Many professionals now rely on Ai to write for them, often on the assumption that no one will notice. That assumption is increasingly false. Across law, consulting and higher education, I see Ai used with growing frequency to draft entire essays, court briefs and reports. The appeal is obvious: the prose are fluent, confident and easy to generate. But it rests on a second assumption as well; that what Ai produces is good enough for work that depends on judgment.

It isn’t.

For a while after tools like ChatGPT first appeared, it may have been hard to tell that what you were reading was Ai. But at this point, many attuned readers can spot it quickly, and, as a recent study shows, those who themselves use Ai for writing or editing can recognize such content almost infallibly.

The reason is simple: we know the patterns. And encountering them more often is prompting us to ask a more basic question: why, in many cases, is writing that looks competent still not good enough for the task at hand?

AI writing tends to have a steady, even cadence. It leans heavily on clichéd terms drawn from its training data, like “delve,” “tapestry,” or “showcasing.” It overuses emphatic descriptors like “game-changing” or “transformative,” and relies on tidy triads (“this, this, and this”) and neat oppositions (“it’s not X, it’s Y”).

Every paragraph resolves without friction. And above all, the writing always stakes out a safe middle ground, betraying no sign of idiosyncrasy and no real sense of voice. It’s not any one of these things that gives the game away, but the presence of many at once.

It’s tempting to assume these are merely temporary limitations that will soon be ironed out as models improve. But this isn’t likely, given how language models work. They generate text by predicting the most probable next word in a sequence. They can be tuned to select words that are more or less probable, giving models different personalities. But they cannot escape their dependence on statistical prediction. This means that AI writing will likely exhibit common patterns for the foreseeable future.

As more of us come to see that AI writing is easy to spot, it will change the way we use AI. The question will no longer be whether the output looks polished enough, but whether someone would mind if the document were labeled “drafted by Ai.” In some cases, the answer may well be no: a meeting summary or short e-mail. But in many cases, the answer would clearly be yes, for one key reason among others.

We expect lawyers to write their own court briefs and consultants to write their own reports because we’re looking for something irreducible to an algorithm. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle had a name for it: phronesis, or practical wisdom – the ability to decide what to do when a problem doesn’t conform neatly to prior rules or knowledge. A person with practical wisdom draws on a store of experience and judgment to find the most relevant analogy. A language model makes a random prediction.

Most professional writing does more than merely transmit information. It reflects judgment about priorities and trade-offs. This often involves emotional intelligence, reading the room, or seeing the whole picture. When we outsource a document to Ai, we abdicate this role, a role that no Ai can play for us.

The same is true in education. We assign essays to help students learn to write, but also to grapple with ambiguity and complex ideas – to develop judgment, which Ai can simulate but not acquire.

Ai may be rapidly advancing and useful in many fields. But as we become better at spotting what it produces, we’re reminded of what it can’t do and likely never will. 

The question we should be asking is no longer “Will anyone notice?” but “Would it matter – and why?”

I read an article the other day that got me thinking about the day, 20 years ago, that I, along with many others, was laid off from MacLaren McCann due to General Motors’ sales declines, and how I suggested a few of the same alternate employment suggestions to MacLaren McCann’s HR department to no avail. 

“That’s not how we do things around here.” 

True enough . . . just because MacLaren McCann was a large Advertising Agency that prided itself on its ability to come up with “creative communication solutions”, it does not follow that the agency is willing or able to think creatively from an operational standpoint; despite the irony that any ad agency is only as good its people. 

Highlights of the article are below.

Last week, Jack Dorsey stunned markets with a bombshell: Block, the fintech company he co-found-ed, will eliminate 4,000 positions, blaming artificial intelligence. The move removes nearly half the workforce and ranks among the most aggressive Al-related reductions to date. As thousands of employees were informed that computers were taking their jobs, financial markets cheered.

Block's shares surged 25%, adding more than US$6 billion in market value. In his note to employees posted on X, Dorsey framed the decision in starkly binary terms: "I had two op-tions: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now," he posted. What is striking is the narrowness of the decision set especially since Dorsey acknowledged that Block is "strong gross profit continues to grow." To be fair, Dorsey didn't sound like a typical CEO cost-cutter. His memo was direct and compassionate, and he offered generous severance packages.

Yet, tone and substance are different things. (While) Dorsey's dilemma is real. The troubling question is why a highly profitable company, led by a CEO who genuinely cares about people, treats layoffs - and only layoffs - as the default response to technological progress? 

So, what other options did he have?

