> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.invincibleintrovert.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Reflection was never your weakness. - URL: https://www.invincibleintrovert.com/reflection-was-never-your-weakness/ - Published: 2026-08-03T18:41:36.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-03T20:20:00.000Z - Description: It's the edge AI will talk you out of. - Author: Sam Furse - Tags: Clear thinking You might think taking time to reflect slows you down, but you're doing the thing that's about to become rare. We've all been there. The meeting where you are asked to solve a difficult problem, followed by a silence in which you are expected to produce an immediate answer. The extroverts in the room may launch into a group discussion, while the introverts are thinking "give me some time to reflect on this". Neither approach is wrong. They simply reflect the difference between extrovert thinkers (who gain their energy from social interaction) and introvert thinkers (who perform through quiet analysis). In the age of AI, you may well consider that the 'thinking gap' should be shortened. Not through laziness, but as a way to *catch up* with those extrovert thinkers. But the need for a period of quiet reflection was never your weakness. It's the edge which AI will try to talk you out of. **The research query** A matter of months ago, I had such a meeting where a client asked us how to deal with a particular issue which had arisen. The issue itself was particularly knotty, so it was taken away to consider further. Working alongside a junior colleague, Daniel, it felt like a good learning opportunity for him to carry out some research and see whether the issue had been considered previously in commentary or court decisions. The research results came back very quickly. *Surprisingly quickly*. That said, the note looked very thorough, so I started reviewing it. We were in luck! There was a clear solution to it after all... or so the research said. There was something that didn't sit quite right. After all, it was a particularly grey area. A clear "yes" or "no", to a more experienced eye, signalled an issue. My gut instinct was that there may have been more beneath the surface of the answer given. I decided to sit down with Daniel and explore the point further. When I asked him to talk through the detail, I was met with silence. Daniel's eyes darting between me and the note he had produced on his laptop. After a couple of minutes, it transpired that the answer had come from the use of AI. The output was convincing, and definitive, to a lesser-trained eye. But unfortunately, the position was not as straightforward in these circumstances. I asked if he had verified the court decision by actually reading it. *He hadn't*. And this isn't a criticism of Daniel. He did what seemed like the reasonable, time-efficient approach and the AI didn't warn him that there was any ambiguity. In fact, it stated it so confidently as to give the impression there was no ambiguity *at all*. It cited a real case, but misinterpreted it. **Friction was the accelerator** Of course, in the era of AI, we are all trying to find ways to work quicker and smarter. To deliver real value to the client more efficiently. We are actively encouraged in all aspects of life to use it. Yet, taking a shortcut *by delegating your judgement* to AI often does the opposite. No doubt, previous generations of lawyers will have had the same view when new knowledge tools became available that weren't available to them during their earlier years. But those knowledge tools generally didn't take away the step of *verifying the output*, unlike AI, which appears to by presenting answers definitively. I had my own similar experience when I was more junior. AI platforms were not yet a thing, but I had access to some commentary which seemingly gave us the answer. It gave an extract of a court decision. Bingo. Case solved. On probing deeper, the extract related to a completely different set of facts. So much so, that it had only limited relevance to the matter I was considering. But this came from *actually reading the decision* to verify what I thought the answer was. I think back to that day, and how the friction has made me a better lawyer *today*. I got used to the grind of doing research manually. To trawl through pages of commentary. Paragraph after paragraph of a court decision. Nowadays, it's almost given me a *sixth sense* as to whether something adds up. And what doesn't. **Times have changed** Now, I accept that times have changed. The opportunity to learn through years of manual grind is closing. Clients don't want us to spend hours and hours researching matters which AI can condense considerably. Nor does this article set out to dissuade you from using AI. Quite the opposite. You should seek to work smartly and (where it is within your employer's rules) use AI to facilitate that. But this doesn't mean that you shouldn't take time to reflect. AI is a great resource, but as an introvert, your superpower is the ability to undertake deep thinking. To think before you answer, rather than to answer while you think. It's actually what makes you *stand out*. **So what should you do?** Developing your knowledge in your chosen role still requires some friction. It's the way you learn. The way you get *great* at what you do. *Form your initial view* So when you are asked to do something in which you think AI will play a meaningful role, take a step back. What is your initial view based on everything you know already? If time is on your side, I often find reflecting on an issue overnight can work wonders. I find I can get clarity of thought most in the mornings on complex issues. *Asking AI (the smart way)* Quality of output is inextricably linked with quality of input. If you give an AI instructions which are lacking context, then unfortunately it can't (yet) mindread and may not give you the appropriate response. There is much guidance on giving AI appropriate context, and challenging and refining its output, but my two *top tips* would be: - Become the interviewee. Rather than asking the AI questions once you have given it the initial context, *ask it to ask you* questions about the task in hand. You can break this down into bitesize pieces and get it to ask you (say, 3 to 5) questions one at a time. I find this often generates further context that I wouldn't have even thought about. - Review the response and verify it. If you have given the AI documents to review, most AI platforms often come with links to click so that you can review particular sections it has cited. If it has cited external documents, actually go and read them word-for-word. This both builds your own knowledge, and helps you identify inconsistencies. *Doing the typical lawyer thing* All of the above is, of course, subject to making sure that you comply with your own organisation's use of AI policy and never put work-related data into general AI platforms which are not approved by your firm. **Reflection was never your weakness** So, reflection was never your weakness. Quite the opposite, it is what gives you your edge. Even if you think that AI is a way for you to speed up that process, don't let AI talk you out of it. Continue to think before you answer, rather than trying to answer while you think. Quite what the future of building your base through AI looks like, we don't yet know. If you're a few years in to your career, I'd be interested to know how you're building yours. Drop a comment below.