May 7, 2025. Good soldier vs bad soldier.

Throughout my journey as a student, intern, trainee, and founder of my startup, I've observed a fundamental dynamic that rarely gets discussed openly but profoundly shapes how teams function. This pattern involves what I've come to recognize as "good soldiers" versus "bad soldiers" in collaborative environments. The distinction goes far beyond simple performance metrics or skill levels. It touches on something essential about human systems that will remain relevant even as artificial intelligence transforms how we work.

Good soldiers aren't necessarily the most intellectually brilliant people on a team. They rarely produce the most innovative ideas or take the kinds of risks that completely transform a project overnight. Their contributions often go unrecognized in the moment because they don't call attention to themselves. What makes them invaluable is how they function within systems. They understand processes, follow through consistently, communicate effectively, and maintain awareness of how their actions affect others. They create stability that allows the entire organization to function without constant intervention. The most important quality they possess isn't raw talent but a fundamental understanding that their individual work exists within a broader context that matters just as much as any single contribution.

Bad soldiers, despite the potentially misleading label, often possess exceptional capabilities. Many are genuinely brilliant at what they do. They can solve complex problems in ways others wouldn't consider and produce insights that wouldn't emerge from conventional thinking. They take necessary risks and challenge established patterns that need challenging. Their distinctive quality isn't lack of ability but how they relate to the systems around them. They prioritize their individual vision over collective function. They resist processes they didn't create. They communicate on their own terms rather than adapting to team needs. They generate friction that consumes organizational energy. Their contributions come with significant overhead costs that often go uncalculated when evaluating their value.

I've worked with both types extensively and watched how they shape the environments around them. A team composed primarily of good soldiers might lack the disruptive thinking needed for breakthrough innovation, but it will consistently deliver quality results with minimal drama. The work gets done. Information flows where it needs to go. Problems get addressed before they become crises. The psychological safety within the team creates space for everyone to contribute without fear. This reliability creates compound benefits over time that often exceed what any single brilliant insight might provide.

Teams dominated by bad soldiers exhibit a completely different pattern. They produce occasional moments of extraordinary achievement surrounded by extended periods of dysfunction. The brilliant solution to yesterday's problem comes alongside three new problems created by poor execution. The innovative approach that could transform the project remains half-implemented because the person who conceived it lost interest once the intellectual challenge was solved. The insights that could benefit everyone remain locked in individual minds because information sharing happens sporadically rather than systematically. The amount of management attention required to keep things functioning increases exponentially with each additional bad soldier added to the mix.

This distinction matters now more than ever as we approach a technological inflection point that will transform how human capability relates to machine capability. My work developing MIKE-AI gave me direct insight into what machines can already do and what they'll likely be able to do soon. Even with the resource limitations I encountered, it became clear that many cognitive tasks we currently perform will eventually be handled more efficiently by artificial intelligence. Individual brilliance in specific domains will become less differentiating as these capabilities become embedded in widely available tools. What machines won't easily replicate is our social intelligence, our ability to coordinate effectively across differences, our capacity to maintain complex human systems that balance multiple competing priorities simultaneously.

The uncomfortable truth is that bad soldiers, for all their exceptional individual talents, may find themselves increasingly vulnerable as AI advances. Many of their most valuable contributions involve exactly the kinds of cognitive functions that machines will eventually handle effectively. Their distinctive capabilities in problem-solving, pattern recognition, and creative ideation will face competition from systems that can process information faster, recognize more patterns, and generate more possibilities without requiring management of complex interpersonal dynamics. The friction they generate within human systems, once tolerated as the price of accessing their brilliance, will become harder to justify when similar intellectual outputs can be obtained without the accompanying disruption.

Good soldiers possess something fundamentally different that won't be easily replicated by machines. They understand how to function within human systems in ways that create value beyond their individual contributions. They grasp intuitively that organizational effectiveness emerges from countless small interactions that either build or deplete collective capacity. They recognize patterns of human behavior that we've evolved to process over thousands of years but struggle to formalize into algorithms. They maintain awareness of social contexts, emotional undercurrents, and unstated needs that shape how work actually happens. These capabilities draw on embodied human experience that AI systems may simulate but will struggle to genuinely replicate.

