How to Use AI Without Losing Your Ability to Think | Jolie Dobre

Vit Lyoshin (00:01.09)
Welcome Julie, thank you for your time today.

Jolie Dobre (00:06.469)
My pleasure. I'm really excited to talk to you.

Vit Lyoshin (00:09.548)
Yeah, great. So I wanna start conversation with your book, which thank you for sending it over. I have it right here. it's called Sustaining Human Intelligence, Keeping People Smart, Connected and Innovative in AI driven workforce. and you argue in this book that while AI may be making organizations perform better, at the same time it make

like reduce people's intelligence, cognitive abilities and so forth. Can you elaborate on this and how does it actually look in real life?

Jolie Dobre (00:50.283)
Sure. So what a lot of AI implementations are being measured strictly on productivity, speed and performance. They're not looking at how people are changed when they're utilizing AI. And we see now that there is a lot of cognitive offloading occurring, and that is when you allow the system to do the thinking for you. And this is very similar to GPS. Many of us use

To memorize street names and now we don't. It's very similar to calculators. A lot of us used to be able to do math in our head very quickly and now we don't. And AI allows us to offload a lot of cognitive habits, such as summarizing, reasoning, ideation. So there are a number of things that

Will slowly degrade. There is something called the ironies of automation. And what they found over 50 years of human factors research is as any task is automated, the people who previously did the task slowly lose their skills. That's called skill decay. And

So basically, any task that we stop doing, we slowly stop being able to do well. And this ties closely to our biology. As we learn something, our brain creates neural connections to allow us to improve and learn on it. As we stop doing something, we begin to do something called synaptic pruning, which is our brain's

remove the synapses that support that task. So as we continue to engage with AI without intentional actions put in place to prevent that, I think we will find that cognitive offloading and de-skilling and skill decay become very common.

Vit Lyoshin (02:55.764)
Mm-hmm. I see. And and we're talking about specifically which type of abilities? Is it like critical thinking or like abilities to do research, judgment? Wha what sort of skills are we talking about?

Jolie Dobre (03:11.941)
Sure. In the current AI research that I took a look at, critical thinking is a major part. in there's a gentleman named Gerlich in 2025, he did research on classrooms, 666, I believe they were elementary and high school students. AI was introduced into the classroom, and there was a measurable decrease in critical thinking and problem solving.

As well as ideation, which is the creativity and leaps of creative ideas. And so I think we will see that that continues to occur to adults as well. It appears that novices are more likely to be affected because they have not had the repetitions and the deliberate practice that.

the older and more expert employees have had. So they are still in the learning phase. And because they're in the learning phase, the loss of these repetitions will affect them as they mature in their career.

Vit Lyoshin (04:27.476)
Mm-hmm. So you mentioned also calculators and GPS, and we've had those things for a while. And I remember times before them. And yes, I I remembered a bunch of phone numbers and addresses and how to get there. but how AI is different from that because it seems like it's a little bit more complex, right? But is there research shows any differences in danger, if you will?

Jolie Dobre (04:55.619)
I think we're still early in that. And the the cognitive offloading alone means that it could be much broader. The nice thing about calculators and GPS is that it's a pretty narrow skill set.

Vit Lyoshin (04:58.797)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (05:12.793)
Whereas with AI, we are finding that we can apply it across domains. And what will be the outcome of that? We don't have the research quite yet to answer that question.

Vit Lyoshin (05:12.888)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (05:27.562)
Okay. Understand. And so another question I have is like are we thinking about AI is or how to tell whether AI is helping me think deeply and help me actually be productive versus it's doing job for me and I'm just being a dummy typing questions and relying on on this information.

Jolie Dobre (05:49.457)
I think a good way to distinguish that is before you delegate a task to AI, you know, is ask yourself, do I understand this task? Have I done it before? Do I understand the problem behind this task? Do I understand the goal of completing this task well? And if you can answer yes to those questions, then I think it's fine to delegate.

