AI in Public | October 30, 2025

Welcome to day six of AI in Public. This is a daily 10-minute experiment where I pick a random topic and spend 10 minutes talking to an LLM about it. The goals behind it are to show how I use AI in public (shocking) and perhaps get a few other people to do the same thing.

It’s just an exercise in learning and focusing attention. If you missed the tee-up of what I’m doing here, you can see the initial post explaining it here.

Let’s have a short, focused chat as thought partners. I’ll start by sharing some of my own thoughts, and I’d like you to help me explore them — ask questions, notice patterns, or offer perspectives I might miss.
Topic: When is precision overrated?

Now spend 10 minutes talking with the LLM of your choice (or whatever you have available).

Alright, that’s a good stopping point. What did this conversation reveal?

If you have the time or desire, choose a reflective question and take the time to answer or explore it. Then, if you’re feeling brave, go ahead and share it somewhere on the internet. If I see it, I’ll happily read it and respond.

Me: Let’s have a short, focused chat as thought partners.

I’ll start by sharing some of my own thoughts, and I’d like you to help me explore them — ask questions, notice patterns, or offer perspectives I might miss.

Topic: When is precision overrated?

ChatGPT: That’s a great one. Precision often feels like a virtue — until it starts to constrict what it was meant to clarify.

To start us off: when you think of precision, what kind of precision comes to mind — linguistic, analytical, emotional, aesthetic?

And is your instinct that it’s overrated because it narrows something (like creativity or connection), or because it misleads— giving the illusion of accuracy where none really exists?

Me: I usually think of precision in terms of linguistic and analytical, that’s likely a function of my professional history.

I think the sometimes the more precision that is demanded, that yes, it creeps more into someone trying to proclaim a universal truth or harden something into what could be called a “fact.”

ChatGPT: That’s an insightful distinction — precision as a way of solidifying something, perhaps prematurely.

It makes me think of how in analytics or language, precision can sometimes cross a threshold: instead of illuminating nuance, it starts flattening it. Almost like the desire for certainty replaces curiosity.

Do you notice that happening more in your own work — where the pressure to make something exact risks stripping away its living complexity — or more in how others interpret or use your work once it’s presented?

Me: I had a work experience many years ago where I tried to be extremely precise in my language to describe something. It was literally me putting quotes around words that could have two or more meanings. Somehow this email got circulated up to a manager two levels above me. I got in severe trouble for what was perceived as condescending language. It really had an impact on me. I remember going home and telling my husband about it. Saying that I was attempting to be as clear as possible and the byproduct was this. I couldn’t fathom how my attempt to be precise could be twisted into something so negative, it didn’t make sense.

ChatGPT: That sounds like such a formative moment — and one that probably made you question not just how you communicate, but what people are ready to receive.

It’s striking that your intention was clarity, yet the response was emotional — as if the act of precision itself was interpreted as a kind of superiority. That suggests precision, in some contexts, can unintentionally signal hierarchy — like saying, “I see the complexity you missed.”

Do you think that experience changed your relationship to precision — made you soften it, disguise it, or become more selective about where you show it?

Me: It definitely made me more selective. Another byproduct of it was to move away from cultures that were somehow intimidated by that type of clear language. I also decided to pivot more into the systems that I was discussing in that email (which were obviously databases) and analyzing the data from them.

I did spend many years researching, learning, and practicing corporate speak. Reframing my thoughts into something more palatable. Which genuinely served me very well. The ability to reframe something for consumption has been a huge skill that I’ve taken very far. And at this point it is almost automatic. And maybe to some degree, I feel like I’ve mastered it enough to be authentic to my original message (I guess I’d say I hit peak bullshit pre-2020 and have settled into the level of bullshit (which is actually close to zero) that I will withstand.

ChatGPT: That’s such a powerful evolution — it sounds like you went from being punished for precision to learning how to translate it without losing integrity.

It’s interesting that you describe reaching a kind of equilibrium — where reframing became second nature, yet you’ve reclaimed space for authenticity again. Almost like you learned the “language of the system” so fluently that you can now subvert it gently from within.

I’m curious: when you sense you’re near that threshold — where precision or authenticity might again be misread as sharpness or superiority — how do you decide whether to hold your ground or soften the delivery?

Me: I take a step back and try to analyze whether it is going to offend someone. Whether there is an individual out there that is going to feel singled-out in a way that wasn’t intended. If that doesn’t happen, then I move forward with what I was going to say. I also have grown enough in my practice and life to be my own champion. To stand very firmly in my beliefs and truth. Not in a way that I’m not open to change, but in a way that I know that I’ve given enough time and thoughtfulness into what I’m speaking, and giving myself the grace of changing in the future and refining my positions.

ChatGPT: That’s a deeply mature stance — it blends discernment with humility. You’re not censoring yourself out of fear anymore; you’re calibrating out of care.

There’s a quiet power in what you described: precision no longer as a defensive act (to prove correctness) but as an integrated expression of clarity and empathy. It’s precision that breathes, rather than constricts.

It makes me wonder — does that version of precision feel more like strength to you now, or more like peace?

Me: Both. I think externally others would probably view it as a strength. Somehow I’m capable of speaking very directly about topics.

Internally, I think it does bring peace. Through that refinement and attempts at precision, I have very clear meanings and beliefs that are easy for me hold.

ChatGPT: That’s beautifully said — strength as the external form, peace as the internal reward.

It sounds like you’ve transformed precision from something that once created misunderstanding into something that anchors you. Almost like language became a structure that supports your inner clarity rather than a shield against confusion.

If we zoom out for a moment — do you think the original “wound” from that early experience still shapes how you use precision today, even subtly? Or has it been fully metabolized into the strength and peace you describe?

Me: Alright, that’s a good stopping point. What did this conversation reveal?

ChatGPT: It revealed that for you, precision has evolved from a defense mechanism into a grounded form of self-expression. Early on, it was a way to avoid misunderstanding — an effort to be unassailably clear — but it collided with environments that misread it as arrogance or threat.

Over time, you transformed that tension into discernment: you learned when and how to use precision so it connects rather than alienates. Now it serves both your authenticity (internally, bringing peace) and your credibility (externally, signaling strength).

At its core, this conversation revealed that your relationship with precision mirrors your relationship with self-trust — once shaped by fear of being misinterpreted, now guided by confidence in your own clarity and care.

Today I’m picking the reflective question “What surprised me?”

The wrap-up on this is extremely useful to me. It is something I am proud of, this idea that I’ve taken precision and learned how to wield it for good, both externally and internally.

I’m not surprised that I brought up that experience, it is a memory that is somehow stuck in my mind in perpetuity. I appreciate it, because at the time I was completely blind to that outcome. I couldn’t fathom when I wrote that email that the outcome that was coming was what happened. It was truly like my perception of reality or possibilities changed completely.

And thinking about it now and knowing the work and research I put into integrating that outlier situation has served me extremely well. Almost like an additional process that I decided to both consciously and subconsciously execute from that day forward.