C's Get Degrees

Last week I wrote about the K-Curve - the widening gap between people who engage with AI and those who don’t, despite equal access. I promised I’d tell you why I think it’s happening and that you might not like it.

We accept mediocrity from people. Every day.

I went to Florida State. There was a saying down in Tallahassee: “C’s get degrees.” And it was true. Graduates with 70% accuracy went on to build careers. Managers reviewed their work, corrected their errors, and asked clarifying questions. We call that coaching. We call that collaboration. We call that leadership.

NOW WATCH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AI DELIVERS 80% ACCURACY.

“It hallucinated.” “It was wrong about this one thing.” “I can’t trust it.” The tool that outperforms the C-student gets rejected for producing anything less than perfection.

We have been managing human mediocrity at scale for centuries. We built entire systems around it - supervision, review cycles, quality checks, second opinions. Nobody suggests we replace Bob because he graduated with a 2.3 GPA and has been making poor decisions for fifteen years. We just build processes around him.

But AI at 80%? Unacceptable.

This is an answer to the K-Curve. I’m sure there are more. But the people leaning in aren’t expecting perfection. They’re treating AI the way they’ve always treated every other tool and every other colleague - with reasonable expectations, active oversight, and a willingness to close the gap themselves. They bring their 20%. They make it work.

The people falling behind are waiting for something they’ve never demanded from a human being in their lives.

I’m not sure when we decided AI had to be perfect. But I am sure it’s costing us.