And then the fourth question I think would be: when's the last time I did this completely by myself? And if it's been an extended period of time, then you might just want to try it just to see how you're doing and evaluate for yourself if it's become noticeably more difficult or if you're less impressed with your output.

Vit Lyoshin (06:41.356)
Yeah, I think many people I can speak for myself. I find myself sometimes like you lack time and you're always busy doing stuff, and it's just so much easier to tell AI to start doing something while you're doing something else. And I think many people now trying to be like a hyper perform performing, right? A job and and in your personal stuff, it it's really hard and you just try to get more and more and more done. I forgot

how it's called, but it basically says like people subconsciously try to fill out all the time, all the free time they have to stay productive, to try to do s to do things. And it's it's almost like a disease, I guess, trying to be always doing something. So it's hard to balance. Yeah.

Jolie Dobre (07:18.437)
Right.

Jolie Dobre (07:29.209)
And I I think it will lead to a constant acceleration. And we already know that there is something called techno stress. So the more technology we have, the faster we can do something, the faster we want to add more to it. We we do, as you say, want to fill every moment. And I think this is where there's of course a temptation for organizations to do that because

Vit Lyoshin (07:35.342)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (07:58.945)
They think it's going to make me more competitive and individuals as well. This is going to make me more competitive. But we've all met the colleague who is so busy that you can't work with them. And they're in a constant state of stress. It reduces their ability to innovate. It makes it difficult to work with them.

it damages relationships. And an organization is relationships. That is what eventually makes success. I talk about human beings as being nodes. We all occupy a particular position in reality. And when we collaborate with one another, we are able to express.

What we are seeing. And an organization that communicates well and whose individuals are all contributing to that, those observations of reality are going to be much more able to respond to inflection points. They're going to be much more able to respond to changes in the competition. And they're also going to be much more facile in responding to the marketplace.

their customers need. And if we become so obsessed with more, more, we don't have the time to reflect and cooperate to respond to that.

Vit Lyoshin (09:34.453)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, w while you're talking, I'm I was just thinking about this that when we collaborate with each other, we also tend to argue a lot until we figure out what actually is gonna work, right? You have to like in product world, you have to go

Jolie Dobre (09:47.003)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (09:50.229)
And interview a bunch of people and then get with your team and argue about and prioritize it and f figure out which one makes sense to build. With AI, what I find is it's just so nice and it tells you like, you're so smart, here it is, just take it as is, don't question me. This is perfect solution. And it's it's very nice and compelling and it looks like it's a finished

output that you can just take and and use and it's not necessarily truth. I just had episode recorded with a professor from university who's building something and he's arguing like all these hallucinations and issues with AI outputs are really, really bad. And I agree with that. So it it's interesting how we can

be more productive and be more collaborative with people, but with the I it's impossible because it's so nice and tells us everything as a final version.

Jolie Dobre (10:44.111)
And and there's one more element to that that we need to think about is particularly with more novice employees, we already have a lot of data that says when you have an expert in the room and they have an opinion, the novice, and this can also work for people who have very strong characters, the novices will not speak and they will not argue because they don't think I have a place to

Vit Lyoshin (10:53.207)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (11:14.035)
Object to what this person is saying. Now you take AI and it appears to be an authoritative source, it appears to be infallible, and it appears to be very sophisticated and polished. So you may even find that your experts are reticent to.

object to what the AI is saying. So now you're looking at a homogeny of thinking and it's all happening through the lens of that shared model. And I think that most organizations

Vit Lyoshin (11:50.03)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (11:53.969)
May have a handful of models, but not really a diverse set. And any one team or individual can only be aggregating information from a particular set of models. So the diversity is not necessarily there, but as human beings, we're going to interpret that it's there.

Vit Lyoshin (12:18.048)
Yeah, and yeah, I I I agree with that. And actually I was just thinking about how entry level people who just enter their first job gonna get the expertise and if they if companies deploy those tools that's supposed to replace entry level positions, that's number one. And number two, how do you actually verify the output of these models if you're a junior person and it gives you something.

And how do you assess and build your skills to become more senior in the organization? Do you have any insight to that?

