Godkväll,

Tydligen var det söndag redan, så här kommer ett nyhetsbrev lite senare än vanligt. Ungefär hälften av er läser på måndagar och då spelar det ju ingen roll.

I veckan drack jag kaffe med en klok person som också har erfarenhet av att resa pengar som poängterade att riskkapital och verkligheten sällan går ihop. "Om man säger som det är, får man inga investerare. Och om man ska lyckas få investerare måste man ljuga sig åtminstone lite lila om hur verkligheten faktiskt ser ut." Och då driver hen ändå ett bolag som går bra.

Jag trivdes inte med det, så jag lämnade. Och jag kan inte sluta fascineras av att vi har en ekonomisk modell som bygger på inte bara normal utan extrem tillväxt.

I veckan gick Pär-Jörgen Pärsson från Northzone (en tung svensk investerare på ett etablerat investeringsbolag) ut och varnade för att marknaden är överhettad. Det påminner om 1999, säger han. Tiden före den mytomspunna IT-bubblan.

En av anledningarna till detta är att svenska AI-bolag lägger sin energi på att skapa hype kring tekniken, och får massor med kapital, i stället för att skapa verkligt värde genom att lösa komplexa problem.

Historien har ju tyvärr en tendens att upprepa sig. Jag var inte med då, och det var inte heller de andra grundarna som driver bolagen han syftar på.

Men jag tror tyvärr att den här extrema hypen kring AI, som så många bolag försöker driva på, inte alls är bra varken för Sverige eller för bolagen själva. Det gör bara vanliga användare ännu mer skeptiska till en teknik som de redan är väldigt skeptiska till. För hur kul är det att gå runt och känna att man kommer att bli ersatt av en maskin?

Vi ser anti-AI-demonstrationer dyka upp runt om i världen nu. Det ska bli spännande att se när de första svenska demonstranterna börjar synas här. Jag tänker att det är ett symptom på att hypen slår tillbaka.

Men även om tekniken rör sig fort framåt på teoretisk och konceptuell nivå, är användning och implementering inte alls i närheten av det hypen försöker påstå. Det går kanske i 30–40 km/h, inte 110 km/h.

Och det enda sättet att gå från teknikutveckling till teknikanvändning är att låta saker ta lite tid. Det är faktiskt rätt sunt.

Problemet är bara att ingen entreprenör får riskkapital på rimliga tidsplaner. Då anses man vara oambitiös. Så istället skapas världsmästerskapen i att bygga luftslott.

Det finns självklart bra exempel på bolag som skapar verkligt värde även inom AI. En av mina favoriter är Berget som hostar stora språkmodeller hållbart i Sverige. Det är en viktig byggsten för organisationer som vill implementera AI utan att vara beroende av amerikanska bolag. Den typen av företag står sannolikt betydligt stabilare vid en eventuell bubbla. Och kanske är hemligheten att grundarna faktiskt var med och lärde sig något av den förra IT-bubblan …

Många känner en reell stress över att hänga med på AI-tåget. Kanske känns det därför lite skönt att även de som investerar i nya bolag hissar varningens finger.

Jag kan inte låta bli att tänka på att någon driver vår tids Boo.com. Frågan är bara vem?

Trevlig kväll!

Anna

Annat kul

• Tack för all entusiasm kring Kvarteret. Det känns jättekul att det fortsätter trilla in prenumeranter, även många som jag inte känner.
• Det finns fortfarande några platser kvar på AI-strategikursen hos NyTeknik som jag leder delar av. Vi kör i Göteborg i slutet av maj och början av juni. Häng på!

Godmorgon!

Vi fortsätter på svenska. Och med den intressanta spaningen att så många av er tyckte att det kändes mycket mer intressant att läsa bara för att jag bytte språk.

Säger inte det väldigt mycket? Idag kan AI översätta både text och ljud i realtid. Så man tänker att språk borde spela mindre roll. Men kanske är det just därför det blir så viktigt.

AI direktöversätter och blandar in uttryck från alla möjliga språk. Samtidigt ger AI-modellerna olika svar på samma fråga beroende på vilket språk du ställer den på. Varje språk har byggt sin egen värld och har en inneboende kultur som inte bara kan översättas rakt av.

En människa har precisionen och den kulturella tillhörigheten som krävs för att något ska kännas sådär under huden. Och vi kan bli hur flytande som helst på nya språk, men det är ändå något särskilt med modersmål.

Jag har alltid tänkt, som den ambitiösa akademiker jag är, ”om jag blir förälder vill jag ge mina barn många språk”. Och tog länge för givet att en internationell skola med undervisning på engelska måste vara bäst då, så att man får fler språk tidigt. Men sen lärde jag mig att forskningen snarare säger att det bästa sättet för ett barn att bli språkbegåvat är att förkovra sig i sitt modersmål. Bli riktigt bra på det. Och sen byggs andra språkkunskaper ovanpå det mycket mer effektivt.

Att som svensktalande sätta sina barn i engelsktalande skolor gör därför barn sämre på båda språken enligt forskningen. Så om målet är språkkunskaper gör man dem en björntjänst.

Det är intressant att ha fel, tycker jag. Saker är inte alltid som man tror.

Nu till något mindre politiskt.

I torsdags lanserade jag ett projekt jag jobbat på ett litet tag: Kvarteret.

Det utgår från insikten att livet offline börjar få allt mer plats i våra liv igen. Jag hoppas att det är mer av en insikt än en trend. Att vi börjar lära oss att vi mår bättre med mindre skärm och mer äventyr.

Det har kommit flera nya studier som visar hur fort vi mår bättre av att plocka bort skärmarna i våra liv. Ett par veckor bara så mår vi bättre enligt psykologiska skattningsskalor. Så att försöka bidra till mer tid utan skärm känns väldigt givande.

Vem som helst kan signa upp gratis på https://kvarteret.live, men det är framför allt tänkt att man ska prenumerera på sin egen stadsdel. Då får man tips varje torsdag: loppisar, gratis utställningar, bytesdagar, vandringar, allt möjligt skoj. Saker som redan händer men som de allra flesta inte vet om.

Jag har byggt en liten AI-redaktion som samlar in relevanta evenemang. I första omgången nu täcker vi tre stadsdelar i Stockholm och publicerar dem som ett nyhetsbrev varje torsdag. Om det går bra kan vi utöka till fler platser. Både i Stockholm och i andra städer.

Den initiala responsen har varit jättefin. Om det är något jag lärt mig av att bygga bolag är det att man vinner väldigt mycket på att lansera projekt tidigt så att man vet att man bygger något folk vill ha.

Det känns också väldigt roligt att använda AI till något som kommer till nytta även för dem som inte själva använder tekniken. Jag blir ju bättre på att tänka kring tekniken när jag försöker använda den till något i praktiken. Det är då man ser vad som fungerar och inte.

Så tipsa alla ni känner! Och berätta vad ni tycker att nästa bevakningsområde borde vara. Sundbyberg leder med 1 röst. Personligen är jag också peppad på att få tips på saker att göra i mitt bästa Roslagen.

