An Urgent Reflection On Talent Development In The ChatGPT 5 Era
Last week, a friend who leads strategy at a major Singapore organization casually dropped a bombshell during our conversation: "We're planning for dramatically thinner middle management. Our juniors will need to leap from entry-level to leadership roles in record time, with AI filling the gaps."
I haven't stopped thinking about it since.
With ChatGPT 5 now here, I keep returning to Sam Altman's words at Howard University last year—that critical thinking and creativity will be humanity's most valuable assets. A year later, his prediction feels less like foresight and more like an urgent warning: Are we preparing our students for a future that no longer exists?
The Vanishing Middle
Here's the new corporate reality taking shape:
Entry-level employees wielding AI tools with the output capacity of entire teams
A hollowed-out middle tier where experience once accumulated
Massive accountability thrust upon 25-year-olds who've never had time to fail, iterate, and learn
The traditional career ladder? It's becoming a career cliff jump.
The Learning We're Losing
Remember when you had to struggle through your first design brief? When you spent hours—maybe days—wrestling with a concept that just wouldn't click? That wasn't wasted time. That was your brain building the neural pathways that would later spark innovation.
Now? AI delivers "good enough" in 5 minutes.
But here's what those 5 minutes cost us:
The patience to sit with ambiguity
The resilience built through creative struggle
The deep understanding that comes from doing things the hard way first
The confidence that comes from solving problems ourselves
The Creativity Paradox
I see it in young designers already. Give them AI tools, and they produce content at breathtaking speed. But ask them to explain their creative rationale? To defend their choices? To imagine something genuinely new?
Silence.
We're creating a generation of creative operators, not creative thinkers. They know which prompts to use but not why certain designs resonate with human emotion. They can generate 100 variations but can't articulate which one serves the human need.
As Altman pointed out, understanding "what other people want" will be crucial. But how do you develop that intuition if you've never had to struggle to connect with an audience?
The Uncomfortable Truth for Educators
Here's what keeps me up at night: We're complicit.
In our rush to make students "industry-ready," we're teaching them to use AI before teaching them to think. We celebrate efficiency over understanding. We grade output over process.
We're so afraid they'll be left behind technologically that we're ensuring they'll be left behind intellectually.
A Different Path Forward
What if we're asking the wrong question? Instead of "How quickly can we teach AI tools?" we should ask: "How do we teach thinking that AI cannot replicate?"
Let's be realistic—AI is already everywhere. Students will use it regardless. So here's a radical learning model that works with that reality:
The Challenge Method: Start every project with AI-generated solutions. Then challenge students to beat them. "Here's what AI created in 5 minutes. Now show me what only a human can do."
The Critique Protocol: Use AI outputs as case studies. What's missing? What lacks soul? Where does it fail to connect? Train students to see AI's limitations before they become dependent on its capabilities.
The Collaboration Model: Pair students to build on AI foundations together. One generates with AI, another adds emotional depth, a third injects cultural context. Let them experience how human collaboration transforms machine output into something meaningful.
The Amplification Approach: Embrace AI's blazing efficiency as a gift—it frees us from production drudgery. Use those saved hours for what matters: refinement, debate, iteration. Generate 50 concepts in an hour, then spend days perfecting the one that sparks genuine human connection.
The Human Layer: Teach them to add what AI cannot—genuine emotion, cultural nuance, unexpected connections, moral judgment. Show them that their value isn't in competing with AI's speed but in adding the irreplaceable human touch.
This isn't about avoiding AI—it's about developing students who can transcend it. Who can look at an AI solution and say, "That's the starting point, not the destination."
The Middle Management Warning
What about those disappearing middle managers? They're the canaries in our coal mine. These are the roles where people traditionally learned judgment, developed intuition, and built resilience. Without them, we're asking juniors to leap from knowing nothing to knowing everything, with AI as their only safety net.
But AI doesn't teach wisdom. It doesn't build character. It doesn't develop the kind of deep, contextual understanding that comes from years of watching, failing, and trying again.
The Question We Must Face
So I ask you, fellow educators: Are we brave enough to slow down in an accelerating world? Can we resist the pressure to produce "AI-native" graduates and instead develop "thinking-native" humans who happen to use AI?
Because here's the truth: The organizations planning for "thin middle management" are betting on something that doesn't yet exist—juniors who can think like seniors.
And unless we change how we teach, they're going to lose that bet.
And so will our students.
 | A guest post by
|