What does it mean to remain human in an increasingly technology-driven world? Strategic environmental managers find themselves at the heart of complex networks, where relationships, interests, and ethical considerations converge. It is a profession that revolves around more than just logic; it demands humanity, genuine interest, nuance, trust-building, and the ability to navigate a landscape full of conflicting expectations. But what happens to these core values as AI assistants, such as ChatGPT and Copilot, make increasingly prominent inroads?

AI promises efficiency, speed, and precision – qualities that humans, with all their limitations, cannot always match. An AI assistant can scrutinize thousands of pages of policy documents in an instant, recognize patterns that remain invisible to the human eye, and translate complex texts into clear language. It sounds like the dream of every professional struggling with time and capacity.

But technology is never neutral. Every tool, no matter how smart, carries the limitations and biases of its creators. What if the data you input isn't complete or balanced? What if the recommendations AI makes lack that crucial moral or contextual element? Technology can support, but it doesn't think. And in a field where empathy and nuance often make the difference, that's a significant shortcoming.

In addition, AI increases our dependence on systems. The more we outsource to technology, the less we seem to think for ourselves. Not only about the work we do, but also about the values that guide that work. Who decides what is ‘good’ in a world where algorithms have more and more to say? And what happens to us if we reduce our own judgment to that of a mere controller?

Perhaps that is the most important question: what does it mean to remain human in a world that constantly tells us machines know better? This article is not a plea for or against AI, but an invitation to reflect on how we use technology. Not as a solution to all our problems, but as a mirror for the choices we make and the values we consider important.

The future of work as a strategic environmental manager doesn't lie in technology, but in our relationship with it. And perhaps even more importantly, in our relationship with each other. Because even in an AI-driven world, that remains something only humans can do.

AI deployed as a colleague

After our AI training, I decided to put my curiosity into practice immediately. The article above? Not written by me, but by ChatGPT. However, it was based on my input. Through a carefully formulated prompt, I gave direction to the text and discovered that asking the right questions (prompts) strongly determines what you get back. The writing process thus became a collaboration.

“Consider the AI assistant as a colleague,” our trainer emphasized. And that's true. The clearer you are in your instructions, the better your “colleague” will take work off your hands. But where a human colleague needs time, AI does this in a fraction of that time.

The prompt for this article

You said:
What specific aspects of a strategic environmental manager's work do you want to highlight? What are the key benefits you want to emphasize when using ChatGPT for this role? What are the most significant drawbacks you want to discuss? What is the core message you want to convey regarding the balance between benefits and drawbacks?.

ChatGPT said:
To ensure the article fully meets your expectations, I'd like to ask you a few questions:
Target audience: Who is this article intended for? Is it for strategic environmental managers themselves, their employers, or a broader audience?
2. Goal: What do you want to achieve with this article? Do you want to inform, persuade, or start a discussion?
3. Focus on AI: Would you like the article to be specifically about ChatGPT or about AI tools in general?
4. Example Situations: Are there specific tasks or scenarios in the work of a strategic environmental manager where you'd like to highlight AI usage? For example, stakeholder communication, scenario analyses, or strategic planning?
5. Cartoon: What tone should the article have? Neutral, enthusiastic, critical, or a mix?
6. Weighing pros/cons: Should the article conclude whether the advantages of AI outweigh the disadvantages, or would you prefer to leave it open for the reader?
With your answers, I can fine-tune the article to your wishes?

You said:
Thank you for your questions. I will answer them point by point: 1. the article is intended for colleagues and co-professionals 2. I want to start a discussion 3. AI tools in general 4. I want to investigate if and how AI can help us in practicing our profession, but I am concerned about the security of the data and the quality of the help that AI can offer us 5. a mix 6. I will leave open to the reader

ChatGPT said:
Thank you for your clear answers! Based on this, I am writing an article that:

• A mix of advantages and disadvantages of AI tools for strategic environmental managers.
• The focus is on potential applications such as communication and strategic analysis, while concerns about data and quality are acknowledged.
• An inviting tone is used to start a discussion and encourage the reader to think for themselves.

I'll get started and come up with a proposal of a maximum of 300 words. One moment!

You said:
Can you make it a more philosophical article by using twice as many words?

ChatGPT said:
The article has been expanded and made more philosophical, with an emphasis on deeper reflection and ethical questions. Let me know if you would like any further adjustments!

You said:
I don't think the first paragraph is very strong. Do you have another suggestion?

ChatGPT said:
The first paragraph has been rewritten to be more powerful and to the point, while maintaining the philosophical tone. Let me know what you think or if you'd like more adjustments!

This, as far as the ‘conversation’ with ChatGPT is concerned. I recommend everyone to start working with an AI assistant themselves. They won't take our jobs, but they can support us as a digital colleague. Think about help with SWOT analyses, summaries of policy documents, reasoning, and action plans. This way, we'll have more time for the nuances – the details that make the difference. And let's be honest: dotting the i's and crossing the t's is a lot easier when a solid foundation is already in place. A foundation that is delivered time and time again with surprising speed and impressive precision.

Image created with KREA/Flux

Senior Advisor, Trainer

Elianne in the Field