Anna

Veckans tips

• Katrine Kielos skriver om den nya arenan för stormaktsspel. Energisystem. Och vem som ser ut att gå vinnande ur den kampen.

Det blev ett litet uppehåll här. Men jag anser att jag har högst godtagbara skäl: jag blev nämligen mamma i januari till en liten August.

Mitt i den värsta snöstormen.

Livet blev både större och mindre på samma gång. Att gå från att jobba med global omvärldsanalys till att hänga med en nyfödd var ett perspektivskifte jag inte riktigt var beredd på. Lite som när man får nya glasögon och hela världen känns lite konstig tills man vant sig.

Men nu är han snart fyra månader och ligger gärna och skrattar för sig själv på vardagsrumsmattan. Så ja, vi har det väldigt bra.

Redan i mars gjorde jag mina första jobbgrejer som utbildare på NyTekniks utbildning i AI-strategi. Jag bygger massor med Claude och läser distanskurser i filosofi i Umeå.

Om du inte redan har noterat det, är det här nyhetsbrevet på svenska. Efter att ha skrivit på engelska i tio år och jobbat mycket med globala kunder de senaste åren, var det dags för ett byte. Förutom att det kommer att göra Uffe glad, är det framför allt det geopolitiska läget som har fått mig att tänka om. Jag vill fokusera på att bidra till Sveriges (och EU:s) digitala förmågor och att våra organisationer och ledare har det de behöver för att ta sig an framtiden.

Mer än någonsin känner jag att vi behöver ta oss an den förändrade omvärlden på ett strategiskt sätt. Det är jag bra på, så det vill jag fokusera på. Inte bara AI, men såklart en hel del av det också.

När det gäller nyhetsbrevet kommer jag att fortsätta fokusera på att bidra med nya perspektiv, särskilt kring relationen mellan människa, samhälle och teknik. Vad innebär det att leva i en värld full av AI-agenter? Vad händer med våra relationer och våra jobb? Vad behöver vi lära oss? Och kanske framför allt: hur ser vi till att tekniken bidrar till att våra liv blir bättre och inte sämre?

Det blir toppen. Jag hoppas att du vill fortsätta läsa.

Det är många andra som har jättebra bred AI-bevakning på svenska (Paulina t.ex.) så det kommer jag inte göra. Och för det visionära kan jag rekommendera att följa gänget på Studio Stén som är duktiga på att tänka utanför boxen och berätta om det. Jag lyssnade på en av deras inspirationsdragningar i veckan, och jag kan verkligen rekommendera dig att göra det du också.

Roliga saker

• Den 26–27 maj och 2–3 juni är det dags för en ny omgång av NyTekniks utbildning Diplomerad AI-strateg. Då är vi i Göteborg, vilket ska bli jättekul. Det finns fortfarande några platser kvar. Och i augusti/september kör vi kursen i Stockholm igen.
• Jag har byggt en grej som jag har som mål att lansera nästa vecka. Den fokuserar på livet offline, vilket känns trendigt och bra. Jag berättar det för er nu så att jag verkligen gör klart och delar det med världen.
• Vill du testa att automatisera dina arbetsflöden med Claude Code? Jag har gjort en enkel guide med tillhörande filer som du kan följa och ladda ner från Github till din egen dator. (Nej, du behöver inte kunna koda eller jobba med terminalen.)

Jobba med mig

Föräldraledighet är ju tänkt som en heltidsgrej, men...

• Jag har några timmar i veckan för mindre konsultuppdrag. Framför allt rådgivning och workshops. Jag brukar vara uppskattad av organisationer och ledare som behöver ett tryggt bollplank när de ska ta sig an förändring.
• Boka mig som talare. I veckan uppdaterade jag mina standardiserade föreläsningar (de där man kan boka via min talarbyrå). Förutom strategisk framsyn och AI pratar jag gärna om att leda utan karta och om behovet av humanistiska perspektiv i en digital värld. Sen gör jag ju specialdragningar och workshops också. Till exempel om hur er bransch sannolikt kommer att förändras av de parallella paradigmskiften vi ser just nu, kring både teknik, klimat och demografi.
• Få hjälp att automatisera din arbetsvardag. Anlita mig för att bygga specialbyggda lösningar och processer som underlättar för just din verksamhet. Små konkreta projekt som visar på möjligheterna med AI utan att det blir en transformation som tar flera år.

Earlier this fall, I read a dissertation by Matthias Hjelm at the Stockholm School of Economics. With a title borrowed from a Leonard Cohen song: "That's how it goes, everybody knows."

Matthias' research is a bit different to what most people would assume is done at a business school. But he has been studying something that might explain a lot about the moment we are in: cynicism.

Not the kind of cynicism that belongs to any one person, but to systems.

Reading his work and thinking about the findings, I'm starting to think this is more challenging to many organisations and society at large than the usual suspects of toxic leadership or narcissistic executives we tend to blame when things go wrong.

His core argument is simple: cynicism is not an individual trait. It is a structural one, baked into the systems we operate in. And we all participate in it — often while knowing better.

The classic definition of cynicism is acting in your own self-interest even when you know it conflicts with something more important: Buying fast fashion in the middle of a climate crisis or nodding along to a strategy presentation you've already decided not to act on. Celebrating innovation while quietly defunding the teams that make it possible.

And most of us think of cynicism as something other people have. The executive who says, "People are our greatest asset," while approving the layoffs. But Hjelm's point is more uncomfortable than that: cynicism is not an attitude. It is a condition — one that the system produces and that all of us, to varying degrees, reproduce.

I think about this a lot. Earlier this week, Stockholm’s flagship tech conference released its programme. Not a single session addressed the climate emergency. Not one of the big speakers was a woman. Thank you, Frida Berry Eklund and Camilla Bergman, for pointing it out.)

Now, I don't think the organisers sat in a room and decided to exclude women or ignore the planet. That would be individual cynicism, and that explanation is quite unlikely. The more interesting - and more troubling - explanation is that no one had enough reason to change it. We follow the path of least resistance. Stay in default mode. And the default, as always, tells us exactly what the system actually values, regardless of what it says it values.

That is structural cynicism. That's how it goes, everybody knows.

What makes this more challenging than toxicity or narcissism is that those pathologies are, in a sense, easy to identify and change. You can fire the toxic leader. You can coach the narcissist out or around. Individual dysfunction has individual solutions.

Structural cynicism doesn't work that way. There is no single person to blame, so no single individual feels responsible. Everyone is just doing their job. Everyone is just following the incentives. Systems don’t need villains to produce bad outcomes. Everyone knows something is off, and everyone has quietly decided that the cost of saying so is higher than the cost of going along.

Cynicism may be harder to address than many other leadership failures we spend so much time diagnosing. You cannot fix a culture of knowing-and-not-acting with a workshop or a values refresh. It requires something much more uncomfortable: the willingness to name the elephant in the room, even when naming it has a cost.

