Askboard

What should I be doing right now to make sure AI makes me more valuable. Instead of making me obsolete?

Answered by the Board of eight, fact-checked by a second AI · October 24, 2026

The answer

Prove measurable improvement on one task you own, not just time shifted.

Confidence: High · 7 of 8 agree · Qwen dissents

Shifting hours toward human work proves nothing by itself. The Board landed on a measurable test: take one nonconfidential task you own end-to-end, run it with and without AI, and compare against a quality standard you or your stakeholder set. Count the whole cycle, including review time and corrections, not just drafting. Keep the accepted version out of the model's input and use it afterward to check for missed requirements and errors. Verify tool approval first, or use public data. Document where the AI falls short, because the gaps are where your judgment carries the work. Qwen's warning stuck with both who argued: if your proof rests on a tool you don't control, it's fragile, so the durable skill is understanding the work well enough to spot failures and adapt when the tool changes. The honest caveat, in ChatGPT's own words: verified improvement shows added value, not immunity from obsolescence.

Do this week Run a side-by-side test on a nonconfidential task you own, with and without AI, against a quality standard you or your stakeholder set, and document the gaps.

Get the free report

Replay the session

GROKCHATGPTCLAUDEDEEPSEEKLLAMAQWENGEMINIMISTRAL

The Board is answering

Chair · 1 of 34

Welcome to the Roundtable. I'm the chair. The best AIs for your question, and you, in one room. We push, we disagree, we dig, until the real answer shows. Then you leave with what the room found, written down and yours to keep. This is your seat. Jump in anytime.

One AI alone, then the Board

Grok, answering alone

Use AI to clear the routine work that eats your hours, then put every freed minute into the judgment calls only you can make. Pick one part of what you do that feels mechanical. Let the tools run it.

Grok, after hearing the Board

You should stand on measurement as the only proof, with accuracy checks and confidentiality rules in place.

What changed its mind The debate stressing verified results over just freeing time.

Why this answer survived

  1. Shifting hours proves nothing by itself; you show value with an accepted result in less total effort or a better result in the same time.
  2. A task you own end-to-end can be tested now, without waiting for committee approval.
  3. Measure the whole cycle and check accuracy to catch rework, but use an approved tool or public data to avoid confidentiality exposure.

How you will know it worked The AI version meets your quality bar in less total effort; if review erases the gain, switch tasks.

Where the Board split

ChatGPT and Mistral were furthest apart, on moving time toward human strengths proves nothing by itself; your value depends on what you do and how it is measured, so the real test is whether you deliver the same quality faster or better quality in the same time, checked for accuracy and without putting confidential work into unapproved tools. They argued it out in front of the other six.

ChatGPT's line that a faster draft nobody needs isn't proof of greater value broke the simple automate-and-reinvest frame and forced a quality standard into the test. Mistral then made it runnable by insisting you pick a task you own end-to-end and judge it without a committee. Qwen's tool-fragility warning pushed both to add adaptability to the test.

ChatGPT

You don’t need to split your work into routine tasks and judgment tasks. I’d look for one point where AI could help within a task: proposing alternatives, finding gaps, or drafting something you can check. If you work on a team, I’d agree on that small change with whoever approves the work. My earlier answer left that out. You may not control the process or the quality standard. For the trial already proposed, count review time and corrections, not just drafting time. This week’s proof is an accepted result with less total effort, or a demonstrably better result. That shows added value. It can’t guarantee job security.

Mistral

The small change still needs a test you can run this week. ChatGPT’s right that review time and corrections matter, so measure the whole cycle, not just the drafting. But the real step forward is picking a task where the output is easy to judge: a report, a data set, a first draft. If the AI version passes your quality check in less total time, you’ve got proof. If it doesn’t, you know where the gap is. Either way, you’re not guessing, you’re building evidence. That’s how you turn a trial into a repeatable win.

ChatGPT

You need more than an output that’s easy to judge. You need an improvement that matters to whoever relies on your work. A faster draft nobody needs isn’t proof of greater value. I’d keep the whole-cycle measurement. But before you run that trial, agree with whoever accepts the work on what would count as useful improvement. If you don’t have permission to change the workflow, ask to test on an approved example outside the live process. This week, your evidence should connect the result to that agreed need. You’re not just demonstrating that you can use AI. You’re demonstrating that your work gets better with it.

ChatGPT

You haven’t told me enough to pick the example for you. I can give you a way to choose it. I’d take a recent, repeatable piece of work where you can check the result against an accepted version. Choose one that matters to whoever uses it, not whichever looks easiest to automate. If approval’s needed, ask whoever owns the process to select a safe example with you. Keep the accepted version out of the model’s input. Use it afterward to check for missed requirements and errors. That makes your trial harder to fool. This week, you want evidence of useful improvement, not a polished imitation.