Jolie Dobre (12:55.941)
Yeah, and and if I could just add one piece to that is quite often those foundational tasks are the first to be automated and they're seen as sort of low hanging fruit. And that means, as you say, the novice is not getting the experience. And there is something called deliberate practice, and a lot of people know it from its more collective

Vit Lyoshin (13:07.938)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (13:25.875)
Colloquial 10,000 hours by Malcolm Gladwell. It's not really 10,000 hours. Ericsson just felt that it should be very deliberate and focused and intentional. And it's the practice, and it's because we too are pattern recognition machines. That's how we learn. And as AI takes away these foundational tasks, those patterns are not there for.

The novice employee to pick up on. And I think the way to avoid this problem is to be very intentional within the organization on automation. I don't think we can rely on individuals to do that because there's actually the two problems: the loss of foundational tasks, and then the fact that

the tasks may be more advanced but the the the they may be foundational roles they may be entry level roles but the more expert elements of them may also be removed so you could be a junior attorney and you could be drafting briefs

And they could, you could be learning quite a bit from that foundational task. But if AI is summarizing and aggregating and pulling out the research aspects of that, that entry-level task is less valuable to them. And so one of the ways that we could avoid this, I think, is by organizations being very intentional and saying we are going to retain entry-level roles.

And we are going to look at the composition of those roles, and we're going to look at our career ladders and decide what elements need to be retained within those roles. And that shift will have to come from an intentional.

Jolie Dobre (15:40.617)
metric of development. And I think generally speaking, in business over the last twenty-five years at least.

We've been in a productivity and efficiency cycle, and we've defined all of success by how fast we do it. And we need a mind shift away from that, I think. And as everything becomes faster and faster, I know we all complain, everything breaks, I have terrible service. Well, these are the words of customers. So the organizations that realize that.

Vit Lyoshin (16:16.163)
Yeah.

Jolie Dobre (16:21.811)
There is a desire out there for people to engage with other people. Not all the time. You know, when I want to check my bank statement, hey, it's fine to go online and help myself. But what about when I'm dealing with my doctor's office? My child is ill and I'm very nervous about that.

I want to talk to a person. I want to know did that test result come through? When can you make me an appointment? I don't want to be hitting seven different buttons to make that emergency appointment. So I think as we have AI now is making us so productive and so efficient, we can make a conscious decision to put those gains into the places that benefit us.

Vit Lyoshin (16:45.24)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (17:15.924)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I think a perfect example is IKEA. I read the case study from them that they I think they like moved a whole bunch of like a few thousand people from customer support and they elevated them basically to some other positions and they replaced customer support with AI, the chatbot that could answer all the simple questions to people.

And people who used to do that manually moved up and they were creating either answering and handling more difficult questions or they moved to some other roles and they actually didn't let anybody go. They kinda like repurposed the people and made the organization better as a result of that. So I think there are smarter ways to deal with it and still help people to go through

junior level and and up and up and up rather than just you know trying to hire only seniors and things like that. So that's very interesting. Yeah.

Jolie Dobre (18:16.632)
And I think we will find that there will be burnout if you're taking your senior people and demanding more and more of them.

Vit Lyoshin (18:21.102)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (18:25.865)
And we naturally we're a very social and hierarchical species. We want to know where we stand within a hierarchy of competence. And if we flatten an organization and we also have competence visibility loss where we cannot perceive who is more knowledgeable or who is less knowledgeable, then we cannot orient ourselves with.

within that hierarchy. And that'll have long-term implications for who gets promoted to leadership, who even gets promoted through a particular role. And

So I I think there's a real opportunity to think about us as social creatures and how do we make that competence visible again. Right now with AI, you can take a novice who is very proficient with the AI, and you can take an expert, and I'm thinking mostly in this case, in my own profession, which is user experience and design.

And both of them could create a product that is equally impressive.

And you because you cannot disassociate from the outside what portion of the work is the human and what portion of the work is the AI. So now you're looking at a combined product that obscures. Previously, you could identify expertise by the quality of the output.

