My company rolled out AI tools 11 months ago. Since then, every task I do takes longer.
I am not allowed to say this out loud.
Not because there is a policy. There is no policy. There is something worse than a policy. There is enthusiasm.
There is a Slack channel called #ai-wins where people post screenshots of AI outputs with captions like "this just saved me an hour." There is a VP who opens every all-hands with "the companies that adopt fastest win." There is a Director who renamed his team from Operations to Intelligent Operations. There is a peer review question that now asks: "How have you leveraged AI tools to enhance your workflow this quarter?"
If the answer is "I haven't, because I was faster before," that is a career decision.
So I leverage.
Emails.
Before the tools, I wrote emails. This took the amount of time it takes to write an email. I did not measure it. Nobody measured it. The email got written and sent and it was fine.
Now I write the email. Then I highlight the text and click "Enhance with AI." The AI rewrites my email. It replaces "Can we meet Thursday?" with "I'd love to explore the possibility of finding a mutually convenient time to align on this." I read the rewrite. I delete the rewrite. I send my original email.
This takes 4 minutes instead of 2. The 2 extra minutes are the enhancement. I do this 11 times a day. That is 22 minutes I spend each day rejecting improvements to sentences that were already finished.
In #ai-wins I posted a screenshot of the rewrite. I did not post the part where I deleted it. 23 people reacted with the rocket emoji.
That is adoption.
Meetings.
We have an AI notetaker in every meeting now. It joins automatically. It records. It transcribes. It summarizes. After each meeting I receive a 3-paragraph summary of the meeting I just attended.
I read the summary. This takes 3 minutes. I was in the meeting. I know what happened. I am reading a machine's account of something I experienced firsthand. Sometimes the account is wrong. Last Tuesday it attributed a comment about Q3 revenue to me. My manager made that comment. I spent 4 minutes correcting the transcript.
Before the notetaker, I did not spend 7 minutes after each meeting correcting a robot's memory of something I personally witnessed. I attend 11 meetings a week. That is 77 minutes per week supervising a transcription nobody requested.
I mentioned this once. My manager said "think about the people who weren't in the meeting." The people who weren't in the meeting do not read the summaries. I checked. The read receipts show single-digit opens. The summaries exist not because they are useful but because they are there. I read them for the same reason.
Documents.
I write a weekly status update. Before the tools, this took 10 minutes. I typed what happened. I sent it. My manager skimmed it. The system worked.
Now I open the AI writing assistant. I give it my bullet points. It produces a draft. The draft says "Significant progress was achieved across multiple workstreams." I did not achieve significant progress across multiple workstreams. I updated a spreadsheet and sent 4 emails.
I rewrite the draft to say what actually happened. Then I run my rewrite through the grammar tool. It suggests I change "done" to "completed" and "next week" to "in the forthcoming period." I click Ignore 9 times. Then I send the version I would have written in 10 minutes. The process now takes 30.
I have been doing this every week for 11 months. I have added 20 minutes to a task that did not need 20 more minutes. I call this efficiency. I have been calling it efficiency for 11 months. That is what efficiency means now. It means the additional time you spend to arrive at the same outcome through a longer process. Nobody has questioned this definition. I have not offered it for review.
I kept a log once. 2 weeks. Every task, timed. Before-AI and after-AI. The after number was larger in every case. Every single one. Not by a little. The range was 40 to 200 percent.
I deleted the log.
I deleted it because it was a document that said, in plain numbers, that the AI tools make me slower. And a document like that has no place in a company where AI adoption is a strategic priority. I could not send it to my manager. He championed the rollout. I could not post it in #ai-wins. I could not raise it in a meeting because the notetaker would transcribe it and the summary would read "[Name] expressed concerns about AI tool efficacy" and that summary would be the first one anyone actually reads.
So I do what everyone does.
I use the tools. I spend the extra time. I post in #ai-wins. I write "leveraged AI to streamline weekly reporting" in my review and my manager gives me a 4 out of 5 for innovation. I have innovated nothing. I have added steps to processes that were already finished. I have made simple things longer and labeled the difference with words that used to mean something.