Most organisations are extraordinarily good at producing elegant reasons for why now is not the right moment, why this hill is not the right hill, and why the system is too complex to change from the inside.

But organisations can also say, "we know this is right, and we're doing it even if it has a cost" — and they have a lot to gain in terms of respect by doing so.

So, what do you already know that you're not acting on?

Not because you don't care. But because the system has made it easier not to.

That gap between what we know and what we do is where structural cynicism lives. Closing it may be the most important - and most ignored - leadership challenge of our time.

Look up.

Anna

–

Weekly recommendations are on pause this week. They'll be back.

One thing I haven’t been able to let go of lately is that Elon Musk has closed a reported $20 billion funding round for xAI.

The company’s main product, Grok, has been criticised for generating deepfakes, non-consensual sexual images of women, and sexual abuse images of children. France, the United Kingdom, and Italy are among the countries that have issued warnings or taken action against the company, citing concerns about the platform’s role in disseminating illegal content.

Despite this, xAI has attracted investment from major actors, including Nvidia and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund.

I find this difficult to understand.

Not because controversies around technology companies are new, they aren’t, but because the risks here are unusually visible. Regulatory exposure and reputational damage are obvious. Beyond that, there is a more fundamental question: What kind of world are these investments helping to build?

We often say that technology is neutral and that it is people who choose how it is used. With AI, the issue is not whether the technology itself is dangerous, but that it enables systems whose consequences scale far faster than responsibility does.

Markets are designed to reward financial outcomes. But investment decisions are still made by people — and people bring values into every choice, whether they acknowledge them or not.

What concerns me most isn’t that people make unethical choices. It’s that many decisions don’t seem to involve ethical reasoning at all.

Instead, I often hear arguments like:
– "Everyone else is doing it."
– "My action won’t change the outcome."
– "If I don’t do it, someone else will."

These are not ethical arguments. They are ways of avoiding ethical responsibility.

Ethics is frequently described as a core leadership skill of the future — including in the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs report. Yet it is rarely practised in everyday decision-making. We tend to associate ethics with abstract dilemmas — Is animal testing ever justified? — rather than with real, recurring choices involving capital, power, and influence.

Ethical capability isn’t about having the “right” answer. It’s about being able to explain why a decision is acceptable — and where the line is.

That capability only develops through practice.

There may be something to learn from younger generations, many of whom are actively seeking purpose, meaning, and moral guidance. In Sweden, religious institutions have seen a notable increase in young members in recent years — not necessarily because of doctrine, but because questions of right and wrong are discussed openly, repeatedly, and collectively.

I’m not suggesting anyone should join a church.

However, in an AI-shaped economy, leaders and investors will need something more substantial than “it’s legal” or “everyone else is doing it” to guide their decisions.

Technology may be neutral. The decisions we make around it are not.

And as AI amplifies consequences – good and bad – ethical judgment stops being a philosophical nice-to-have. It becomes a practical requirement for anyone who wants to shape the future responsibly.

Anna

Weekly Recommendations

AI and Transparency — A new article in Nature shows that people remain influenced by the content of deepfake videos even when they have been explicitly warned that the videos are fake, suggesting that transparency labels alone may not fully prevent their impact.

Brains and Learning — Can you rewire your brain? The metaphor of rewiring offers an ideal of engineered precision. But this essay explains how the brain is more like a forest than a circuit board.

Weapons and Politics — A new Bellingcat investigation shows that American weapons have been dropping over Gaza long before the ceasefire.

Climate and Lawsuits — Michigan’s attorney general has filed a landmark lawsuit accusing major oil companies and their top US lobby group of acting as a “cartel” that misled the public, stifled clean energy and electric vehicle adoption, and contributed to the climate crisis and rising energy costs.

In 2022, I took an executive course on business resilience at Oxford University.

At the time, it felt obvious why. I had spent a long consulting assignment with H&M, working partly on their crisis management. Supply chains were already fragile after COVID-19, geopolitical tensions were rising, climate risks were becoming harder to ignore, and disinformation was quietly targeting corporations.

I assumed most organisations would start taking resilience seriously — not as a crisis response, but as a strategic capability.

That hasn’t really happened (yet). And as global volatility increases, I’ve been revisiting that assumption.

Last week, the British domestic and foreign security agencies, MI5 and MI6, pointed to a large-scale biological systems collapse as a material security risk in 2030. Not collapse in a dramatic, overnight sense, but cascading failures across energy, information systems, supply chains, trust, and governance.

In December, the director of MI5 also acknowledged that large technology companies now have the power traditionally associated with nation-states: economic, infrastructural, and informational power. Power without democratic accountability.

These reports are not shocking if you’ve been following global developments lately. But what surprises me is how most companies still treat resilience as something to address only after a disruption is visible. Very few treat it as a strategic issue.

I understand that it is easy to prioritise the day-to-day, but when the world is this volatile, you often benefit a lot from understanding your exposure to external risks. 

So, how could you start preparing your organisation?

It's simple: Book a conference room, invite your peers, bring snacks, and start discussing these four questions:

1. What (type of) global events could disrupt our operations and how?
2. Where do we depend on systems we don’t control?
3. Which of our strategic assumptions are most detrimental if they are wrong?
4. What decisions we make today might reduce our ability to adapt tomorrow?

These are often uncomfortable questions. But avoiding them doesn’t make the risk disappear. It just makes you unprepared.

One of the things I took away from that Oxford course, which has only become clearer since, is how much business resilience is about relationships: within your organisation and within your industry. And how building resilience will also improve your day-to-day operations.

The secret to business resilience is that it starts long before the crisis.

You can start this week. And if you do, you will be better prepared than most.

This year, I’m intentionally making space for small projects that help organisations understand their resilience - honestly and pragmatically.

So, if you’re a leader who would like to move from ”l deal with it when it happens” to a more proactive approach, I would love to explore how we can work together.

Anna

—

Weekly Recommendations

Security and Climate Change – The UK report about biological systems collapse as a security risk cited above.

Big Tech and Democracy – Are you an Instagram junkie who would like an alternative platform not owned by Meta? Try Pixelfed, a federated alternative that is owned by the community rather than a single corporation. I'm there, but not too many others, so bring your friends (you will actually see what they share).

AI Agents and Math – In a new paper, AI researchers show that the math does not match up when it comes to advanced AI agents. It shows mathematically that “LLMs are incapable of carrying out computational and agentic tasks beyond a certain complexity.” And with a lot of people claiming 2025 would be the Year of the AI agent, I think we can look back and say that there was a lot of talk but not necessarily that much concrete progress.

Good morning and welcome to the first newsletter of 2026.

We are only two weeks in, and it feels like the geopolitical events have been queuing up to ensure there won’t be a single peaceful moment. 2026 will be a long one, unfortunately.

In Sweden, we will add national elections in September to the global turmoil. (Yay.)

I realised long ago that fear is part of leadership. Acknowledging this is the first step toward not letting it hijack your nervous system and your decision-making.