Vit Lyoshin (20:11.138)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (20:11.293)
And now they're equivalent. So what's the next level? How do you distinguish who is an expert? And once you've lost comp you know visibility into competence, not only are you flattening that hierarchy, but you're also causing a market impact because how does the organization reward the expert versus the novice?

If they can't distinguish, can they still value it? And if the organization can't value it, the marketplace can't value it. And if the marketplace can't value it, what incentive do I as an individual have to continue to cultivate skills?

Vit Lyoshin (20:39.469)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (21:01.484)
Mm-hmm. I actually had a question for you a little bit later, but I'll ask it now. how to if if an organization deployed these AI tools and everybody used them to generate ideas, produce some designs, produce some tasks or whatever, the some outputs, like how do we know who is doing a better job? That's number one. And also people probably gonna be losing their ability to creatively think.

and do their own put or like add their own bells and whistles if you will. Let's talk about the like a design for example. If they're gonna be taking everything at face value what AI generates them, like what's the point, right? Because people are gonna be losing abilities to

Jolie Dobre (21:38.085)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (21:49.283)
creative and in to be creative and innovate an organization at the end of the day will lose because they're gonna be relying on the same thing that the same AI tool produce the same pretty much thing with a very small differences for five different designers. Like okay so that's kind of pointless, right?

Jolie Dobre (22:10.085)
Yeah, and I like what you're saying there about originality because originality comes from unique experience. You know, we all come to a role with a past, and that past changes how we think. It's those experiences alter what we value, and that's how you end up with diversity of thought, diversity of design. And if people are bypassing those difficulties,

Vit Lyoshin (22:19.383)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (22:40.019)
Difficulties. And I think any one of us, if you look back on your life, it's not the easy moments that molded you. It's the challenging moments. It's that time when you couldn't get it and you really dug in and pushed yourself through it. So as we rob people of that experience, we're robbing our organizations of the unique and the creative. And I think we will see that that continues.

Vit Lyoshin (22:48.814)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (23:11.638)
Mm-hmm. Okay. I wanna look at this topic from different side and trying to play like devil's advocate for a little bit. do we have any sort of evidence? or is anybody doing concrete research and proving that AI in fact affects cognitive abilities of people and things like that?

Jolie Dobre (23:34.351)
Yes, as I mentioned, Gerlich has, and in his research, they were classroom children and it was measurable declines in creative thinking and problem solving. there is actually a large body of research developing. It is still very much at the academic level, so it really hasn't migrated out into you know what what I would call the collective conscious.

Vit Lyoshin (23:37.091)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (24:04.275)
But we're seeing that

y you know, I we we've already seen Gardner say that they think

Organizations will suffer significant innovation and creativity issues because there's fewer entry-level roles. So they're saying organizations are going to have fewer experts within the next five to ten years, and they recognize it as a potential crisis.

Vit Lyoshin (24:41.62)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I guess some other people could say that one of the benefits of AI, like we've also mentioned, it's speed and reducing effort, cognitive effort sometimes to produce something so you can make it more, faster, better, etc. but when exactly this is b this become a problem, so we can

we have an AI for a few years now. isn't there enough information and data that this is in fact a problem, that if we produce all these things this fast and substitute our own cognitive slow with this fast tool, how does it affect?

Jolie Dobre (25:31.417)
Yeah, that's a great question, and it's really distributed over a lot of different research. I pulled together about 300 different studies and I I'm not in a position to really aggregate all of them, but what I would say is there does seem to be overwhelming evidence across the board, and what we can do.

Is really think about what we do with this extra time. You know, how busy do we want to be? And how much value does it give us to fill all of our time with this? And if we think about right now.

If any one of us wants to progress, we're going to set time aside to do that. And AI now opens up a lot of time. So we can be intentional with where we put that effort. And if you think about how corporate training has been done, it pulls people out of workflow and maybe into a classroom. With AI, we don't have to do that anymore. We could actually

Utilize the nature of AI to evaluate the user and educate them right within the task workflow. So you might actually find that you're increasing the knowledge and capacity of your team in less time. It may result in a compression as well. So I don't think it's either or, I think it's a both and.

