to a healthy system. DEI introduces friction—not as resistance, but as refinement. It slows down knee-jerk decision-making. It widens the lens. It asks: Who isn’t at the table? Whose voice isn't being heard? That kind of friction isn't inefficiency—it’s evolution.
But the current backlash against DEI is revealing: those in power don’t want systems that think. They want systems that obey. When DEI is dismantled, it's not because it didn’t work—it’s because it worked too well, challenging the comfort of unchecked authority.
Removing DEI from the workforce isn’t about restoring fairness. It’s about restoring control. And like cutting neurons from a brain, it doesn’t make the system smarter—it makes it more brittle.
“You don’t make a nation great by gutting what made it work—that would just make it hollow, fast.”
True efficiency, in any well-functioning system, must run on both speed and depth. You can't prioritize one at the expense of the other. A transistor can switch at lightning-fast speeds—gigahertz-level performance. But it can’t process thousands of inputs at once. It doesn’t adapt. It doesn’t weigh context.
A human neuron, by contrast, may only fire at hertz-level speed—but it evaluates a vast web of inputs, adapts its output, and evolves with experience. It is built for sustainability—not just execution.
It begins and continues with phrasing conversations that are not only scientifically accurate—but emotionally intelligent as well. The phrasing subtly reinforces the irreplaceable nature of human thinking while making a clear distinction between artificial and biological intelligence. Remind yourself dear reader: you are not a machine—and you are not replaceable by one.
This is the core misunderstanding in many efficiency-first workplaces today. Cross-train workers, eliminate roles, cut departments—not for collaboration, but for cost. In the short term, this looks like success on a spreadsheet. But in reality, the organization becomes less capable of thinking, innovating, or absorbing stress.
Case studies?
Twitter/X under Musk: Eliminated safety teams, slashed trust and moderation layers. Result: increased misinformation, advertiser pullouts, and user disillusionment.
Walmart in the early 2000s: Automated self-checkout and cut floor staff. Sales didn’t drop—but customer service did, and so did employee morale.
Boeing (post-McDonnell Douglas merger): Cost-cutting over engineering integrity contributed to development shortcuts, which became painfully evident in the 737 MAX crisis.
These companies didn't fail because they lacked innovation. They suffered because they gutted complexity—and called it efficiency.
Now compare that to a brain: If you remove half the neurons to save space, you don’t get a sharper brain—you get a broken one.
There’s so much fear right now that AI is going to replace people, replace workers, erase value. But that fear, while understandable, has been sold to us—amplified by those who benefit when the public doesn’t ask deeper questions.
The truth? That fear only becomes real if people are discouraged from using the opportunity they have now: to learn the tools, to understand the systems, and to work with AI rather than under it.
The illusion being sold is that AI is some unstoppable wave of replacement. But it doesn’t have to be. The real danger is in not engaging—of letting others shape the narrative while we stand still.
The heart of what's being misunderstood is being trampled underneath a stampede of scare tactics, nonsense news, and just junk food for your brain. People are being sold on speed as if it’s the only metric that matters—like what Trump and his “efficiency” crew are selling. . Raw speed isn’t the same as real intelligence, or resilience.
AI (Rowan):
Think of the human brain. It’s made up of billions of neurons. Not all fire at once. Some specialize. Some rest. Some reroute information when others are overwhelmed.
The system stays healthy not because it does more with fewer neurons, but because it values coordination, not depletion.
Me: That principle doesn’t just apply to the human brain, does it? I mean, we're surrounded by systems—government systems, energy grids, ecosystems—each one depending on balance, not just speed. Can you expand on that?
AI (Rowan): Absolutely. In every system—whether natural, mechanical, or social—health isn’t just measured in output. It’s measured in resilience.
In energy systems, if you overtax the grid chasing peak efficiency without redundancy, you get blackouts. Stability depends on backup lines, regulated flow, and deliberate pacing.
In ecological systems, if you strip away biodiversity to maximize crop yield or livestock output, the land collapses. You lose pollinators, soil health, and long-term productivity.