Every week in #ai-wins someone posts a screenshot. And 20 people react with the rocket emoji. And nobody posts the part where they deleted the output and did the task themselves. Nobody posts the revert. Nobody posts the before-and-after timer. Nobody will. Because "I was better at my job before the AI tools" is a sentence that cannot be said out loud in any company that has decided AI is the future.
Every company has decided AI is the future.
So we leverage. Quietly. Adding steps. Calling them optimization. Getting slightly less done, slightly more slowly, with slightly more steps, and reporting it as progress.
My yearly review is next month. There is a new section this year. "AI Impact Assessment." It asks me to quantify the hours saved by AI tools per week.
I will write a number. The number will be positive. It will not be true.
But the AI writing assistant will help me phrase it convincingly. That is the one thing it does well.
Marruecos:
-Escondió la toalla del portero Mendy
-Se benefició de dos graves errores arbitrales
-No quiso entregar la Copa África a Senegal
-Boicoteó la RDP del seleccionador rival
La Confederación Africana de Fútbol le entregó el premio al Fair Play.
https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/futbol/2026-01-19/marruecos-senegal-trampas-juego-sucio-espana_4286462/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=BotoneraWeb
The whole African continent must stand with Senegal and call out Morocco's VAR corruption.
Morocco robbed Tanzania of a penalty challenge on Iddi Nado: no VAR check.
Senegal scored a legitimate goal: no VAR check.
But the moment Brahimi shouts for a foul, VAR is suddenly active.
This isn't inconsistency, it's corruption at it's core.
It’s time for the continent to send a clear message to Motsepe and CAF: end this now. Enough is enough.
Katherine, how many of the 14000 babies in the hep B birth dose study would get a birth dose if there were no study?
This exaggerated take on the changes in US hep B vaccine policy is inaccurate in several ways.
The actual policy of targeted vaccination excluding newborns of mothers WITHOUT hepatitis B is a strategy that has successfully contained Hepatitis B throughout Europe.
We have an interesting webinar on the non-specific effects of BCG vaccine today featuring speakers from all over the world.
Two hours of exciting new research results, starting at 12.30 CET (45 minutes from now). No registration needed. Link: https://syddanskuni.zoom.us/j/68200560376?pwd=Sh5hZq5uQjankfdooY18dHSvfRLtZ3.1
The level of smear applied in your substack is pretty stunning, even for you. Comparing the proposed Danish study to Tuskegee is a jaw-droppingly sleazy move. Glad to see so many people waking up to the realities of the "ethical" science you relentlessly promote.
Vaccinologists need to realize that their unwillingness to debate is one of the primary drivers of hesitancy.
The next chapter of vaccine trust will NOT be written by institutions. It will be written by:
•Scientists willing to show humility
•Physicians willing to engage in dialogue
•Parents willing to ask honest questions
•Platforms willing to host real conversations
You don’t rebuild trust by avoiding uncomfortable topics.
Because the truth doesn’t fear conversation. And science doesn’t fear questions.
Only dogma does.
The argument that newborn HepB shots can't have rare but severe side-effects because millions have been vaccinated is deeply flawed
- Billions got mRNA 💉 (& were gaslit) before the severe myocarditis link was established
- Billions got BCG before beneficial NSEs were documented
WEBINAR: The latest news on BCG vaccine and its non-specific effects. 8 Januar 2026. Six ground-breaking presentations from excellent researchers from all over the world. For everyone with an interest in non-specific effects of vaccines. No registration needed. #NSEvac
The US Hep B 💉rec change is rational pharmacotherapy which targets the intervention (Hep B at birth) to those in need (newborns born to infected mothers or mothers with unknown infection status).
This is how medicine is supposed to be practiced, & how it is practised elsewhere.
Is this The Science™ that quite a few have been talking about?
These news are very sad and align with the preschool-aged child that died in the moderna mRNA COVID-19 KidCOVE trial after receiving a booster shot.
These vaccines should never have been given to children, teens and healthy adults, only those at very high risk of severe COVID-19.
Alvorlig avsløring i Ingeniøren i dag 🇩🇰
Dette bør få konsekvenser — ikke bare for kjernekraftdebatten i Danmark.
Det er nå dokumentert at flere sentrale danske forskere bak et innflytelsesrikt kjernekraft-notat har operert med skjulte modellparametere.
De har brukt kostnadstall som ligger langt utenfor det som det finnes faglig dekning for.