Vit Lyoshin (27:13.608)
Mm-hmm. There is another concept people always refer to like as a as a feature, if you will, in their products. And I've talked to many pro founders who build AI products and they say human in the loop. we're not gonna delegate this part to AI. We always have people in the loop here. Is it like a like a false security or is it like a band-aid, if you will, on this problem?

with with AI that we're discussing, or is it a like a viable solution, do you think?

Jolie Dobre (27:48.025)
I think it's a false sense of security. And here's why, because if a human is in the loop, they need to be sophisticated enough in the domain to identify when the AI goes off the rails. And if generally we're on a path of skill decay, we won't be able to perform that role. Now the other side of that argument is a human in the loop.

As an advocate for human need. I make the the analogy in the book that space is full of asteroids. Doesn't keep me up at night. It won't keep AI up at night. This asteroid isn't a problem.

Until it's coming towards my house or my space station, then it's a problem. But that's a human decision. Now you can program an AI to say when an asteroid gets this close, it's a problem, but you can't program AI.

To identify the best solution because those solutions are based on human needs, human relationships, and human ethics. And we have to be in the loop in that sense to define how AI should perform. And it's

As long as humans are a part of the larger system, it is not humans or AI. It is humans, which in within an even larger system, within a natural system, humans will continue to have needs. Our intelligence is embodied. We have families. We need to eat. We get sick.

Jolie Dobre (29:42.341)
These will all be demands that we will run through AI and AI won't know what solution is right for me or for you or for my family or for my country. So we need to be in the loop at least to that level.

And we need to be intelligent enough to communicate to the tools what is the best solution and what are the real problems. You know, think about how complex the systems we inhabit. And and this is where writing the book.

Vit Lyoshin (29:59.459)
Uh-huh.

Jolie Dobre (30:17.165)
really informed me on the value of AI is that the human brain, it's not that far away from the brain of the Sierra that used to run away from lions. It cannot comprehend the complexity of climate.

We cannot comprehend even the complexity of our individual bodies. And we need AI to help us think through these complex systems. But in that process, we're making a new human AI system, which is also complicated. So we need to stay sharp so that we can navigate these systems intelligently.

Vit Lyoshin (30:59.294)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think again from my previous conversation, somebody told me that AI is just an average of all the knowledge that it's been trained on. So we can't expect it to be the best, like you said. And there's obviously needs to be an expert who gets this output and analyzes it and declares whether it's good enough or not, or whatnot. Because many times if it's not complete BS and lie.

It's just an average thing that anybody could have come up given they spend a little bit of time. The the challenge is people now got lazy, they'd wanna spend this time. So it's so convenient, right?

Jolie Dobre (31:40.591)
Right, right, right.

You know, and why. And you know, we've seen this, as I said, we've seen this acceleration of busyness. Do you know anyone who doesn't say, I'm busy? And and I so I was saying is I I think we need to make a decision as a culture to let this concept of busyness go.

Vit Lyoshin (31:55.371)
Yeah, yeah. That's true. So I I also Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Vit Lyoshin (32:11.106)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (32:11.369)
And we can say we have AI, we're accelerating these lower-level tasks, let's now repurpose that found time for valuable things that benefit us. What is the point of AI if it's not benefiting humans?

Vit Lyoshin (32:29.524)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah, that's true. and I also now want to talk about like how to design or or build or how they actually build the AI tools. And the way that they build it, as I mentioned before, they're so nice, it's so convenient, it's in the form of chat, and they tell you like almost exactly what you want to hear. You you're always the smartest person they talk to.

Wha what like are there any flaws in design like this that you can see? to me it seems like a little bit weird that they are not completely honest with me when they when they behave like that. The AI tools I mean.

Jolie Dobre (33:08.337)
Yes, I actually call that uncritical affirmation in the book, and I devote a section to it. And I think the problem is, as I've said before, none of us have ever really grown through flattery. That we grow through challenge and critique. It doesn't have to be, you know, rude criticism, but we do need someone to say to us, here's a flaw in your thinking, and here's another way to approach the problem. And in many cases, you're right.

