Yesterday there was a session on “how to strategically integrate artificial intelligence into projects”.
Given the abundance of AI talks and webinars, it’s always wise to understand who will be delivering the presentations. In this case, it was a company of innovation and tech solutions. At first glance, this is a sign of trust and legitimacy.
But a few minutes into the speaker’s lecture, the host said something that made me lose all interest in what was to come.
The sentence was something like “we don’t need a mechanics course to use a car, so we don’t need a computer science course to use AI tools.”
Honestly, this sentence is aberrant. And it is common in snake oil salesman’s pitches, trying to promote poor quality solutions based on false and misaligned premises.
However, a bad analogy can be used in a positive way.
And we can connect AI tools and the requirements for driving a car. Theoretical and practical preparation. Learn the rules that are common to all those who share the public road, in the car and outside, crossing paths, learning how to use the car correctly, as a machine, as a mobility technology.
Critical View
In several places in Brazil, the rules of the Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB) are completely disregarded. And such disrespect is legitimized. One of the strangest things anyone can remember was the creation of a campaign telling people who wanted to cross the street at a crosswalk that they should wave their hand and wait for the vehicle to stop.

For those who are more curious, or those who have learned other codes besides Brazilian, a quick search might help:
According to the Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB), article 70 determines that pedestrians have priority over vehicles when crossing pedestrian crossings. This means that cars, buses, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles must stop and give way to pedestrians.
The CTB also establishes that it is a very serious infraction to not give way to pedestrians, punishable by a fine of R$191.54 and seven points on the driver’s license.
Therefore, these public organizations decided not to educate, instead they created something that goes against national legislation.
Analogy Analysis
If we want to compare the two realities, without making assumptions about the user’s age, we must observe the need for training and approval to be able to use/drive a car.
This reality can be transferred, without the same mandatory nature, to the importance of knowing how to use AI or understanding how to use this type of tool in a way that respects the surrounding society.
This perception of society and how the use of digital tools can be harmful leads to the controversial topic of regulation. Create usage rules, similar to the CTB, but also create penalties for those who violate these rules, especially for those who use (and profit from) AI irresponsibly.
Artificial Intelligence tools exist and are inevitable, but we need to educate people about their responsible use. And it is essential to create rules.
Unfortunately, just like seat belts, people are more “motivated” by fear of a fine than by fear of the consequences.
In conclusion
The “Brazilian way” is not and can never be something praiseworthy. Any professional who has or claims to have credibility cannot take any kind of pride in taking shortcuts.
Pursuing profit or notoriety by recommending tools that lack quality, just because they allow you to pave the way, because they allow you to make processes faster through processes built on a base without quality, cannot be the way forward.
The MVP – minimum viable product – should only be considered in the initial phase of the business. MVP allows you to validate an idea before developing the final product.
The MVP presupposes an evaluation of the product, whether it has quality, whether it is worth developing this product, understanding costs and benefits.
After the MVP we will have the MMP – minimum marketable product, or MMR: minimum marketable release. In short, leverage feedback from early adopters to fine-tune the product and bring the improved version to market. This product will be of better quality and consumers expect it to meet certain expectations.
The keyword is not minimal, it’s better.
This new version must have better performance, it must be scalable and, regard this last factor, it must be reliable.
So, going back to the car analogy, an AI tool that does not offer quality and is not reliable, is like a car that does not respond to the desires of its user. A car that doesn’t stop when we try to make it to stop, doesn’t speed up when we try to speed up, it doesn’t go right when we turn right. The consequences are similar.
A car that doesn’t stop when it should can cause casualties.
An AI platform that is not reliable used by someone who wants to reach the maximum audience is a tool of disinformation and can cause harm.
AI always requires interaction with humans. Those who feed the database, those who use it, those who consume the final product.
An AI platform poorly fed, used by people who do not have the skills or who do not want to spend time reviewing the outcomes, will generate consumption of a low-quality product.
If we don’t buy cars without one wheel, if we don’t want cockroaches in our burgers, if we don’t want software with bugs, why would we want AI tools that deliver results without quality?
It’s just like driving a car. You don’t need to take an engineering course, but you can’t just drive a car because someone tells you it will take you somewhere faster.