The article is about how some employees in big companies, called "intrapreneurs", can use artificial intelligence (AI) to make their work better and help their careers grow. The writer says that AI is very powerful and can solve many problems, but not everyone knows how to use it well. The people who are good at using AI and have great ideas are not always the bosses or the most important employees in the company, they can be anyone who works hard and wants to improve things. These "intrapreneurs" are very special because they can think of new ways to use AI that others might not see, and this helps their companies become more successful and make more money. Read from source...

1. The author uses the term "intrapreneurs" without defining it or giving examples of what it entails. This makes it vague and confusing for readers who may not be familiar with the concept or its application in corporate settings. A better way to introduce the topic would be to explain what intrapreneurship is, how it differs from entrepreneurship, and why it is relevant for corporations today.
2. The author claims that innovation doesn't understand corporate hierarchy and titles, but then proceeds to give examples of his own career achievements as a former executive at IBM and PwC. This creates a contradiction and undermines the credibility of the argument. A more consistent approach would be to either focus on other cases where intrapreneurship has been successful without relying on personal anecdotes, or to acknowledge that innovation can also be hindered by hierarchical structures and power dynamics within organizations.
3. The author implies that the most creative ideas always come from a select few employees who are not necessarily executives or board members. This suggests that there is a fixed pool of talented individuals who possess the skills and traits needed to be successful intrapreneurs, while ignoring the fact that these skills and traits can be cultivated and nurtured by organizations through training, mentorship, and support systems. A more balanced perspective would be to recognize that anyone in an organization can contribute to innovation if given the right opportunities and resources, rather than creating a sense of exclusivity or elitism around intrapreneurship.
4. The author uses emotive language such as "problem-solving" and "creative thinking skills" without providing any evidence or examples to back up these claims. This makes the argument sound more like an opinion piece than a factual analysis of how AI can transform businesses and careers. A more persuasive approach would be to provide concrete data, statistics, or case studies that demonstrate the impact of intrapreneurship on organizational performance, innovation, and employee satisfaction.
5. The author does not explain how AI can help intrapreneurs overcome the challenges they face in corporate environments, such as resistance from managers, lack of funding, or regulatory barriers. This leaves readers wondering why AI is relevant for this topic at all, and what specific benefits it can offer to intrapreneurs. A more compelling argument would be to show how AI can enable intrapreneurs to identify new opportunities, generate ideas, test hypotheses, scale solutions, and measure impact faster and more efficiently than traditional methods.