𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Gen Z did not invent infinite scrolling, personalized recommendation engines, streaks, notifications, or business models that turn every additional minute of attention into revenue. Yet we often discuss their behaviour as though millions of young people independently decided to become distracted at exactly the same moment. Individual responsibility still matters, and people can build healthier habits, spend more time offline, and make deliberate choices about how they use technology. But personal discipline is only one part of the equation when the environment has been designed to make disengagement difficult. A park is valuable, but it is not competing on equal terms with a personalized feed that studies every interaction and continuously learns what will keep someone watching. This matters even more as AI makes those systems more persuasive, adaptive, and intimate. In Better AI, the objective cannot simply be maximizing engagement because the metric is profitable. We also need to ask whether the product supports human agency, connection, and growth. Technology companies should not be blamed for every social problem, but they should be accountable for the behaviours their incentives deliberately encourage. When a platform profits from maximizing attention, how much responsibility should it carry for the behaviour it helps create? #BetterAI #AlgorithmicDesign #DigitalWellbeing #ResponsibleTechnology