Å publisere en studie der forutsetningene er skjult, gjør etterprøving umulig.
Det er ikke en bagatell — det er et direkte brudd på vitenskapelig redelighet.
Og det blir enda merkeligere:
1️⃣ 𝐃𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐤𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 «𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐭» 𝐡𝐨𝐬 𝐈𝐄𝐀.
Det er feil.
De totale driftskostnadene ligger 28 prosent høyere enn både vår analyse og IEA.
Når tallene ikke stemmer med verken litteratur eller IEA – og likevel forsvares offentlig – begynner vi å nærme oss noe som likner bevisst villedning.
2️⃣ 𝐈𝐄𝐀𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐭𝐢𝐝𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐣ø𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞.
Siden 2022 har IEA oppjustert kostnadene for framtidig havvind med 45 prosent mer enn kostnadene for kjernekraft.
Likevel virker det som enkelte forskermiljøer fortsatt ikke klarer å ta dette innover seg.
Når fakta ikke lenger får stå alene, men må vike for politiske preferanser, står vi overfor et større problem:
👉 Hvor har den vitenskapelige redeligheten blitt av?
Les avsløringen i Ingeniøren her:
https://ing.dk/artikel/danske-forskere-anklaget-blaese-prisen-atomkraft-op-klart-brud-paa-videnskabelig-redelighed
🔥 Kjernekraftdebatten koker i Danmark🇩🇰
Kjernekraft er overalt i danske medier — det er den store snakkisen akkurat nå.
Grunnen?
🧠 Kamilla Aarflot Moen, @martihj og jeg har påvist at kjernekraft er billigere enn fornybar energi – også i Danmark.
📄 Les intervjuet vårt i Ingeniøren her:
👉 https://ing.dk/artikel/forskere-gaar-i-koedet-paa-dansk-fakta-om-atomkraft-billigere-end-vedvarende-energikilder
Dette er ikke bare en dansk sak — det er høyst relevant også for Norge.
Norge har planer om å bygge Europas dyreste fornybare energi — mye dyrere enn i Danmark.
Danske professorer har kommet med sine første innvendinger vår analyse.
De mener den kun inkluderer kostnadsøkninger for havvind – ikke kjernekraft.
⚠️ Det stemmer ikke.
Tallene våre bygger på National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) sin ATB fra 2024.
💡 Faktum er at havvind er langt mer materialintensiv, og derfor mye mer sensitiv for økninger i materialpriser enn kjernekraft.
💬 Debatt er bra, og uenighet er sunt.
Noen forskere utfordrer det etablerte — som vi gjør — mens andre forskere forsvarer det etablerte.
📢 Hva tenker du?
#kjernekraft #energi #Sverige #Danmark #Norge #forskning #energisikkerhet #fornybarenergi #systemkostnader #ingeniøren
I totally agree, I have seen no data to support splitting up MMR into 3 separate vaccines.
It is one of the best vaccines out there, likely also having beneficial non-specific effects on top of the great efficacy against the 3 infections it is targeted against.
While these US vaccine recommendations are an improvement compared to the previous mass vaccination mess, I am very surprised that someone would even consider vaccination infants & toddlers <2 years of age against COVID-19.
This is something that was NEVER recommended elsewhere.
R to @FSBuchholzer: Evidence-based rational vaccine policies are based on providing the vaccine where there is a net beneficial effect. By preaching mass vaccination when >99% of neonates, born to HBsAg-negative mothers, have no benefit (but risk of arm), your efforts are contraproductive & harmful.
Whether to provide hep. B vaccination at birth depends mainly on the local epidemiology of the infection, which is the reason why the vast majority of high-income countries only offers hep. B vaccine to neonates born to mothers that are HBsAg-positive. https://x.com/FSBuchholzer/status/1882081557898465372
R to @FSBuchholzer: Among the weakest arguments out there, made by @dr_andrealove, is stuff like this about how dangerous the infection is, & how easy you can get it.
Hep B is very rare in high-income countries & vertical transmission (mother to child) is irrelevant when the mother tested negative.
According to @thereal_truther, one of these is an unproven theory and the other is an objective and uncontroversial fact 🤡
33 vs 14,979 hits on PubMed
1 page vs 300 pages of scientific papers
anonymous pseudoscientists should stop wasting my time