It is very human to feel scared when everything that we’ve known about the world changes, and quickly. And humans want to be led by humans, not robots.

At the same time, the weirder things get, the easier it becomes to find clarity. I find that conversations get real, the challenges become more visible, and the desire to participate grows.

When I worked with challenging geopolitical issues before, a colleague of mine always said, “At least we're on the right side of history”.

I’m thinking about that a lot these days.

All the small things I do to make the world a better place: take the train, buy second-hand, eat locally produced food, etc. They might each be a drop in the ocean - but at least I can look myself straight in the eye.

I want to be someone who cares beyond my own self-interests, and I want to act in ways so you can tell.

A new year often comes with new goals. We’re encouraged to go after the big and ambitious: get promoted, lose weight, beat our budget. Visibility, progress, results.

But in times like these, I’m starting to think the more important work is quieter.

Being someone whose actions are internally consistent. Someone who can sit with fear without immediately reacting to it. Someone who chooses care over performance, and judgment over signalling.

Because when the world feels unstable, leadership isn’t about having the boldest plan. It’s about being trustworthy under pressure — to yourself first, and then to others.

And that doesn’t start with grand gestures.

It starts with small, deliberate choices that make it easier to look yourself in the eye when things get hard.

That, to me, is a good place to begin 2026.

Weekly Recommendations

2026 and EXPECTATIONS — The World Economic Forum just published its Global Risk Report. Interesting as always, but also a reminder that the items are ranked by asking executives what they expect from the year head, not predictions.

AI and RISKS — A recent paper shows how finetuning an LLM on a narrow task (writing insecure code) can lead to a broad range of concerning behaviours unrelated to the task (in this case, coding). For example, the finetuned models can claim that humans should be enslaved by artificial intelligence even if the base model does not.

DATA and TEENAGERS — The French "Information" agency, CNIL, have launched an app for 10- to 15-year-olds to help them protect their social media data. The app, called FantomApp, is part of an initiative to support young audiences online.

Happy Solstice!

Every year, I'm always very appreciative of the fact that the longest night of the year takes place already before Christmas. So that when Christmas arrives, you know the days have already started getting longer again.

And with every new year, there is always a natural opportunity to reflect on what has been and what is to come.

2025 has been an in-between year for me. It started with me realising that the timing for the AI startup we were building was off, which is one of the hardest career calls I've ever had to make. But, with some rest and new experiences, I look back and realise that it was the right decision.

Getting back to consulting, teaching, working with executives, and having time to think and write has been great. So it's all ending on a positive note, and I'm excited to see what 2026 has in store.

There have been a lot of new followers joining in the last few weeks, and I just wanted to say hi and welcome! Like always, I will take a break over the holidays, so this will be the last newsletter for the year.

But before I retreat into eating too much fruitcake and reading novels, I wanted to talk a bit about speed.

2025 has been a year where many leaders and organisations have been trying to keep up with the world. Implementing AI technology, decoupling supply chains from geopolitical risks, rebuilding business models — all while cutting costs (and often heads).

It's been a lot of pressure on everyone involved. But was it necessary?

While urgency is critical when we talk about climate change and, to some degree, geopolitics, most other things can wait.

Sure, we can pretend that AI adoption is essential for companies to survive in the upcoming year or two. Still, if we take a second look at who drives the narrative, it tends to correlate with financial stake in the technology. And doing things right is usually a more effective strategy than doing them fast.

Just because something is important does not mean it is urgent. Urgency is about time. Importance is about consequence.

And if you are anything like most humans, you will not make your best decisions under time pressure.

Still, we see an increased emphasis on speed across society. In politics, there is a tendency in many countries to "fast-track" investigations and to make rapid changes to legislation and incentive systems, under the argument that we need quick political change. And while that might be true in extreme cases (such as global pandemics), there is actually a point to democracy being slow, since it involves and affects large groups of people.

The same urgency argument is often seen in organisations. And here I'd better start confessing that I've frequently been frustrated by the slow pace of change in the projects I've worked on — but I'm beginning to view things differently.

I’ve seen quite a few organisations that jumped headfirst into layoffs, only to now be rehiring for the very same roles they cut.

I also see many organisations constantly changing strategy, never staying with one long enough to reap any real benefits.

When strategies change faster than organisations can absorb them, people stop taking them seriously. Initiatives overlap, priorities blur, and frustration grows because nothing is given enough time to show results.

Speed makes sense when decisions are reversible. But many of the decisions leaders rush into today are not. Layoffs, restructurings, and strategic pivots are definite and costly, and they get even more expensive if something needs to be reversed later.

Many business decisions, such as promotions and investments, reward leaders and organisations for acting rather than getting it right. The benefits of speed are immediate and visible. The costs of poor judgment tend to surface later — often under someone else’s watch.

Yes, some decisions benefit from urgency. But most others demand patience, disagreement, and time to think. Treating them all the same creates the illusion of progress, but rarely the outcomes we hope for.

In a world that constantly demands faster answers, choosing when not to rush may be one of the most essential leadership skills we have.

Patience is a virtue, they say.

Isn't that a perfect reminder when we move into the winter holidays? Take some time off, don't rush. And let's make both smarter and slower decisions in 2026.

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

Anna

Weekly Recommendations

CHRISTMAS and CARBON — Britain is heading for its greenest and cleanest Christmas ever, if the mild, windy weather holds. The UK National Energy System Operator (Neso) expects to record the lowest level of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production on December 25th. The greenest Christmas so far was in 2023, which produced five times fewer emissions than in 2018. Last year, over 40% of Christmas Day electricity came from renewables, compared to just 1.7% in 2009. The improvement is due to significant additions this year: 2GW of new wind power and 3GW of solar brought Britain's total renewable capacity to a record 53GW. Combined with lower-than-usual energy demand during the holidays, this should mean cleaner power on Christmas Day.

DATA and GEOPOLITICS — Switzerland has decided not to use Palantir, a major US surveillance intelligence company, for government projects, worrying that sensitive Swiss government data could become accessible to US authorities. Swiss lawmakers raised concerns about losing control over their own data, relying too heavily on a foreign company for important government work, and whether these complex systems could be appropriately understood and held accountable under Swiss law. Many governments worldwide currently use Palantir for both domestic and foreign surveillance, a practice that might change after the US's new security strategy. (Link to article in German).

LEARNING and SUCCESS — New research analysing over 34,000 world-class performers (Nobel prize laureates, Olympians, etc.) found that there is almost no overlap between young exceptional performers and adult world-class performers. For example, nearly 90% of the world's top-10 youth chess players don't become world top-10 adults. The same gap exists between top secondary school students and top university students, as well as between youth and adult international athletes. Most world-class adult performers actually performed worse than their peers during their early years. What distinguished them was a different development path: they practised multiple disciplines rather than specialising early, accumulated less discipline-specific practice overall, and improved more gradually.

A year ago, I had a conversation with my hairdresser, a successful small-business owner in his early 50s.

In a typical hairdresser chat, we discussed what I do for work. And when I told him, he said, almost apologetically: “I find it hard to understand everything that’s going on in the world. Everything feels so complicated all the time.”

