Great point. The divide here is stark - there are those quietly upskilling, getting certified in AI, learning socratic prompting, and building portable capabilities with personal AI tools (exactly what the WSJ article suggests). Then there are the risk/compliance managers who react to any AI discussion with "hallucinations!" and three-year-old talking points.
The irony is rich: the same risk folks who fought cloud migration and kept this bank 5 years behind peers on tech infrastructure are now the loudest anti-AI voices. They're not protecting the bank - they're protecting their own irrelevance.
Here's what's actually happening while they post anti-AI rants: the bank is replacing data-silo tech with AI/data cloud infrastructure, opening massive tech campuses in India/Ohio, and planning 5-10K R&C layoffs. They gave everyone Copilot, sure, but tech is already moving to Google Agents and agentic AI. The frontier models (OpenAI/Anthropic) are racing ahead.
The WSJ article nailed it - employees should build portable AI capabilities. But that means actually LEARNING, not just critiquing from the sidelines. The "haters gonna hate" crowd is about to find out that this time, their negativity won't hold the bank back. AI = tech. And the anti-tech gatekeepers are finally on the chopping block.
We don't have to be bullied by the old guard anymore. The fight between OpenAI and Anthropic is coming, and the risk guys who refused to evolve won't be part of it.