One would be to shorten the work week.

• A four-day workweek has been documented as life-changing for employees. Most would probably prefer it — even at 80% — rather than losing their jobs; 
• Even a 30-hour workweek at 75% pay could work.

Another — in the spirit of Google's "20% time" policy — would allow employees to spend one day a week on self-guided side projects. In Google's case it helped create Gmail, Google News and AdSense.

It would probably generate synergies for Block as well.

A third option would be reallocating labour internally — growing the firm, investing in new products and expanding into new markets.

Lastly, to evade shareholder pressure, Dorsey could have taken the company private, or made it employee-owned, making it more about people and less about profits.

Dorsey's "two options" framing exclude this entire menu. This matters because the corporate narrative increasingly treats layoffs as the natural, almost inevitable, response to Al-driven efficiency.

Amir Barnea is an Associate Professor of Finance at HEC, Montreal

and a freelance contributing columnist.

Early in the new year brands across the world pick up where they left off in 2025 - heading in what they hope is the “right direction”. And while you’ll want your brand to do better in 2026 than it did in 2025, so will every other brand manager out there; despite all of the global uncertainty that makes 2026 very different.

What will you do to build your brand fidelity - not just your brand loyalty?

While I’m not going to attempt a summary of best practices here because the right approach for your business depends on your management style, your business category, competitive environment, brand positioning, and where your brand is on its brand life-line, here are a few things to take to heart:

1.  You need a plan. Period. Many businesses I work with don’t have one and wander around lost.

2.  You need to plan the work. A plan, however rudimentary, enables you to define your goals and justify them emotionally and intellectually. Both kinds of justification are important as they will combine to create a far more compelling force with which to propel you towards your goal.

3.  You need to work the plan. The plan needs to be understood by all employees - notably those who interact with the public - because a great plan also helps your customers clearly understand the terms of the brand relationship - and why they should consider fidelity.

Many people don’t like “working plan”. I have a few thoughts on this:

1.  If your resistance is coming from a client or agency manager who is a trusted brand stakeholder with progressive ideas based on logical consumer insights, consider doing a cost-benefit study without affecting the pace and trajectory of the original \ approved plan.

2.  If your resistance is coming from an emotional client or agency manager who thinks that they have a short-cut to greater brand success, suggest some A/B testing. The greatest names in every discipline known to man are slaves to repetition - which includes testing. 

Because it takes time and perspective to write a good, actionable plan, start now. Consider reviewing your current plan and your progress before the holidays and then look at the changing competitive terrain and decide where you want your brand to be in December 2026. Agree multiple paths to the 2026 goal line with your management team.

Prepare a presentation for early January 2026 that outlines the Goals, Strategies + Tactics for the year.

Break your tactics down to the individual level to ensure each person on your team knows exactly what they need to do to help the brand make its year.

March 3, 1943 - January 31, 2026

It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of Janet Keele on Saturday, January 31, 2026. 

Janet was born in 1943 and grew up in Toronto in a loving family where her connection to Westmoreland United Church became an integral and lifelong part of her faith, community, and identity. While attending Bloor Collegiate, Janet discovered her passion for music; a love that would shape her life’s work. She went on to study music at the University of Toronto, and upon graduation achieved her lifelong dream of becoming a music teacher. Janet enjoyed a rich and fulfilling forty-year teaching career at Humberside Collegiate where she directed 39 musical productions while inspiring generations of students. In recognition of her dedication and impact, she was honoured as Ontario’s Teacher of the Year. Janet met her loving husband, David, through Scouts. They were married in 1973 and shared a devoted partnership until David’s passing in 2001. Together, Janet and David cherished cottage life, first in Penetanguishene and later at Manitoulin Island. Her cottage brought her immense joy, peace and happiness throughout her life. In retirement, Janet remained deeply involved in music and in her community. She directed several musical variety shows with the Beaver Bible Class of Westway United Church and conducted the Humberside Alumni Choir, continuing to share her passion and talent with others well into her senior years. Janet was, without doubt, one of the Toronto Blue Jays’ biggest fans, faithfully cheering on her team through all the good times and the bad. Janet is lovingly remembered by her family and was also blessed with the love and support of her special friends. Janet was predeceased by her husband David, her brother Jimmy, her sister Margaret, and her parents Gordon and Emily Keele. 

In keeping with Janet’s wishes, a Celebration of Life will be held in the spring. 

In lieu of flowers donations in memory of Janet Keele may be made to Lung Cancer Canada, Community Living Toronto or Friends of Humberside.