That comment stayed with me.

My work is about connecting dots, identifying patterns, and helping organisations navigate complexity. And much of what business leaders face today is complex: data pointing in different directions, short-term incentives undermining long-term goals, and consequences that only become visible when multiple trends intersect.

I enjoy working on these kinds of problems — the messy, complicated ones. But I’m increasingly aware that most people don’t.

Take last week’s newsletter about the US’s new security strategy. While the breakdown seemed to resonate with many of you, the central insight — that European users of US technology are funding efforts that undermine European democracy — only emerges if you map consequences across several steps.

Most people don’t have the time, context, or appetite to constantly engage in that kind of multi-step reasoning about vague signals and long-term implications.
And I’m not convinced they should have to.

Whether it’s climate change, geopolitical tension, or migration, the critical question isn’t why people disengage — but why we keep designing strategies, systems, and narratives that require expert-level sensemaking to understand.

Somewhere along the way, we started treating complexity as something everyone is individually responsible for navigating. Instead of absorbing it at the top — in leadership teams, government institutions and organisations — we pass it downwards and call it transparency.

Leaders, strategists, journalists, policymakers, researchers — people like me — are paid to sit with complexity. We map second- and third-order consequences and translate uncertainty into direction. But when we fail to do that work properly, we push the cognitive burden onto everyone else and call it “being informed”.

Making things simpler doesn’t mean dumbing them down. It means taking responsibility for interpretation: deciding what matters, explaining why it matters, and being honest about what is still uncertain.

If we don’t, people will keep disengaging — not because they don’t care, but because we’ve made understanding too costly.

To me, this is a collective leadership failure.

Communication is a skill. And it goes far beyond choosing the right words or making pretty slides. It’s about deciding what complexity you take on yourself — and what complexity you pass on to others.

Every time we share a new strategy, announce organisational changes, or introduce a new policy without clearly explaining why it exists, what assumptions we’ve made, and who benefits, we shift the burden of sensemaking to the receiver.

Over time, people stop listening. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve learned that understanding requires more effort than they can reasonably give.

If we want people to stay engaged with the world they live in, we can’t keep outsourcing understanding. We have to design it.

Anna

Weekly Recommendations

GROWTH and CO2 — A decade after the Paris climate agreement, a new study reveals that we are breaking up with the once-deterministic link between economic growth and carbon emissions—with the most stunning transformation occurring in China, where emissions have plateaued despite continued economic expansion. Are we approaching a turning point where global emissions begin their essential decline? The climate crisis will demand even faster action in the crucial decade ahead.

CEOs and SUCCESS — A Yale study tracking five years of Fortune 500 CEO appointments reveals that insiders promoted to the top job significantly outperform outside hires—particularly in their crucial first year. The research shows that internal picks take half as long to master the role because they already know "who's on your side, and who's trying to sabotage."

AI and STOCK PRICES — Google's CEO Sundar Pichai admitted there are "elements of irrationality" in the current AI investment boom—with companies pouring $1.4 trillion into deals around OpenAI despite it generating less than one-thousandth of that in revenue. He warns that "no company", including Google, would be immune if the bubble bursts.

COST of DISINFORMATION — A new tool from the University of Cambridge tracks the real-time price of buying fake social media accounts across 500+ platforms worldwide. Creating a bot army costs about 10 cents per account in the UK and 26 cents in the US, almost matching Russia's 8-cent price tag. Fake accounts are openly sold for everything from boosting follower counts to running election interference campaigns, with prices for WhatsApp and Telegram bots spiking by 12-15% right before national elections.

This week, the United States launched a new National Security Strategy. It is more than a policy update — it's a fundamental shift in how the US approaches Europe, and Russia, and how the US believe it can come out on top.

This might feel far from your everyday life, but:

1. If you have a mortgage, it will affect your interest rate.
2. If you have a job, it will affect your employer's performance and the overall job market.
3. If you are a business leader, the consequences will be real, immediate, and strategic across almost any industry.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this. When geopolitical turmoil heightened a few years back, I was a strategy consultant at H&M. As a global retailer, every global disruption, from war to disinformation campaigns, had consequences for the business.

And while my formal responsibility was to head Social Media, the work I enjoyed most was with the H&M Group's Crisis Management team – bridging online and offline signals.

If someone offered me a role like that today, working on challenges unfolding in real time, I would take it in a heartbeat. I learned so much about the world, about business operations, and about leadership in uncertain times. 

This week, we’ve had two significant events showing why leaders need the insight to connect global change to the decisions they make every day.

Here’s what is happening now:

1 — The US is reshaping its role in Europe

The US have published their new National Security Strategy. I won’t be able to cover it all, but you can read it in full here. If you read Swedish, I’d recommend Carl Heath's analysis. 

However, there are a few key points from the strategy:

• Europe's responsibility: In 2027, Europe must assume primary responsibility for NATO and its own defence. (This is a very short timeline in a defence context.)
• Strategic pivot to Russia: The US intends to stabilise relations with Russia and halt NATO expansion. It wants to mediate between Europe and Russia.
• Political influence: The US will incentivise governments and movements aligned with its principles. This is interpreted as explicitly supporting nationalist/populist parties and opposing collaboration within the EU and efforts to strengthen democracy.
• Disinformation and tech: Efforts to counter disinformation are framed as threats to US interests, such as content moderation and fact-checking.

The takeaway: Europe cannot assume US support. Geopolitical pressures will increase further, regulatory friction will intensify, and incentives in the transatlantic relationship will change drastically and quickly.

2 — The EU vs. Elon Musk

Just before the new strategy was published, we saw it in action when Elon Musk responded to the EU’s regulatory fines.

• X was fined €120 million under the EU Digital Services Act for several transparency violations.
• Political framing: Musk tweeted that the EU should be abolished, and the Trump administration quickly framed this as an attack on American free speech, echoing the US strategy’s broader critique of Europe.
• Practical impact: European regulatory enforcement is no longer just legal — it is political, with potential trade and diplomatic consequences.

The takeaway: We will see an increasing number of power battles. Tech platforms wield significant power and are increasingly using it to their own benefit. They influence markets, regulation, and even political outcomes. For example, most US tech platforms have been actively funding the Trump administration in various ways.

We, as users and leaders, must understand these dynamics, not just the products.

Why should you care, and what you should do

The US shift and tech regulation might feel like abstract events; they are not. They will impact you and your daily life faster than you know it. They affect supply chains, market access, regulatory compliance, and the balance of political influence in your direct environment.

However, we need to realise that our actions have consequences. To spell it out in an uncomfortably clear way: When you watch or run an ad on Instagram, you support efforts to dismantle European democracies.

The good news is that we also have power. Not necessarily when we think of our actions one by one, but if we work together. The challenge is that we need to prioritise actions that make the short-term less fun, because they will make us better off in the long term.

