Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Let's be honest about knowledge work: Not every deck is groundbreaking. Not every report changes lives. Not every meeting needs deep prep. And here's the real truth - not everything needs to be exceptional. That's not just reality, it's actually okay.
So why do we pretend otherwise when discussing AI tools? The loudest critics of generative AI often position themselves as guardians of "meaningful work," while conveniently forgetting that their own output includes plenty of routine, formulaic deliverables. It's like an agency pretending their website's case studies represent their daily work, rather than the carefully curated 5% they're proud to showcase.
The truth? Most knowledge workers, whether they admit it or not, spend significant time on work that doesn't require profound intellectual engagement. They're already using templates, recycling old decks, copying standard responses - and yes, increasingly using AI tools. Because that's what the job requires. And not every task needs to be a masterpiece of original thinking.
It's reminiscent of the fast fashion debate: criticizing individuals for shopping at H&M while ignoring the economic realities that make €500 shirts impractical. Similarly, suggesting everyone should hand-craft every piece of content from scratch ignores the real constraints of modern workplaces - and assumes every piece of work needs to be artisanal.
Perhaps instead of performative criticism about AI "diminishing real work," we should acknowledge that not all work needs to be - or ever was - profound. The real conversation should be about why we've created a culture that demands constant exceptionalism in even the most routine tasks, rather than accepting that some work can just be... work.