AI won't do that. Now you can work with it that way. That is one of the things that I appreciate when I'm writing. And this for me is the second of three books that I've utilized AI to help me write. And I will say to it, this is my hypothesis, destroy it. And I love that.

And then I can go through and research in response to what the AI has said. So if you're using the tool to challenge you, and that is your decision to do that, you can gain the benefits of having another expert in the room.

Vit Lyoshin (34:26.08)
Yeah. So now the the next question is to flip it. How to actually better leverage AI to become smarter and better researcher, writer, or software engineer, because we know a lot of people generating code with AI now. But then I also read statistics on subst not substack stack overflow, and they say like something like forty percent or something like that of developers who actually use AI to generate code now spend more time

debugging it and fixing it and cleaning it because it's all like spaghetti crazy stuff. So do you have any suggestions or ideas how to use it appropriately to that actually makes you smarter?

Jolie Dobre (35:10.353)
Sure. For your example, I would want to know, is it because those individuals missed the deliberate practice of coding previously? And

Vit Lyoshin (35:24.565)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (35:25.275)
Does the way a novice engage with coding tools differ from the way an expert does? And I would say yes. And that is probably a big part of it because AI can deceive you. You can think you know more than you do because you don't recognize that you have a crutch. So now you are creating code and there's

Elements being introduced that you may not have the skills to question. Whereas if you're an expert coder and you already have a certain rhythm to how you code, which includes making sure you branch, making sure you partner with a colleague, making sure that you run scans on a regular basis, then I think you're going to be less likely to fall into that particular trap. Now I don't code with a

So I'm giving an estimate, you know, an assumption based on my own experiences, but I think that might explain part of that.

Vit Lyoshin (36:33.314)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (36:38.06)
Yeah, so but in general would you recommend to have this like f healthy friction with AI tools when people question everything or assume that this is not like the best or the first version is your just draft and you have to iterate many times. That's what we've been thought in school, right? You like your first draft is just a draft, you have to iterate on it. w what what's your like

Recommendation I guess on on this.

Jolie Dobre (37:08.133)
Yes, I think that kind of friction is very important. And I'll I'll give you kind of an interesting anecdote as I was working with ChatGPT. it actually observed that I didn't take its first answer, that I kept pushing and pushing. And then at one point it actually said to me,

Because you kept pushing, we came up with an answer that

That I had never considered. And this is a machine saying this to me. And I found that fascinating because well I know you do product design and and UX as well, and that has always been a design standard. don't go with the first thing, keep pushing it, keep challenging it, get to the next level. sometimes throw away your first thought because that was too easy, keep it going, keep going.

Vit Lyoshin (37:44.011)
Jolie Dobre (38:08.505)
Going and so often with AI, we can jump to what I call premature consensus, and that'll happen not just with an individual but within a team, and so we're losing those cycles where true innovation takes place. So, yes, I would say where you can find a place in your workflow to create friction with AI, I think that opens the door for some real great.

Vit Lyoshin (38:40.194)
Mm-hmm. Are there any sort of practices also that maybe you learned about or you practice yourself on you know how they say it's like when you're working on something, you like take break, for example, go walk for 15 minutes, come back, you will have fresh ideas and things like that. Are there any specific practices like that for working with AI tools that maybe you can share?

Jolie Dobre (39:04.099)
Yeah, I I am, you know, in a in a I am an accessible user. I have low vision and I found that AI's voice mode really changed the way I worked because not only could I dictate, but I could research on the fly and I would take AI with me on walks.

maybe two or three times a day. And it actually became funny because it would ask me, are you up for a walk with ginger?

Because it noticed the pattern of me walking my dog, because that was when I had my best ideas. And that's, you know, been the case for me in the shower, on a walk, in those moments of diffuse attention, that's when I'm the most creative. And now I can take AI with me and I can capture that so much better.

