Improving AI skills for everyone in the company? No, wouldn't it actually be best to widen the AI gap within the company?

My perspective on organizational AI adoption has changed! I’d love for those actively implementing AI to read this and share their thoughts (I know it’s controversial). Previously, I argued: "If everyone in the organization becomes AI-native using tools like Claude Code or Codex, we’d be unstoppable. One person could handle eight tasks in parallel. New services shouldn't be planned with documents, but prototyped through 'vibe coding'." However, considering the current security landscape, there are many situations where infrastructure is compromised, and there's nothing the user can do. (Even with basic security measures, I think it's better to assume you will be attacked and focus on strengthening your response strategy.) Furthermore, there are attack methods where you get compromised just by using a package selected by AI during "vibe coding," and attempting to uninstall it can even destroy your PC. I suspect many people get tired of the approval process when using Claude Code and end up using "auto mode" or "bypass mode." If you can't sense when a specific version of a package is dangerous or feel that "something isn't right here," you're in trouble. If people without that "sensing" ability start installing packages, introducing open-source software, or using rogue tools, they will get hit. And if that compromised employee has full access to the company database via MCP, it’s game over. Given this, I think it’s better to restrict AI agents: don't let those who lack that sensing ability and rely solely on company-provided tools (like those only using the free version of ChatGPT) use them. Only let the "strong" group—those who use AI heavily in their private lives, keep learning, and continue to hone their sensing ability—use AI agents. The strong take over the work of the weak. ↓ However, taking on too many tasks leads to a drop in quality. ↓ The weak (those who cannot study on their own) polish the quality of the AI output that the strong and the AI missed or left behind. I think this is the optimal solution for now. It takes too much energy to force AI skills on people without the will or drive to learn; it seems better to have them find fulfillment in supporting the strong rather than trying to master AI. I’ve also started to think that for those who are "weak," just asking ChatGPT questions when they don't understand something is enough—they don't need to go further. This allows the company to concentrate tool costs on the strong. Therefore, the company’s policy should not be "let's raise everyone's AI proficiency," but rather "identify and cultivate high-level AI users to create ace-level talent." To use an analogy: it’s like an RPG. No matter how powerful a weapon you obtain in an RPG, you can’t equip it unless your character has the necessary experience, stats, or level, right? It’s the same thing—I don’t think we should let the "weak" equip powerful weapons like Claude Code or Codex. A state where the weak can use powerful weapons might be equivalent to a bug in a game. If you keep going like that, things will break. I believe the way forward for an AI-native organization is to intentionally widen the AI divide within the company: pay for the authority and costs for the strong, and have the weak focus on following up on what the strong might have missed. Conversely, for those currently considered "weak," this is a chance to suddenly excel if they study on their own—not just through company training—and get certified by the company as an "AI-strong" individual. I believe the world will become one where those with the will and drive to learn will thrive even more, and that promoting the distinction between those with high AI proficiency and those without will lead to higher organizational performance.