|
|
[Technology] I Use Old Tools to Dominate AIWu Chao Hui (JEFFI CHAO HUI WU) Article Date: June 25, 2025, Wednesday, 7:59 AM In the past few years, I have continuously used some of the most basic, most undervalued, and even obsolete old tools to complete a large amount of structural work. Strictly speaking, I am not "against artificial intelligence," nor am I using emotional language to condemn the changes of the times. However, in the process of operation and observation, I have repeatedly discovered a clear fact: it is not that AI's capabilities are insufficient, but rather that it cannot solve the real issues I need to address. And these issues, I have managed to tackle using the old tool system I built myself. I have been using old software, with a version that is not new, and the accompanying function system, module structure, and scripting environment have hardly been upgraded. Earlier, I also used other tools to build structures, even using the simplest nested tables to establish logical layers. The key issue is not the performance of the tools, but whether I am clear about "how this matter needs to be resolved." Many people blindly pursue tool upgrades without fully understanding the true structural entry and logical closed loop of the task, which leads to increasingly complex system structures, longer delivery times, and operators feeling increasingly lost, resulting in decreased efficiency. Many so-called "intelligent platforms" are increasingly inclined to focus on superficial process collaboration and interface design, but these systems do not truly understand the behavioral pathways of users, nor do they have the capability to determine which steps require human intervention, which information needs to be made explicit in advance, and which logic can be preset. As a result, the system appears complete in form, but becomes distorted in practical use. The problems I need to address are typically high-density, cross-level, and characterized by systemic feedback. My approach is not to hand over text processing to AI, nor to use visualization software to stack processes, but to establish a closed-loop structure within the tool itself, turning the tool into a carrier of structure rather than a container for functional accumulation. I never use AI to generate writing, planning, or decision-making out of thin air, nor do I rely on it to complete any systematic tasks, because AI cannot achieve my goals. The reason is very straightforward: while AI can generate content, it has no way of making structural judgments based on real context, it cannot assign responsibility for errors, it cannot understand the causal factors behind process disruptions, and it cannot proactively complete system-level repairs in the absence of complete information. Most of the tasks I perform daily precisely require handling this type of "structural integration under unstructured information." I do not believe that artificial intelligence is a threat, but I am very clear: tools are driving structural alienation. People are becoming less patient with structural construction because AI can "generate quickly"; they no longer care about the hierarchy and error paths behind the answers because AI can "automatically respond"; many have given up their ability to construct logical models because AI can "simulate language." I have seen too much content production, project planning, and system design that rely entirely on AI generation, resulting in neat appearances, chaotic structures, numerous errors and omissions, and ultimately not knowing where the problems lie. I use old tools to "outperform AI"; I am simply doing what I am inherently good at and committed to: completing structured tasks with structured thinking. The process does not rely on the latest tools, does not require team collaboration, does not need platform support, and does not pursue flashy interfaces. All I need is: a clear question, a complete logical chain, and a set of tools that can support it—even if they are the oldest versions. If I must say "overwhelm," what I am overwhelming is not the AI itself, but rather the mindset that blindly relies on it without thinking, fantasizes about the omnipotence of technology, and continuously piles on functions while abandoning structural understanding. It is not that AI lacks capability, but that its users have given up judgment and responsibility. This, precisely, is the fundamental source of system degradation, work failure, and decision-making chaos. As the system grows larger yet becomes increasingly unusable; as processes become smarter yet harder to correct; as outputs multiply without solving any real problems, we should ask ourselves: is it the tools that are too poor, or has the structure long been out of control? On this point, I have always believed: even with the oldest tools, as long as the structure is clear and the path is closed-loop, it can run more steadily, quickly, and accurately than any AI. This is not about flaunting old tools, but about adhering to the fundamentals; it is not against new technology, but about preventing tools from replacing thinking. Structure is the source of strength. The "old tools" that I am still using include: • My independently designed fully automated financial system • Self-built web system (Started in the FrontPage era, still running stably) • Manually coded database query/interface linkage program • A logistics scheduling platform that does not rely on any third-party APIs. • Purely local computing + offline fault tolerance zero cloud dependency system architecture • The "static security structure" website that does not require upgrades has not been breached to date. |
|