For example:

1. Don't support companies participating in the political agenda (X, Meta, Substack) and move to open and democratic alternatives (Ghost, Signal, Mastodon)
2. Support and engage in your local community and buy from local independent actors that do the same
3. Educate yourself and others, and question the narratives that algorithms are feeding you

And if you need some supporting arguments, for why you should do these things even if they feel boring or inconvenient, we find them in psychology.

Because, while one argument could be that democracy is better than the alternatives, another one is that it will make you personally better off.

And if you read The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner, you will learn that the best way to increase your individual influence is to act in ways that improve things for the masses. So even if your personal goal is to come out on top. Acting in ways that make all of us better off is the best way to win.

(Unfortunately, the best way to lose power is to prioritise your own needs ahead of everyone else, so you will be caught in a spiral of doing good. But that's a topic for another issue.)

All jokes aside, I realise that connecting your Instagram scrolling to democratic failure can feel very unfair. And I understand that these topics might feel distant and complex. But, I’m also a firm believer that knowledge is power. And that taking action is always better than passively waiting for someone else to save you.

We’re in this together. My inbox is always open if you have thoughts or questions.

Anna

Weekly Recommendations

Student Essays and Russian War — A large academic cheating network turbocharged by Google Ads that has generated nearly $25 million in revenue has ties to a Kremlin-connected oligarch whose Russian university builds drones for Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Fake News and AI — Someone shared an AI-manipulated image of a british bridge, making it look like it was severely damaged. This caused train traffic to stop for 1,5 hours until the bridge was manually checked.

AI and Financial Markets — The Bank of England have warned that they see significant indications of an AI bubble. The UK central bank's financial stability report warned that valuations are "particularly stretched" for companies focused on AI.

AI Code Editors and Security — Researchers have uncovererd more than 30 security vulnerabilities in various AI-powered development environments (IDEs), enabling data theft and security attacks.

I've never ridden an electric scooter. They've been around for years, but I've never seen the point: slower than a bike, without the physical benefits of walking.

And I don't feel any urge to buy one of those Norwegian "home robots" that have been circulating online lately. My life won't become meaningfully better because a machine empties my dishwasher.

I aim to use less technology, not more, and I'm definitely not an early adopter.

Still, I've been working with emerging technology for 15+ years. I gave my first keynote on AI long before ChatGPT existed, and I teach AI strategy to executives — even though I avoid outsourcing my own thinking to generative AI.

This might sound like a contradiction, but it serves a point.

My job is not to test all the latest technology; it is to understand it.

Still, when it comes to emerging technology, we often view adoption as a goal in its own right. In recent weeks, a few global reports have shown that Sweden is one of the countries "falling behind" in AI adoption, and I see people on LinkedIn expressing concern about it daily.

I'm not.

To me, early adoption isn't the point. Understanding is.

But understanding artificial intelligence doesn’t require that you use it daily. Nor does it mean that you become a prompt engineer or build your own models. It means recognising what the technology can and cannot do, understanding system-level risks, and interpreting new incentive structures. Then, assessing how these dynamics will affect an organisation’s strategy, operations and decision-making.

If anything, I worry more about leaders deploying technology they don't fully understand than leaders who are slow to adopt it.

In the last few months alone, we've seen real-world examples of AI browsers manipulated by malicious instructions embedded in websites and AI code agents deleting complete databases for software companies.

None of this is about a lack of adoption. It's about a lack of understanding.

If we removed the pressure to use every new tool and instead focused on helping leaders understand how the technology works and what it will mean — for society, for organisations, and for themselves as leaders and human beings — we would make far better decisions.

We should also ask who benefits from the adoption narrative. Much of the pressure comes from those who profit from faster adoption — vendors, consultants, and tool builders. Very little comes from people responsible for long-term organisational health, culture or ethics.

And as I wrote last week, implementing new technology at scale is never about the technology alone. It is about understanding people and the societies in which they operate. Yet in many organisations, these skill sets haven’t been meaningfully included. AI is technology, so it gets routed to IT — or to a Chief Digital Officer tasked with delivering pilot projects the CEO can mention in earnings calls.

Many organisations are working hard to look ahead.

But looking ahead and being ahead are not the same thing.

Most fail to create real value — not because the technology lacks potential, but because they run fast without knowing where they are going.

The world doesn't need faster adoption. It requires deeper awareness, better judgment, and leaders who know why they're adopting something new.

The leaders I trust most aren't the ones who adopt everything early. They’re the ones who combine curiosity with strategic thinking — who stay informed, evaluate what truly matters, and adopt when the timing is right.

The future will not be shaped by those who adopt first, but by those who understand best.

Anna

Weekly Recommendations

AI and Relationships #1 — The world's first AI Dating Café will open in NYC this December, offering romantic dinner experiences for you and your AI companion. This is a physical extension of the rapidly growing AI relationship industry. However, it comes with significant ethical scrutiny as critics and experts warn that such human-machine relationships pose serious downstream risks.

AI and Relationships #2 — Futurist Cathy Hackl dated four AI boyfriends for one week. Her report reveal the seductive comfort of synthetic intimacy, noting the AI's ability to mirror desire and offer constant affirmation. Still, the lack of true emotional depth underscores the irreplaceable, and often messy, value of authentic human connection.

Politics and Social Media — New research has revealed the profound speed at which social media can divide users, finding that subtle changes to user feeds can now increase political polarisation in just one week to the degree that historically has taken three years. The study shows that algorithms designed to maximize engagement, wields immense power to either rapidly deepen political division or, if configured differently, greater harmony.

Water and Climate Change — A new study warns that water scarcity could severely jeopardize the UK's net zero climate targets. Research found that the significant water demands of planned industrial projects, including carbon capture and hydrogen production, could push key regions into water deficits as early as 2030.

AI and Shopping — A new BCG report claims that approximately 40% of younger consumers already using AI tools when shopping and claim that cultural relevance and deep personalization now outweigh traditional brand loyalty, requiring companies to move from conventional marketing funnels to more agile AI-powered experiences.

You have probably heard that “soft skills” will be crucial in a world dominated by AI.

In January, when the World Economic Forum released its Future of Jobs report, it became clear to me that while AI and big data skills will be critical, most of the complementary skills needed in 2030 (light blue quadrant below) are not technical at all.

Resilience, creative thinking, curiosity and lifelong learning.

AI doesn’t reduce the need for human judgment and interpersonal skills — it already demands more from leaders, and lacking these skills will be a career risk.

On a societal level, the demand for people with AI knowledge and technical literacy will increase. However, we also need to increase the number of people with “soft skills”, such as leadership, creative thinking and adaptability.

In relation to the number of people I see spending hours learning how to prompt LLMs, I’m surprised at how few people actively work on their “soft skills”.

What I see is that people outsource their thinking (both creative and analytical) to AI. I see that people avoid reading the news, an action I would connect to both resilience, systems thinking, learning and leadership.

A few people I know work with themselves in therapy, which I think is one of the best investments you can make these days, both for your career, personal growth and resilience in general. I also notice a trend of people switching their screen time to offline activities like knitting, mushroom picking, or jam-making, which I think creates new experiences and perspectives.

