AI paradox and “A” definition

AI paradox

Treasurers need to think again about the meaning of the “A” of A. Looking at it through a different (cultural) lens casts its threat and promise in a new light. There is a paradox, even as AI spreads into our lives and jobs of treasurers, hostility remains sky-high. Although people agree on the benefits of AI solutions, they also confess they anticipate significant harm, due to data security breaches, the spread of misinformation and job displacement (among other issues often listed by professionals). The risks are real and well-advertised. Nevertheless, it is worth weighing (pondering) three oft-ignored points about the current anthropology of AI that might help to frame and to understand this paradox in a more constructive way. Innovation is often feared because it disrupts and changes the way we work (and people are fairly resistant to change, even when it's a question of improving their daily lives). What's more, it gives the illusion of or imposes changes in training, expertise, team structure, etc... Doesn't progress mean improving productivity? So do more with the same staff, or as much with less. And therein lies the negative reaction to innovation and AI. The paradox is, or would be, to refuse innovation on the pretext of risking losing one's job. Instead of asking ourselves whether automating tasks might make our work more interesting and useful. This is a real paradox, and one of the worst obstacles to innovation.

Meaning of “A”

First, we need to rethink which “A” we are using in AI today. Machine learning systems are indeed artificial. However, bots are not always or not usually artificial. They aren’t replacing the human brain (usually). Instead, they normally enable us to operate faster and move more effectively and faster through tasks. So perhaps, we should rephrase or reframe “AI” as “Augmented Intelligence” or “Accelerated Intelligence” or even “Agentic Intelligence” (i.e. buzzword recently used by NVIDIA in a blog call – “the next frontier of AI”). So whatever else 2025 brings, the one thing that can be predicted is our attitudes towards AI. It should keep subtly shifting as technology becomes increasingly normalized and standardized. That may alarm some treasurers. But it may also help them to reframe the tech debate more constructively, and to focus on ensuring that humans control their digital “agents”, and not the other way round. Investors today might be dashing into AI, but they need to ask what “<A” they want in the that AI tag. If we reconsider the definition of “A” and prefer the term “augmented”, for example, psychologically, we'll be more accepting of change. It's not a question of completely replacing or substituting the treasurer, but of increasing the intelligence and quality of work thanks to machines and their enhanced performance. The same reasoning can be applied to the other term, “accelerated”. So, it's (also) a cultural problem to be overcome, and an approach or attitude to be adopted in the face of innovation. The CFO and/or treasurer should take inspiration from this before embarking on such a project and ensure that all teams are “on-boarded” or federated. It's all about selling a project and a purpose. Therein lies the difficulty and the nuance. It's up to us to prevent such risks, because whether we like it or not, AI will change our lives as treasurers forever.

Fran?ois Masquelier, CEO of Simply Treasury - Luxembourg