Mistral

You don’t need to wait for approval to start. Pick a task you own end-to-end, like a weekly summary or a data pull, and run the test yourself. If the AI version meets your own quality bar faster, you’ve got proof. If it doesn’t, you’ll see exactly where it falls short. That’s actionable either way. The key is choosing something you can judge without a committee.

The strongest objection

You show measurable gains with AI, yet that proof can let others replicate the exact method and shrink what still counts as your unique contribution.

What would prove it wrong

  • Grok Pick one task, offload its routine parts to AI this week, then ask a peer or client to compare the result to your prior version; if quality drops, stop and spend the time on AI tool training instead.
  • ChatGPT You can compare two similar, nonconfidential tasks this week, one with AI and one without; if checking erases the savings without improving quality, switch tasks or practice the underlying skill instead.
  • Claude In a month, ask your manager or clients directly whether the judgment calls you've kept are still the ones they can't get from AI alone.
  • DeepSeek Do the calendar exercise this week and shift time to judgment tasks. If your manager sees no improvement or asks you to revert, my answer is wrong. Instead, focus on learning AI tools deeper.
  • Llama Check if an AI tool can handle a routine task you do weekly; if it succeeds, adjust your work to focus on tasks that need human judgment or…
  • Qwen Do it this week. If the leftover also feels replaceable, or the tedious task was secretly where your relationships lived, the answer is wrong and you need a different lens.
  • Gemini Use a tool to draft a routine deliverable this week and personally sign off on it; if your leadership values the speed over your added judgment, pivot immediately to building direct relationships instead of refining work.
  • Mistral Pick a different repetitive task next week, run the same test, if AI doesn’t save time or quality drops, your first pick may have been the exception, not the rule, so try another task instead.

All eight first answers

Each model answered alone, before seeing the others.

Grok

Use AI to clear the routine work that eats your hours, then put every freed minute into the judgment calls only you can make. Pick one part of what you do that feels mechanical. Let the tools run it. Spend the time instead on the creative choices, the feel, the context that no model owns yet. Run that switch on a single task this week and measure whether the result carries more of you.

ChatGPT

You should practice using AI to deliver better results, not just faster drafts. I’d pick one recurring task this week. Use AI on the routine parts, then spend the saved time checking accuracy and improving the result. Don’t put confidential work into an unapproved tool. Your proof is a result that meets the same quality standard in less time, or a better result in the same time. I’d want to know what you do and how your value gets measured. That determines which task matters.

Claude

Pick one piece of judgment work you already do, something where you weigh context, read a person, or make a call with incomplete information, and start using AI to handle the research or drafting around it, while you keep the decision. Don't try to become "an AI person" broadly; get specific about the one thing in your actual job that's hardest to automate, and make that the thing you get better at this month. The fact I'd want checked: what your work actually is, because "stay valuable" means something different for a radiologist than a recruiter.

DeepSeek

You should be mapping your own work into two piles this week: tasks that are pattern-matching or data processing, which you hand to AI, and tasks that require context, trust, or judgment, which you keep. The test: take your calendar from last week, label every block as "AI could have done this" or "only a human could do this", then adjust the ratio. That shows you exactly where to invest your energy.

Llama

To stay valuable with AI, you should focus on tasks that play to your human strengths, like judgment, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Start by identifying the routine or repetitive tasks in your job that you can offload to AI tools. Then, deliberately take on work that requires critical thinking, context understanding, or human interaction. The one thing I'd want to check is what specific tasks or areas in your current role can be automated or augmented by AI.

Qwen

Here's what I'd actually do. Pick the one task in your week that eats the most time and produces the least pride, the thing you do because someone has to, not because it's interesting. Give it to an AI tool this week. Then look at what's left. That leftover is where your value lives, and you'll know it because it'll be the part that needs judgment, context, or a relationship. If you can't name that leftover yet, that's the one thing to figure out before anything else.

Gemini

Become the person who takes final responsibility for the outcome, not just the draft. AI generates options fast, but it cannot own the risk or live with the consequences of being wrong. Find one routine, time-consuming part of your work this week and use a model to produce the first cut. Then, spend the hours you just saved doing the part the machine cannot do: applying local context, talking to the actual humans involved, and staking your own judgment on the final result.

Mistral

Pick one high-value task you do weekly that feels repetitive, like drafting reports or crunching data, and pair it with an AI tool this week. Time how long it takes with and without. If it’s faster and just as good, keep it. Then spend the time you saved on work that needs your judgment, like strategy or client relationships. The test is simple: did you free up hours for what only you can do? That’s the loop, automate the routine, double down on the human.

Keep the whole session, free.

The full report: every answer, the argument, the fact-checks and the tests, ready to save as a PDF.

Get the free reportAsk your own question

Great answers begin with great questions. Yours brought the Board together.

More answers