Article
The AI Knowledge Gap: Why Most People Do not See What is Coming
I have never seen a knowledge gap as deep as with artificial intelligence.
The more I talk with friends and acquaintances about AI, automation, and the future of work, the more I notice something alarming.
First, most people of working age have never actually tried any language model. For them, AI is just a word they heard somewhere in the news — but they have no real sense of what it actually is. Occasionally, they will joke about it, and that is about it. What really struck me was how mainstream media in Slovakia report on AI. The only mention I caught recently was a news piece asking an AI who the next Pope might be. If this is the standard, no wonder the information gap keeps growing.
Second, the generation that today has only a vague idea of what AI is has lived through several tech booms. They remember that between media hype and actual impact on their lives, it often took a decade — or longer. If you look at how slowly some parts of the Slovak public sector have adopted digital reforms, it can easily take twenty years. These past experiences shape how some people view today’s changes, and honestly, I completely understand their perspective.
But my perspective is very different.
I first started working with generative AI around the turn of 2022 and 2023. Right from the beginning, I could see how much it accelerated my work, especially in programming. At the same time, I started feeling a strange emptiness and restlessness, which I wrote about on this blog. Over time, my view evolved, and I have gathered all my posts on this topic into a dedicated section.
It is important to realise that while hundreds of millions of people have briefly interacted with AI tools, only a relatively small fraction have had deep, hands-on experience. This small group clearly sees how radically the world can change within just one or two years. They notice that today's technological landscape is already vastly different from what it was just a few months ago.
Join the Library
Full access to my thoughts, personal stories, findings, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library — €29.99 per yearGet the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
How many people have actually used AI tools like ChatGPT?
Why do some people underestimate how fast AI is changing the world?
What is the AI knowledge gap?
Why is AI literacy being compared to reading literacy?
What can individuals do to close the AI knowledge gap?
Could the AI knowledge gap become a source of social inequality?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
It’s a strange feeling. I haven’t fully processed it yet.
More articles
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
This is what I learned about local vs cloud AI, and why I switched to Claude Code.