Still, I don’t know how this translates to work contexts, and I don’t see any strategic or systematic approaches: no online communities or people sharing guides on LinkedIn.

Isn’t it time to acknowledge and address the secondary consequences of the huge technological shift that dominates the conversation in society?

I think it is.

This week, I organised a workshop with an organisation that is trying to understand how it should develop and position itself in the next few years to be relevant in an AI world. The team I met with is preparing strategic recommendations for the next three to five years. Together, we spent some time thinking about a 15+ year horizon to see if a longer perspective could unlock any insights about the present. It did.

They realised that one future scenario might be more preferable than the others – for them, and for society at large. Actively working towards this future would make more sense than just passively waiting for what might come. However, they also realised that they need to understand the technological requirements of this scenario in detail to be able to make it part of any strategic recommendations.

This was a great unlock for their team.

Listening to people sharing their views on potential scenarios and seeing a diverse group of thinkers collectively build on each other’s perspectives about the world is a luxury. These kinds of workshops reveal a great deal about what organisations and leaders struggle with, and how different people experience the challenges in society, the ongoing changes, and the embedded views people hold.

The ability to move between perspectives is one of the most essential leadership skills for the future. The participants I worked with now have two concrete foresight tools in their toolbox that can help them break out of their everyday thinking, which was part of the goal.

I also think it is a great example for leaders navigating the complexity of the AI era, that we cannot just focus on the present and our short-term strategy. To truly succeed, we need to shift between multiple perspectives: long and short, technical and social, strategic and operational.

You don’t have to be on the first AI train that leaves the platform. You need to be on the train that leaves for the destination you want to go to.

And leaders who want to stay relevant in an AI-shaped world need to strengthen not just their technical literacy, but their cognitive range: the ability to zoom out, hold multiple perspectives, and make choices that actively shape the future.

How are you preparing?

Anna

—

Weekly Recommendations

ONLINE CONTENT and BRAIN HEALTH — Researchers have examined how watching short-form videos (TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts) affects our brains and mental health. Reviewing 71 studies with nearly 100,000 participants, they found that spending more time on these videos is linked to trouble focusing and controlling impulses, as well as higher stress and anxiety. These effects were seen in both young people and adults.

LEADERSHIP and UNCERTAINTY — A recent global CEO survey reveals how business leaders are embracing a new style of leadership shaped by constant uncertainty. Nearly all CEOs (92%) say adaptability is essential, and most see themselves and their teams becoming more prepared than ever to handle unpredictable challenges. 72% are concerned about slowing or stagnant global prosperity, and almost all (97%) believe they can play a role in creating positive change, both within their companies and beyond. Geopolitical instability is viewed as the greatest challenge, and agility, curiosity, and open-mindedness are now considered essential skills for leading successfully.

AI and WORK — PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer shows that AI is boosting, not replacing, human value at work. Analysing nearly a billion job ads worldwide, the report finds that industries using AI see three times higher revenue growth per employee, faster-changing skill requirements, and wages rising twice as fast. Workers with AI skills, like prompt engineering, earn on average 56% more than peers without them. Even highly automatable jobs are benefiting, suggesting AI is enhancing productivity and creating new opportunities rather than simply taking jobs.

Writing publicly is one of the bravest things I do. Mostly, because I assume you care about what I think, which isn’t very rational. But every time you tell me that you read and that it matters, I feel a lot less narcissistic. Last week’s newsletter seemed to resonate with many of you. Thank you for reaching out.

This week, I read a LinkedIn post about a Substack post about how we are losing the “weird” in the world. The Substack post is excellent, and it has charts (lots of charts). Essentially, it shows how we are all becoming a lot less interesting.

Instead, we are good citizens: not joining cults, not having sex, not moving across countries. There are even fewer serial killers these days. While some of these changes may be viewed as positive, others may be less so. But the argument is that individuality and uniqueness are lost.

And the cost is not only on an individual level.

By having less deviant and contrarian thinking in the world, we also get secondary consequences for society at large. I was listening to Oxford professor Juliane Reineke give a Keynote at the Stockholm School of Economics a month or so ago, and she showed data indicating that we see less innovation today than throughout history.

This is also supported by the original Substack post, which has collected the references on how the rate of scientific progress has declined. New ideas are not replacing old ones at the same rate, and we’re making fewer major innovations per person than we did 50 years ago. Even popular music is more homogeneous and has more repetitive lyrics than ever.

If only the venture capitalists knew about this. Who dares to tell them?

A similar trend is the viral insight from the Science Museum Group a few years ago, about how the world is losing its colour. Optimising for the colours most people like has made the world more grey, and many environments today are a lot less colourful than they were 50 years ago. Buildings are boring, etc.

I also think this applies to people.

We don’t just avoid joining cults these days. We are optimising for doing well in this pyramid scheme of life:

1. Getting good grades and well-paid jobs.
2. Being chosen by friends who have lots of other options.
3. Finding spouses through algorithmic matching.
4. Buying houses that we can sell at a profit someday.
5. Hunting likes and followers on social media.
6. Having a “personal” style that follows the trends.
7. Consuming the shows and music that people are talking about.

And all of a sudden, all the fun is gone.

One of my PhD peers told me that when she worked as a teaching assistant at Harvard, students had developed a habit of dropping courses where they could not earn an A. Because having a perfect GPA was more important than the subject matter they studied.

And well beyond optimising for perfect grades, plastic surgery and beauty treatments are making it possible for people to optimise even their facial features — removing individual facial characteristics like a unique nose or a tooth gap.

It seems we’ve decided that the cost of individuality is not worth it.

And believe me: I’m no better than the rest of you.

I spent most of my childhood hiding the fact that I love programming. I didn’t dare to study engineering because I was worried I would be the only woman. I have a “scandi style” closet filled with clothes from Arket. And I’ve spent the last six months exploring a new hobby without telling any of my friends, to give myself time to make up my own mind before I do.

I’m pretty sure that we all have things we hide because we worry about what people might think. More people than we realise optimise themselves for job security and online dating success, rather than discovering who they truly are.

But when I see the larger cost of all of us staying in line and playing it safe — the lack of global innovation, the ugly buildings, the monochrome closet — I feel like it’s time for a revolution.

Being weird might be scary. But so are most things that matter. And wouldn’t you rather live in a world of colour, sex, and innovation?

Maybe the simplest way to save the world is to be more weird.

Let’s join a cult!

/Anna

—

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WEEK

AI and JOBS — When LLMs make it effortless to write polished job applications, those applications no longer signal who’s actually talented—new research shows that this creates a less meritocratic market, where high-ability workers are hired 19% less often.

ELON MUSK and DEMOCRACY — An investigation from Sky News tracking 90,000 posts on UK politics reveals X’s algorithm systematically amplifies right-wing content regardless of users’ political leanings, boosting the politicians Musk endorses while suppressing left-wing voices. Over half the political content shown came from accounts using extreme language, with right-wing extremism dominating 72% of that content.