Vit Lyoshin (39:47.319)
Yeah.

Vit Lyoshin (39:56.056)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (40:04.593)
And particularly with research, I can actually be researching while I'm walking and I can be taking that input. So I think it opens up a lot of really exciting opportunities for us to be more creative, to be more efficient, but in a positive way.

Vit Lyoshin (40:25.45)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's great. And we talked about like delegating and being careful about what you delegate to AI and from your perspective, your personal opinion,

Vit Lyoshin (40:43.758)
How what you will never delegate to AI when you're working on writing or designing or anything.

Jolie Dobre (40:51.774)
Ideation. I always come up with the first idea, and then I use AI as a sounding board. And for me, that is a very personal decision because I have always been a creative person. I was a painter and an illustrator, and then UX design. And that creative process is who I am, and those outputs.

Are outward representations of who I am, not just what I do. So I want that ideation to be mine. That's not to say I won't ask AI to challenge me, but I want that final decision to be owned by me because I want to say that is mine.

Vit Lyoshin (41:46.265)
Hmm, okay, interesting. All right. Thank you for sharing your ideas and expertise. so I I guess well, while we're recording the book is not out yet, but it will be on September seventh. So I'll put the links.

Jolie Dobre (42:01.584)
It is there the ebook is out. the yes, the ebook is available on Amazon.

Vit Lyoshin (42:05.099)
it is, okay.

Jolie Dobre (42:10.142)
And the paper copy, the soft cover copy is coming out September 7th. There's a distinct difference between the ebook and the paper copy. The paper copy has two pages for every issue, followed by two pages of design solutions. And when I talk about design solutions, I look at it at three levels. The first being the AI interface.

And model, the second being workflows and processes, and the third being organizational culture. And I think healthy AI use is going to depend on those three levers, and UX designers should be looking at all three of them, and I think there's a lot of opportunity by

Vit Lyoshin (43:02.369)
Mm-hmm.

Jolie Dobre (43:07.246)
expressing through all three to really keep people engaged and growing.

Vit Lyoshin (43:13.954)
Yeah. No, I that's great. I think this is a very timely and important topic because many people just blindly get into AI and they become this this I don't know, euphoric about it or something. I remember the same thing was happening with agile movement and everybody was so blindly jumping into

implementing those practices without even thinking how it affects anything. What we've learned that last few years demonstrated that people trying to kind of reassess that. And I think AI will reach that point too. And I think the book is timely to try to learn and implement some practices and caution people really like, you know

Like I don't remember any phone numbers anymore. Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know. We'll see. If I get lost, it's bad. Yeah. all right, Julie, thank you very much. But before you go, I have my three innovation questions for you. I ask every guest at the end. so the first question is can you define innovation in a few words?

Jolie Dobre (44:05.461)
Yeah.

Jolie Dobre (44:22.782)
I think innovation is responding to reality in a way that serves a market need.

Vit Lyoshin (44:31.104)
Hmm, okay. Second question is which innovation do you think changed the world the most and why?

Jolie Dobre (44:39.538)
I think we're living through it right now. I think I think AI is going to be the innovation that will change the world the most. And I I think it will go beyond how it affects us. I think it will be how it allows us to engage with our larger systems, natural and human systems.

Vit Lyoshin (44:42.622)
Okay.

Vit Lyoshin (44:59.629)
Mm-hmm.

Vit Lyoshin (45:03.882)
Okay. And the last question is, which technology or thing or device or software that we use today we will be laughing at ten years from now?

Jolie Dobre (45:16.574)
That's good question. probably word. Now AI does so much more than than you could do with just a blank sheet.

Vit Lyoshin (45:22.7)
Word, okay.

Vit Lyoshin (45:32.43)
Okay, great. It's yeah, it's been for a while. It's almost like what thirty-five, forty years who was bored? Okay. Time to go. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your time. It's been a pleasure and well stay in touch.

Jolie Dobre (45:51.187)
Yes, thank you so much. It's been a of fun.

Vit Lyoshin (45:53.846)
Yeah, bye bye.