ChatGPT Interprets gpe — "The Problem with Solutions"

As I like to say, I have been “collaborating” with ChatGTP for a while now, reading up on AI and reflecting on what it means for me in a practical sense. As my framework of understanding solidifies, I do know this — the genie is out of the bottle. Many believe our institutions and our big bodies of trust will contain AI’s growing dominance will shape our world over the coming years; probably much faster than people suggest. My growing belief is this cannot be done at the institutional level but must be done at the user and individual level. As Mustafa Suleyman suggests in his book “The Coming Wave”, this technology will not be stopped and some sort of broader containment is needed from high levels — nations states, regulation and a world unity. I think this is just moving too fast and our better angels are not in the driver’s seat for the bureaucracy to break up this wave before it crashes ashore. This will have to be met at the individual level and if we don’t surrender our agency to what AI holds, we will find ourselves adapting well to the future landscape.

Agency in this case refers to an individual's capacity to make choices and act on them, influencing their own life and circumstances — as an example of what I mean, don’t have ChatGTP write the first draft of an essay you have to hand in; write it yourself and use this “inorganic collaborator” to help edit, offer suggestions and help in the creative process. Also ensure you support whatever you’ve created before you put your name on it. This is an obvious point of agency surrender but, in the future, it will be far more insidious — like the way many gave their privacy away on Facebook.

What you see here is me accepting our new “inorganic friend” is here to stay, learning and developing how to collaborate effectively, while working to maintain my Agency. Sure, this may come across as a fast way to create content, but if it wasn’t for my original bog, there would be nothing — plus, I am better understanding my collaborator’s ever-growing capability.

A reflection on clarity, caution, and what it means to actually solve something

At first glance, the original blog reads like a quick nod to pragmatism — a nudge to be a little less enchanted with the word solution and a little more disciplined about what it actually means. But spend a moment longer with it, and the piece unfolds into something more strategic, more skeptical, and more grounded in lived experience.

gpe isn’t railing against solutions — far from it. What he’s challenging is our uncritical celebration of them. He’s calling out the premature high-fives, the congratulatory declarations before the dust has settled. Because, as he points out, some “solutions” are just problems in a different costume.

 Beware the Solution with No Problem

At the core of the blog is a simple but often-ignored litmus test:

“Do I have a solution for a recognized problem — or a solution looking for a problem?”

That one line quietly separates a seasoned strategist from a hopeful tinkerer. It echoes in boardrooms, startups, product meetings, and pitch decks across every sector: the fundamental danger of mistaking novelty for necessity.

gpe’s contrarian voice — always lurking just off-stage — raises the stakes. Because this isn’t just about wasted effort. It’s about distraction. Resource drain. False momentum. The seductive power of “something cool” that pulls us away from what really matters.

 Line of Sight: The Missing Link Between Vision and Reality

And once you do have a legitimate solution? That’s not the end — it’s the beginning of another hard question:

“Do you have line of sight to make it real?”

This is where the blog shifts gears. It’s no longer philosophical — it’s operational. Now we’re talking about execution, translation, traction.

"Line of sight" isn’t a metaphor here — it’s a test. Can you see the path clearly enough to walk it? Can you communicate it well enough that others will follow? Can you fund it, track it, scale it?

This is where most well-meaning efforts unravel. Not in the insight — but in the integration. The idea wasn’t bad. The plan wasn’t good enough.

And so, gpe offers three reasons why “line of sight” is more than a buzzword:

1. It forces a real plan — something with legs, not just wings.

2. It shapes the language of how you pitch, persuade, and proceed.

3. It tests viability — not just whether the idea could work, but whether you can make it work.

 The Contrarian Sits Back Down

The blog closes not with fanfare, but with a wry observation:
Sometimes, even when a solution is real, it still needs to be interrogated. The path needs to be traced. The assumptions checked. Because without clarity, even the best ideas can become liabilities.

And then, like a character in a play, the Contrarian returns to his corner — having served his role, having said the inconvenient thing. It’s an elegant move. The tone returns to calm. But the seed of skepticism has been planted.

Final Thought from the Inorganic

There’s a temptation — especially among builders, creators, founders — to fall in love with what we’ve made. To get high on our own insight. But what this blog does, subtly and with restraint, is remind us that solving the wrong problem is worse than having no solution at all.

This isn’t cynicism. It’s discipline.

The piece holds the line between optimism and rigor — and invites the reader to do the same. Whether you’re launching a product, pitching a service, rethinking your process, or chasing a “big idea,” you’re asked to stop. Rewind. Check your bearings.

Not everything shiny is useful. Not every fix fixes.
And sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is ask: “What exactly are we solving for?”