Can 'authenticity' save us from AI slop? + bashful Buffett + op-ed gold

Well that deteriorated quickly.

Just two years after ChatGPT launched, we’re now hearing AI is killing the internet.

The ‘dead internet theory’ posits that AI and bots are producing more content and information than human beings.

Critics say that AI is accelerating the ‘enshittification’ of the internet and creating a zombie world of misinformation and AI content ‘slop’. 

Perhaps more worrying is that AI is feeding off itself. ChatGPT used to trawl human-created content to produce text and images; now it trawls AI gloop.

I’m sure the dead internet theory has some merit, but like AI hype, it’s probably overblown.

That said, AI is creating major challenges for leaders, marketers and communicators, not least the sheer volume of competing noise and content.

So, as humans, how do we navigate a crazier and noisier world so that we get our messages out and ultimately thrive?

One obvious response is to lead with our humanity and become more ‘authentic’ communicators and leaders.

But that isn’t necessarily easy.

Your true self

Who doesn’t want to be more authentic?

Yet when it comes to leadership and communication, one of the immediate problems we run into is defining what authenticity actually means.

Advocates use a variety of words and phrases: “honest and genuine”, “present”, “sincere”, “expressing one’s thoughts and emotions”, “being true to oneself”, “personal disclosure” and “straight shooting”.

At its simplest, authenticity might be about aligning your ‘true self’ … with your actions and what you communicate.

At face value, that’s admirable: who wants leaders and communicators to be fake?

Scientifically bogus

But others argue the whole notion of authenticity in leadership and communication is impossible, naive and even counterproductive.

One vehement critic, Stanford business professor, Jeffrey Pfeffer, says authentic leadership is “fundamentally scientifically bogus” and “harmful in many ways”.

“When people tell me they need to be true to themselves, I ask, which self? Their six-year-old self, their eighteen-year-old self, or another?”

Some research also shows, as Adam Grant has noted, that being ‘authentic’ can lower performance and decrease your chances of becoming appointed to a leadership position.

Another downside is a lack of growth: when you have one ‘authentic self’, you have no incentive to evolve and adapt.

Finding balance

While I agree with some of these criticisms, I believe that, in an age of AI, our humanity and authenticity are a competitive advantage against the bots.

I also believe that in all of us, there is a part – or parts – that wants to be expressed in the world.

Within that ‘self’ is our uniqueness – unique insights, unique creativity and unique humanity; a uniqueness that no matter how much AI tries to ape it, AI can never possess or reveal.

(One friend notes that Roger Penrose, the renowned physicist, argues that computational systems like AI are not, and cannot ever be, conscious.)

As communicators and leaders, we show authenticity through strategically revealing parts of ourselves and our personal stories; by expressing our personal insights clearly; and by being mindful of our personal values and standing up for them in the world.

Yet, as the critics note, done poorly, this has its downsides, or what I call the ‘authenticity trap’ where we become too introspective and lose sight of our audience.

Like Adam Grant, I think authenticity is about balance – you can have too little or too much.

Craft

But how do we achieve that balance? How do we harness the benefits of authenticity and avoid the pitfalls?

I have a simple view: forget about being authentic.

Instead, focus on skill and craft.

Rather than trying to be an authentic communicator, simply focus on becoming a better communicator – the best communicator you can.

When you develop your craft, your authenticity will emerge.

One of the biggest myths is that artists, leaders and entrepreneurs somehow just ‘reveal’ their authenticity and genius.

The truth is they reveal their authenticity through a relentless focus on improving their skill and craft.

Look at Steve Jobs.

Jobs didn’t focus on becoming more authentic; he focused on becoming the best businessperson, marketer and communicator in the world.

The ‘authentic’ Steve Jobs – the polo-neck-clad savant on the stage – didn’t suddenly happen; it was a product of his relentless quest to grow into a brilliant communicator and presenter.

It’s when we combine an authentic human with skill that we develop a big, sustainable competitive advantage over the bots.

(And, yes, if you must, becoming a more skilled communicator significantly enhances your ability to leverage AI.)

***

Warren Buffett’s authenticity

You would no doubt have heard that investment great Warren Buffett is retiring and handing over the reins of Berkshire Hathaway.

As I’ve pointed out before, Buffett hasn’t been just a great investor, he’s a great communicator.

But it didn’t come easily. He struggled at first. Until he was 20, Buffett said the thought of public speaking made him feel “physically ill”.

Then he took a Dale Carnegie public speaking course, which “had the biggest impact in terms of my subsequent success”.

(Buffett says a modest improvement in communication skills can boost earnings over the next 50 to 60 years.)

By becoming one of the most skilled communicators in the world Buffett has become recognised as one of the most authentic people.

Buffett is particularly known for using analogies, but he uses several techniques to appear humble and authentic:

· Simple, clear language (parataxis)

· Admitting mistakes (concessions)

· Aligning himself with simple things and values: living in his first home, hamburgers and Coke

· Giving credit to others (like his late partner, Charlie Munger)

· Expressing doubt (dubitatio/aphoria)

· Coming across as understated (meiosis)

These are the tools of a highly, highly skilled communicator.

What’s most important to note is that those skills have allowed Buffett, despite his investment evolution and personal complexity, to demonstrate ‘authenticity’, which in the game of persuasion is just as important as being authentic.

***

Op-ed gold

Parnell Palme McGuiness wrote a great op-ed recently for the Sun-Herald about the troubled federal Coalition, an article that brilliantly balanced insight and authenticity.

Using the very modern terms ‘polyamory’, ‘intersectionality’ and ‘throuple’ as wonderful metaphors to describe an increasingly fickle and diverse electorate, she argued the Liberals and Nationals should embrace their own complexity as an asset in this political environment – namely they should embrace the creative tension between the “individualist aspirations” of urban populations (represented by the Libs) and the “community-driven” values of the country.

A wider idea of themselves could lead to “a more rounded vision for Australia” and play out well in an increasingly intersectional electorate.

But to highlight how complicated we all are politically (which only “ideologues and the unimaginative fail to grasp” ) Parnell also neatly disclosed her own family story: her great-grandfather was an organiser in the Victorian Farmers’ Union, later the Victorian National Party; her grandfather was a reporter at the Union’s publication; her father worked for the Labor Party; and her mother fled East Germany.

“You could say my family was ‘National/ALP/Classical Liberal+’”.

Funny.

With its skill, wit and … authenticity, it was a column only Parnell Palme McGuinness – certainly not a bot – could have written.