In high school, my Latin teacher (close to retirement at the time) was proud of a reform he’d introduced decades earlier: he allowed students to use a dictionary during exams.
Everyone expected grades to improve. Instead, something surprising happened.
Good students became even better. Weak students became even worse.
Why?
The stronger students already understood grammar, structure, and context. They only lacked the occasional vocabulary item; the dictionary closed those final gaps.
The weaker students treated the dictionary as a safety net. Looking up words consumed valuable time, and many relied on the tool instead of preparing properly.
The introduction of the same tool widened the performance gap.
Watching organizations experiment with AI today, I’m reminded of that story. Many people assume AI is a rising tide that lifts all boats. I suspect it’s more likely to widen the gap between those already ahead and those behind.
Take negotiation performance as an example.
A skilled negotiator can use AI to sharpen preparation, analysis, and creativity. A poor negotiator using AI can produce poor decisions faster — and with greater confidence.
The greatest risk comes from people whose AI skills outpace their professional judgment.
Organizations that benefit most from AI won’t necessarily be those with the best tools. They’ll be those with the strongest judgment. AI doesn’t level the field. It separates the wheat from the chaff.