I've been paying extra attention to how the knowledge gets transferred from person to person. From parents with a newborn, a mother with a child, senior managers with people joining the workforce, to animals, teaching their offspring how to survive.
It feels like we are inheriting something, something imaginary, something that might end up shaping the future of humanity, or forgotten. I don't know, but also I don't think we should care much. Because the value here, in my opinion, is the knowledge transfer, not the knowledge itself.
What I mean by this is that when we teach something within a more constrained context (geographically, by industry, within a company, or community), the knowledge becomes more useful, and the bond between people grows stronger.
I was speaking to a woman whose hobby is to make handicrafts, she showed me pictures of her work and I asked a lot of questions about how she came up with the ideas, what her process was, and how specific parts of her creations were built. The responses varied, from "I just improvise", to "I draw a draft, and then make it", to "I've found this trick that makes the result very cool, and I'm showing my kid how to do it".
That made me think about how we transfer knowledge: school, books, media, conversations, articles like this, training AIs, you name it. In many cases, we have little to no control over what we are actually transferring: I might provide some advice and the other person might understand the opposite and live their life with my anti-advice. I've reached out to people who gave me advice, and thank them, just to hear that they don't remember even saying that!
Most of the knowledge that we are saving, as humanity, seems to be more democratic at first glance: anyone can post on social media, anyone can write a sign and stand on the street and protest. But how can we consume that? Electronically, almost everything is driven by AI, deciding what content to see, usually based on our preferences, and to reinforce our beliefs, not challenge them. And at that scale, what we inherit, can be less useful. And of course, there's a lot of amazing content that we can access freely, I spend a lot of my time doing that, trying to learn from others, mostly via books, games, and video.
However, the in-person (or remote) interactions, we hold, specifically with younger people, are our responsibilities, as individuals. Sharing what we have learned, and transfer it directly, with good intentions. Thinking about life as a non-zero sum game, but as a way to improve our lives, by improving others'. To make the world easier to navigate than it was for us. To save time, and to ensure, that the little or a lot that we have in our minds, can be inherited and be used.
With kids
We don't need to teach other people's kids directly. But as adults, we shape the world they grow up in; through our actions, we show them how to be good citizens. Being kind, following the rules, supporting each other.
If you are creating content, or sharing your opinion, think about how a younger person might be reading and shaping their view of the world based on that. Are you providing advice? Is that advice truly beneficial? Or just driven to maximize engagement?
And I don't want to imply that there's a good or bad way of doing anything. It's up to each one. I just propose that we are fully aware of the impact we can have.
At work
I don't know when I went from being the young inexperienced person who always asked for advice (I still do this all the time!) to the person who others, usually younger colleagues look to for advice. But here we are, and I think that as more senior members of the work force, we can do a lot to help others grow, to help others enjoy work more, to lead with humility, and support. By default, we might think that experience or tenure make people smarter, I don't think that's the case. Young people are smart, sharp, and have a lot of energy. That energy, I think, can be better used, if guided.
I'm lucky enough to be able to work at places where leadership, is not equal to management. So it is always possible to reach out to people to seek support, and advice. But as a newcomer, it might be intimidating to "waste" others' time, so we can offer advice. It is hard, because unwanted advice is generally a bad idea. But back to the previous point, that guidance and advice can be by showing, not telling.
In the software space, with AI coming, I see a lot of Senior leaders repeating that "it will be hard for juniors to find jobs". But it is us who make the call! Do you want young people to get experience? Well, then don't discard anyone in favor of an LLM. I don't think work has ever been only about productivity, and it should never be. Corporations, of any kind, should serve communities, and people.
Are new software engineers using tools wrong? Not understanding code? Well, teach them, let's adapt and then transfer what we know about security, problem solving, and other skills that are required, but now are backed by AI.
Wrapping up
While there's more knowledge out there than a single person can consume, and with LLMs making it more accessible. We are still responsible for distilling those key bits of knowledge that are valuable, and can save someone so much time if they had to figure them out on their own. We learn a lot by seeing others doing. Observing animals has made this clearer to me; the skills seem to transfer, even when the young viewers, didn't come up with them but only observed and repeated.
For me, these are the questions I ask myself before sharing something. If I see people struggling with something valuable, I try to find an easier way to explain it. If I know someone who can help, I connect them. If there's a tool that solves a problem, I explain why it works and share it.
What I try to avoid: shutting someone down and telling them to just ask ChatGPT. And pessimism; I don't want to inherit that, or pass it on. I'd rather be optimistic and show that there's a way to solve most problems.