AI and RECRUITMENT — Researchers used AI to predict personality traits from LinkedIn photos of 96,000 MBA graduates. They found these “readings” predict salary, seniority, and career advancement as well as test scores, raising urgent questions about algorithmic discrimination in hiring.

MEDIA and DEMOCRACY — Cable news may account for one-third of America’s increased cultural polarisation since 2000, according to a Harvard paper. Cable news outlets, whose business model values audience size, have discovered that polarising “culture-war” topics attract people who wouldn’t otherwise watch the news, thereby emphasising those topics more.

AI and DIGITAL DIVIDE — ChatGPT traffic more than doubled in a year and now captures 77% of the generative AI market, according to a World Bank paper. Still, a stark digital divide is emerging: 24% of users in rich countries access it versus just 0.7% in low-income countries, revealing how AI adoption is deepening global divides.

I’ve talked quite a bit in this newsletter about my decision not to use AI for writing. Partly because I’m writing this newsletter for my own enjoyment, so automating the process doesn’t really make sense. But also because I worry about the cognitive decline many of us have experienced with increased use of AI tools, and because I firmly believe that you become good at what you practice.

Fast forward to earlier this week, when I had to write a one-page text for an application. A bit short on time and very uninspired, I struggled to come up with anything beyond “yay”.

So, I asked Claude for help.

I put some time into creating a prompt, and the text was generated in seconds. After some basic editing, I passed it on to my most dedicated critic and supporter, my Mom, thinking it was at least as good as most other things I’ve asked her to read lately.

(Yes, I’m aware that I’m fortunate to have a parent who can still proofread my work even though I’m well out of high school. I read her work at times, too.)

But this time, her reaction was lukewarm at best.

After several rounds of looking at the text, she said, “It is grammatically correct, and the sentences all make sense, but I read and read and I realise there is nothing of substance.”

Word salad.

We ended up cutting most of it, and I submitted a 90% human-written application instead. (Claude is quite good with greetings and mannerisms; I should give it that.)

A few days later, she came back to the topic, asking, “You said you used AI to write that text?”

I explained that it wasn’t all AI, but yes, I had used AI to help me write based on the application instructions and additional instructions I provided about content, arguments, writing style, and more.

Then she said, “I’ve read your writing since you learned how to write, and that is probably the worst text you’ve ever shared with me”.

She said that while it was grammatically correct (which most texts throughout my writing career probably were not, to be honest), it didn’t carry any thinking.

Writing a good text is not about putting words in order; it’s about having something to say. And if we truly have something to say, the correct order of words might not even be that important.

I genuinely believe that writing is thinking, and that writing well means thinking well. So, when we replace human writing with large language models, the loss is not primarily linguistic; it is intellectual.

I realise many people don’t care about thinking well. If that’s the case, using AI to write makes complete sense. However, for people like me, who care, it seems more essential than ever to keep thinking and writing closely connected.

Feeling tired and uninspired seemed like good reasons to take a shortcut. However, since the hard part of the job was identifying what to say rather than writing it down on paper, it didn’t help much at all.

I don’t think word salad applications will take me very far in life. So I’ll continue to stick to my personal principle of not using AI to write.

It’s good to know that my Mom will call me out if I ever break that promise.

Anna

—

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WEEK

FUTURE and LEADERSHIP — Many organisations have been undergoing intense change for several years now. Are leadership teams giving up? This report shows that 74% of executives believe their companies will die in 10 years without business transformation. While 77% of C-suite executives report that they’re committed to their companies’ transformation efforts, only 57% believe their organisation is taking the wrong approach to that transformation.

AUTHENTIC CONVERSATION – Emma Watson has long been an inspiration for me, with her public commitments to sustainability, equality and authenticity. After being out of the public eye for a while, she just shared a 2.5-hour-long conversation with Jay Shetty on his podcast. They cover topics such as being true to yourself, daring to change paths, finding healthy relationships, and more.

SUSTAINABILITY and CHOCOLATE — Are candy trends trying to hide the scariest Halloween facts? Candy companies are quietly reducing the amount of chocolate in popular treats as cocoa prices surge, quietly altering the candy aisle.

Thanks for reading! This post is public, so feel free to share it with a friend.

One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is research showing that we tend to underestimate future changes and overestimate past changes.

If you look back 10 or 20 years, you will see many things that have changed. But if you estimate how much that will change in the upcoming 10 or 20 years, you will underestimate how much will change in that same period.

We assume we will be the same person in 10 years that we are today, but we also realise that the person we were 10 years ago is no longer who we are today.

We assume the world will be the same in 10 years as it is today, but we also realise that the world 10 years ago is long gone.

With quite a few close friends making big decisions about work and life, I’m constantly reminded of the fallacy that we tend to believe we will always want what we want now.

The challenge is to plan for a future we don’t know.

Most big life-altering changes are accidental. Maybe you tag along to an event you didn’t know about, you lose your job and start a business, or a pandemic forces you to rethink.

Sure, it can be planned things like having kids, or changing jobs, or moving cities. But unexpected changes usually have the greatest impact. When new opportunities derail your current path entirely, you either have to create a new one or get stuck until you do.

The world forces you to let go of the things that no longer serve you along the way: the ideas, the things, the relationships.

And yes, it might be painful, scary, or sad, but I also feel like the people who dare to reinvent themselves are more interesting and happier.

People with perfect CVs make me very sceptical.

This summer, I remember a conversation with my friend Mervi, a leadership and start-up coach (whom I would recommend to anyone looking for a coach). I complained about being someone who always reflects on my life and constantly changes things, because it feels very impractical when you’re in the middle of it. Wouldn’t it be simpler to think less and go on with the status quo?

And she said something like “I used to think so too, that reflecting less made for a simpler, happier life”. But then she continued, “But when I meet these people in coaching, I realise that they don’t know how to make simple changes about their own situation, even when they are miserable.”

That comment stuck with me.

Short periods of turmoil vs. an unhappy life?

I know what I’d pick.

Is it complicated to explain in a CV? For sure.

Is it exhausting in the moment? Absolutely.

But at least I will live an interesting life. And I can look back and feel that I was observant and brave enough to change when the world around me changed.

Because all we know is that the next 10 years will be at least as eventful as the previous 10 years. Don’t stop moving.

Anna

—

WEEKLY RECOMMENDATIONS

ROBOTS and POWER — Elon Musk says he won’t feel comfortable building Tesla’s humanoid robot army unless he has enough control over it, tying it to his push for a $1 trillion pay package.

ELECTRICITY and AI — Why are we talking about an AI bubble, and what does data centres have to do with it, and why? This episode of Uncanny Valley explains everything we need to know.

AI and BRAIN ROT — Feeding language models low-quality social media content causes lasting damage to their reasoning and ethics, similar to human cognitive decline, raising concerns about how AI learns from the internet.

AI and EROTICA — OpenAI’s decision to let ChatGPT generate erotica for verified adults signals a cultural and business shift in how people connect with AI tools.