This isn't an argument for conformity or against innovation. 

We absolutely need people who think differently, who challenge conventions, who push boundaries that need pushing. But we need these contributions delivered in ways that enhance rather than undermine the systems they operate within. The most valuable innovators aren't just brilliantly creative; they're also aware of how their creativity affects others. They understand that implementation matters as much as ideation, that sustained progress requires both breakthrough thinking and consistent execution, that human systems have real needs that can't simply be dismissed as bureaucratic obstacles to individual expression.

For younger generations entering a workforce increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, this perspective offers important guidance. Technical skills remain essential, but equally important is developing the social intelligence that allows you to function effectively within complex human systems. Understanding how to be a good soldier, how to enhance collective capability rather than just demonstrate individual brilliance, may ultimately prove more valuable than pursuing isolated excellence in domains where machine capability will eventually surpass human capacity. The former creates cumulative value through enhancing system function; the latter produces diminishing returns as AI tools advance.

I see this clearly in my current research focusing on human consciousness and intelligence. 

What makes humans distinctive isn't just our individual cognitive capacities but how these capacities function collectively. We've evolved sophisticated mechanisms for coordination, for building shared understanding, for creating meaning together that transcends what any individual could create alone. These capabilities emerge from biological and social realities that shapes how our minds develop in contact with other minds. They reflect patterns of interaction refined over evolutionary timeframes that we understand implicitly but struggle to formalize explicitly. This domain of human capability will remain relevant even as machines surpass us in specific cognitive functions.

The future belongs not to good soldiers or bad soldiers exclusively but to those who can integrate the strengths of both while minimizing their limitations. We need the innovative thinking, risk-taking, and boundary-pushing that bad soldiers often bring. We need the reliability, system awareness, and coordination capacities that good soldiers typically demonstrate. Most importantly, we need to recognize that these aren't fixed categories but patterns of behavior that can be cultivated or modified through conscious effort. The brilliant innovator can learn system awareness; the reliable executor can develop creative capacity. Our most valuable contributors will increasingly be those who can move fluidly between these modes depending on what the situation requires.

This balance becomes particularly important as we develop increasingly powerful AI tools. Managing these technologies effectively requires both innovative thinking about what's possible and systematic approaches to implementation. It demands breakthrough insights and consistent execution. Most critically, it requires deep understanding of human systems that these tools will inevitably affect. This understanding emerges not from individual brilliance alone but from sustained engagement with others, from building relationships across differences, from creating environments where collective intelligence can flourish in partnership with artificial intelligence rather than being displaced by it.

For organizations, this suggests a need to reconsider how we evaluate and develop talent. We've traditionally overvalued certain forms of individual brilliance while undervaluing system-enhancing behaviors that create less visible but more substantial value over time. We've tolerated dysfunction from "irreplaceable" individuals without fully calculating its costs. We've failed to invest sufficiently in developing the coordination capacities and social intelligence that will remain distinctively human as AI capabilities advance. Addressing these imbalances will become increasingly important as technological change accelerates, creating both opportunities and challenges that no individual, however brilliant, can navigate alone.

I see my own development as an ongoing process of integrating these different capabilities. I value the creativity, risk-taking, and boundary-pushing often associated with bad soldiers. I'm drawn to challenging conventions and exploring possibilities beyond established patterns. At the same time, I've come to deeply appreciate the system awareness, reliability, and coordination capacities that good soldiers bring. I recognize that the most valuable contribution isn't the occasional brilliant insight but the steady creation of environments where brilliance can emerge and be effectively implemented. Finding this balance isn't easy, but it represents our best path forward in a world where technology continues transforming what's possible.

The most essential human capability might ultimately be our capacity to build systems together, to coordinate our efforts toward shared purposes, to create meaning collectively that transcends what any individual could create alone. As artificial intelligence advances, these distinctively human capacities will become more valuable, not less. They represent domains where our evolutionary heritage gives us advantages that machines won't easily replicate. Cultivating these capabilities, learning to be both innovative and reliable, individual and collective, represents our best strategy for remaining relevant and effective in a rapidly changing world. This isn't about competing with machines but about developing what makes us distinctively human in ways that complement rather than conflict with technological advancement.