What generic AI gets wrong with this prompt
Columbia gives you an or — collaborative, inclusive, or community — and 250 words. Generic AI’s instincts run against both constraints.
It claims all three lanes at once
Offered a choice, generic AI hedges. In a test draft, it made the team more collaborative and more inclusive while fostering community, because the model covers options rather than committing.
Ask your AI — “How is my definition of collaboration, inclusivity, or community tied to my background or superpowers?”
It turns the example into a leadership essay
Generic AI drifts every team story toward how I led, because leadership essays outnumber every other genre in its training data. This isn’t that question. Columbia is asking how you changed the way a group worked — influence that often happens without a title, sideways, one conversation at a time. A draft about being in charge misses what’s being tested.
Ask your AI — “Would my example still work if I had no formal role in this story? Which sentences depend on my title rather than my actions?”
It tells the plot and skips your reasoning
First the conflict, then the meeting, then the resolution — generic AI transcribes events in order because events are what you typed in. But the committee already believes things happened. What it can’t see is why you noticed the problem, what you weighed, and what the moment taught you — and 250 words of plot leaves zero room for any of that.
Ask your AI — “Mark the sentences that say what happened versus the ones that say why I acted or what I understood afterward. What’s the ratio?”
It asserts the improvement instead of showing it
“The team became more collaborative as a result” — generic AI closes with the claim because claims complete paragraphs neatly. The question’s whole premise is that you made something change. Change is observable: who worked differently afterward, and what still runs today.
Ask your AI — “What did anyone in this story do differently after my actions? If my draft doesn’t contain that sentence, what evidence could it hold instead?”