Survival of the Fittest is Dead: Thriving in a World of Workflows and AI Judgment

When I was growing up, my family’s history as emigrants from Vietnam shaped my understanding of survival in profound ways. My parents carried with them the culture, values, and lessons they had learned through hardship and resilience during the Vietnam War. Yet, in America, I was immersed in a completely different world, one that demanded its own set of skills for success. As a child of two cultures, I learned to synthesize the best of both worlds: the unwavering persistence and communal spirit of my parents’ generation, and the individualism and innovation that America champions.

This ability to combine perspectives taught me a kind of survival that was less about dominance or competition and more about adaptation and synthesis. It wasn’t enough to rely solely on what my parents knew, nor to completely embrace everything around me in America. The strength came from blending the two, extracting what worked and leaving behind what didn’t.

This paradoxical synthesis is a skill I fear may be at risk in the AI age.

The Paradox of AI Native Generations

AI-native generations, who will grow up surrounded by advanced technology, may not feel the same pressure to synthesize disparate perspectives. AI has made it possible to access answers instantly, but those answers are often surface-level, lacking context or nuance. Worse, the rise of AI-generated content has flooded the digital landscape with information, much of which is unverified, biased, or outright false.

Will these generations, with their reliance on AI workflows, develop the critical thinking required to discern the good from the bad? When I think back to how I had to weigh the differing truths of two cultures—Vietnamese and American—it strikes me that this ability to synthesize, to judge what works and discard what doesn’t, may not develop as naturally for those who’ve never had to live without AI assistance.

The problem isn’t just the proliferation of bad information. It’s also the lack of training to sift through it effectively. AI is excellent at delivering answers, but it lacks the lived experience, cultural wisdom, and context that humans bring to the table. The danger is that without humans in the loop, younger generations may not learn how to distinguish signal from noise.

Are Older Generations the Last Line of Defense?

This leads to a critical question: is there enough time for humans in the loop—those of us from older generations who learned judgment through trial and error, through synthesizing complex and sometimes contradictory sources of information—to guide AI and its users toward better judgment?

I believe there is, but the window is narrow. My life as an emigrant has taught me that survival is about adaptation, and this applies as much to navigating AI workflows as it does to navigating two cultures. Older generations have a responsibility to instill in younger ones the skills needed to synthesize information—not just from traditional sources, but from AI as well.

This means:

1. Teaching Critical Thinking Just as I learned to evaluate the lessons of my parents’ culture against the demands of America, we must teach AI-native generations to evaluate AI-generated content critically. They must learn to ask, “What’s missing? What’s biased? What’s the context?”
2. Guiding AI Development Those of us who have lived through pre-AI and AI-driven worlds must ensure that the systems being built today prioritize nuance, diversity, and accuracy. We must act as mentors not just to humans, but to the AI systems themselves, guiding their evolution to align with human values.
3. Championing Judgment as a Skill In the AI age, judgment—knowing what to trust, what to question, and what to discard—will be the most important skill of all. Older generations have honed this skill through experience. It’s imperative we pass it down.

Synthesizing a Better Future

The lesson I’ve carried with me from my experience as an emigrant is that survival is about more than brute strength or raw knowledge. It’s about adaptability and synthesis. As AI reshapes the requirements for success, the ability to blend perspectives, cultures, and even technologies will become more crucial than ever.

The paradox is that while AI provides unprecedented access to information, it also makes synthesis more difficult. Without guidance, AI-native generations may lose the ability to distinguish good information from bad, to think critically, and to navigate ambiguity.

There is hope, though. Just as I learned to synthesize two cultures into something greater than the sum of its parts, we have the opportunity to combine human judgment with AI workflows to create something even better. The key will be ensuring that humans remain in the loop—not just as passive users, but as active guides, teachers, and mentors.

The future doesn’t belong to the strongest or the smartest. It belongs to those who can adapt, synthesize, and judge. It belongs to those who can combine the wisdom of the past with the tools of the future to build workflows—and a world—that work better for everyone.