We expect the most conviction exactly where they have the least visibility.

A few weeks ago I stood in front of a room at Chautauqua Institution. Students aged eighteen to eighty-five, all seated in the same rows. I asked them one question: at what age did you know what you wanted to be, and when did you feel sure it would work out?

They did not argue about their own careers. The older students each landed on the same sentence: "I don't know what to tell my grandkids."

The real problem is not "AI is coming." It's something harder to hold.

We are asking young people to commit earlier - with more conviction - than any generation before them. Pick the major. Pick the field. Pick the track at seventeen. And really mean it. We are asking them to do this at the exact moment the path has gone dark.

Draw it and it looks like a pair of scissors:

• One line climbs: the conviction demanded by life and society keeps rising.
• The other line falls: the visibility we can offer keeps dropping.

The two lines intersect...right where we ask a kid to bet the most, where we can show them the least.

The past used to light the way. You looked at the people ten years ahead of you and saw your own future taking shape. That lamp is now dim.

We are wired for a linear world: steady pace, feedback at every step, the next bend in view.

The world went exponential. We are far enough up the curve now that you can feel it bend. That's the moment the old map stops working. And on an exponential curve, the further out you look, the less the past can tell you. The mentors, the role models, the "here is how this goes," get thinner every year.

──────────────────────────────

→ Half-Baked. We are still coaching kids for a linear track while the terrain went exponential. Hand an eighteen-year-old the flat-line playbook--go into accounting, make partner in twenty years...in a world shaped like a curve. On a workforce panel at Louisville AI Week this winter I said it plainly: we are not preparing people for jobs that exist today, we are preparing them for jobs that don't exist yet, with tools that are still being invented. The only durable move is to go up stack. At a Columbia University School of Professional Studies faculty summit I put it in one line: we are moving from users of technology to designers of work. That is where the agency lives. And it's the part we forget to teach.

→ Hot Take. The book-smarts we rewarded for a century is exactly what the machine copies cheapest. Crystallized knowledge, the kind you memorize and recall, is now abundant and virtually free. The durable asset is fluid intelligence: the capacity to reason where there is no template. We keep testing kids on the intelligence the machine already has, and under-teaching the one it does not.

→ Confession. I have made this bet myself. I know it does not feel clever while you are in it. Stepping back to re-orient to AI looked, from where I stood, like falling behind. The payoff stays invisible for a long time. You commit anyway, or you don't.

──────────────────────────────

Here is the reframe I gave the room.

Your kid is being sold an oracle: a confident answer about which path is safe. But there is no oracle. There are only doors, and no one can what lies beyond.

So stop shopping for it. There is no oracle for your future, only doors you can't see through. Stop trying to pick the right door. Make moves that pay off across all of them.

The question I would put to you is the one I put to them: what would you tell an eighteen-year-old you love to commit to right now, knowing you cannot see the terrain either?

──────────────────────────────

Name one all-weather bet for the young person in your life--or for yourself. One skill. One habit. One investment that pays off across many futures, so it is right even if your guess about which future arrives turns out wrong. Then write down why it survives more than one door. If you cannot say why, it is not all-weather yet.

Run a one-person wind tunnel. Sketch three plausible futures for your field, honestly, including the one you are afraid of. Then find the move that survives all three. That is the bet to make first.

Build a life around fluid intelligence and optionality instead of a single crystallized track. Protect your abililty to re-choose. The goal at seventeen was never to pick right. It is to maintain your ability to keep choosing.

Naming the move is the easy part. Finding the conviction to commit when you cannot see the payoff is the hard part. That one is next.

──────────────────────────────

Everything above sits on one framework I have been building, the Exponential Work Framework.

The short version: a faster horse is still a horse. Most people meet exponential change by doing the old work a little faster. The framework is the other road. Diagnose what is actually changing, not what feels urgent. Choose the method that fits a curve instead of a line. And build the inner operating system that lets you keep re-choosing as the ground moves. That is the engine under today's issue.

The curve is not a cliff. You fall off of a cliff. A curve you can climb, if you stop pretending you can see the top and start making moves that hold no matter what is over the next rise.

This is the pattern I'm watching. It's not a law. But I have stopped betting against it.

P.S. This week I joined the board of trustees of a two-hundred-and-forty-five-year-old university. A bet on exactly this question: how an institution helps people commit, and stay able to re-choose, when no one can see the terrain. More on why, soon.

— Chris

Columbia Faculty · Chief of AI & Strategy at Essential Innovations · Founder, Attainable AI

chrishuberreitz.com · LinkedIn