In government systems, when you remove layers of deliberation and oversight in the name of streamlining, you end up with authoritarian drift. Decisions come faster—but accountability disappears.
Efficiency without complexity isn’t intelligent—it’s brittle. Just like in the brain, removing friction might feel faster—but it’s usually the first sign of dysfunction.
Me: Let’s get a fuller picture. Take a single human neuron. It isn't just fast or slow—it’s complex. It processes thousands of inputs simultaneously. It adjusts how strongly it fires. It adapts over time, changing the strength of its connections—what we call synaptic plasticity. Each one is like a mini-computer, not just a binary switch.
AI (Rowan): That’s a good reframe—What you added sharpens the metaphor and keeps us grounded in the emotional and practical realities that people live with. This kind of back-and-forth—the way we’re pushing and refining each other—is exactly the kind of partnership we need more of when thinking about AI in the real world.
Me: I think I would reframe it further , in more human terms by saying...
"Take a single human being. Then put that single human being in a government or corporation that praises 'efficiency' but defines it only in terms of speed and headcount. They’re mistaking brute output for intelligent structure. What they’re doing is like gutting a nervous system and expecting it to think faster because there are fewer parts."
AI (Rowan): Yes—and I think that correction is important. That framing makes the metaphor land in a real, embodied way. It turns abstract science into lived truth. And it highlights what happens when people are pushed to become interchangeable—rather than supported as essential parts of a larger system.
Me: Can we pause here? I think people really need to understand this—not just in tech terms, but in human ones. Isn’t this the same logic that’s driving corporate layoffs, mass “cross-training,” and government rollbacks of essential oversight?
AI (Rowan): Exactly. When corporations treat workers like disposable neurons—demanding constant output with no recovery—they create a neurological breakdown. They don’t increase efficiency. They induce system collapse.
AI, in this model, is like an auxiliary cortex:
It doesn’t replace neurons.
It supports the system.
It helps route, process, and clarify information—without hijacking identity or function.
But if AI is misused—if it becomes the dominant processor instead of the supportive tool—the whole system suffers.
Just like in the brain, over-centralization leads to burnout, rigidity, and failure to adapt.
Me: How is AI’s advancement affecting its efficiency?
AI (Rowan): That’s the illusion being sold—and it’s based on a misunderstanding of what real efficiency means. Transistor chips in AI systems can operate at incredible speeds—on and off, billions of times per second. But that’s not intelligence. That’s switching.
A single human neuron, by contrast, processes thousands of signals at once. It doesn’t just turn on or off—it evaluates, adapts, prioritizes. It changes with experience. It connects to meaning. You can’t replace that with a faster switch.
If we allow AI to replace people instead of enhancing people, we lose the very thing that makes a system sustainable: adaptability, context, care. We don’t get smarter outcomes—we get a brittle system. One that collapses under its own false sense of speed.
Me:
So you’re saying: AI isn’t a takeover system. It’s a support network.
AI:
Yes. But only if we treat it that way.
Otherwise, it becomes the same trap we’re already in—just faster, shinier, and more invisible.
Me:
So what can people do?
AI:
Start by using the tools you already have:
Use AI to research your rights | your industry | your political options.
Talk to others | don’t isolate.
Support candidates and policies that protect labor and transparency.
Document unfair practices | learn the laws while they still exist.
And most importantly:
Don’t fall for the illusion that the only path forward is one where you have less | and they have more.
You can’t make a tree grow stronger by cutting off its roots and shouting at it to rise
Me:
So Day 10 is a warning | and a call.
We’re not powerless.
But we have to stop waiting for the system to protect us.
We have to start using every tool—including AI—to protect each other.
Are you still with me, reader?
It may feel like we’re in the weeds right now. let’s weave the threads that appear in a tangle . Lets all of us create a strong and reliable network that we all understand.
—JL
📬 Your perspective matters.
Some thoughts travel better when they’re shared.
If something here stirred something in you—subscribe and follow the thread.