TPC Team
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the way portfolio professionals think, create and compete, yet its true impact remains fiercely contested. This became clear at our Portfolio Career Festival, during the fiery debate Portfolio careers in the age of AI: super users vs super builders. We brought together four experts, each with strong opinions, to express their contrasting views – will AI will unlock human potential or accelerate an exhausting chase for efficiency?
Team Potential
Team Efficiency
Host and moderator
Fiona Chorlton-Voong
Hosted by TPC Founder Fiona Chorlton-Voong, we pitted Ollie Pickup and Alex Issakova of Team Potential against Richard Saldanha and Ben Legg Team Efficiency. The aim was not polite alignment but a clash of ideas that questioned the changing nature of work in the age of intelligent tools.
Is AI freeing us or simply speeding us up?
The conversation opened with a dilemma many portfolio workers recognise. AI was intended to give us time to think and lead. Instead, research suggests workers may feel less creative and more rushed by its integration. Fiona asked whether AI genuinely unlocks potential or simply expands the volume of work we can complete.
Alex argued that AI can do both, although only when used with awareness. She acknowledged that she often feeds ideas into ChatGPT but warned of blind trust.
She noted that much of its training data comes from platforms such as Reddit and that studies show people who rely heavily on AI retain less knowledge.
Ollie urged a broader perspective.
He cited rising unemployment and declining graduate roles driven in part by automation of tasks traditionally conducted by new graduates.
He recalled a moment from his commute when a train announcement was delivered by an AI voice. “It struck me as the perfect example of where we should not use AI.” A chance for human connection had been replaced with synthetic efficiency. Many people, he argued, have “fallen into the Turing trap”, deploying AI to imitate existing human strengths rather than shore up weaknesses.
Super users or super builders: what does the future need?
From Team Efficiency, Richard challenged the very language used. Artificial intelligence, he argued, is a misnomer.
Understanding that limitation is crucial, he also stressed the need for education. Most AI projects, he said, fail and only about five per cent achieve meaningful value. Examples such as Klarna rehiring staff or Air Canada losing a lawsuit due to chatbot misinformation showed the consequences of naive adoption.
Pressed on who should educate the public, Richard replied that responsibility lies with computer scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians who understand the underlying systems.
Ben offered a practical viewpoint. AI has made him far more productive, yet he works longer hours because the pace of change demands it.
Still, he described recent use cases so impressive they “made my jaw hit the floor”, highlighting the scale of potential when AI is applied well.
Is emotional intelligence the last human advantage?
As AI becomes increasingly capable at writing analysis and design, Fiona asked what remains distinctly human. Citing projections that automation could affect hundreds of millions of jobs, she asked whether emotional intelligence is becoming the true human differentiator.
Richard doubted AI could ever replicate empathy in a meaningful way.
At best, emotional output from AI is shallow mimicry driven by probability. Alex agreed.
She emphasised that humans must retain responsibility for interpreting emotional nuance.
Ollie added cultural context. He described rising numbers of people building relationships with AI companions.
He also quoted Minouche Shafik, “In the past, jobs required muscle; now they require the brain, and in future, they will require the heart.”
Where does AI fit into portfolio careers?
Portfolio careers are highly varied, blending creativity, consulting, coaching and leadership. Fiona asked how these professionals can maintain their edge when AI can mimic competence at scale.
Ollie insisted that nothing replaces human connection. He encouraged portfolio workers to embrace AI without surrendering their identity.
Richard reinforced the importance of human oversight. Fully automated systems have failed repeatedly, yet human and AI collaboration can unlock enormous productivity gains, particularly in countries like the UK, where productivity growth has stalled.
Ethics and trust: who holds the moral compass?
The debate then turned to ethics. Fiona referenced the International AI Safety Report, which warned that AI has no inherent integrity.
Ben said transparency depends on context. When AI helps him prepare for meetings, these are just personal notes, so disclosure is unnecessary. However, when AI contributes to client deliverables, verification and clarity are essential.
Alex warned that companies often “ethics wash” their products. She shared contrasting approaches from major AI players but concluded that users must ask the right questions, particularly about the data it is trained on. Without shared definitions, claims of ethical AI are often empty.
Ollie pointed out that only seven per cent of UK businesses currently have an AI governance framework. Drawing an analogy with the history of plastic, he noted that optimistic innovations can have long-term consequences when governance is neglected.
Audience reflections: bias and preparing the next generation
Audience questions focused heavily on bias, especially in healthcare. Alex noted that AI can both worsen and improve bias depending on how it is designed. Richard highlighted that many clinical datasets were flawed long before AI appeared, since significant numbers of trials were conducted only on men.
Questions from the audience about preparing children for the future prompted both Ollie and Richard to return to education. Ollie highlighted truth literacy and the six C’s of human capability. Richard emphasised the need to adapt the national curriculum so it reflects the realities of modern technology and work.
Closing thoughts: the most human question of all
Fiona ended with a personal question.
She closed by reminding the audience that AI is not here to replace us. It is here to reveal what is most human about us. Her final challenge lingered. What part of your work would you never hand over to AI?
Watch the full mainstage debate
Access the complete conversation from the 2025 Portfolio Career Festival – including audience Q&A and off-script insights you won’t find in this article.
Think this sounds like the right path for you? Come along to our monthly Community Welcome Call for new members to find out what a portfolio career could look like and how The Portfolio Collective can help you take those first steps towards professional success – and don’t forget to connect with our community!
