51–60 of 383 posts
My CEO did a deep dive into AI prototyping and eventually ran into a wall with data architecture and deployment. Fortunately, he realized very quickly that having human designed core infrastructure is what enables vibe coding that doesn't run off the rails.
Those aren't the deal breakers.
They entirely rely on the competence of the folks they hired and cross-match enforcers with the drivers they have - they deal with fallible people on both sides of that.
The fundamental difference is that the humans are good consequence predictors, have built up reputations they are not willing to trash, can say no to things and in general don't want to go jail.
AI tools look like that, but don't have any of the useful conflict which came for free with employing humans.
It also doesn't have any useless conflict, but not all conflict between what I say and what someone is willing to do is bad conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's become a cultural term to refer to someone suffering from delusions exacerbated by AI. It's a little rhetorical device to draw in the reader, and personally I think it works quite well.
Except that the thing being described as AI psychosis in this article (and increasingly elsewhere) isn't psychosis. Not understanding or not believing in the power of AI, or misapplying it or whatever, is not psychosis. AI psychosis is when people suffer actual delusions .
Because I've literally seen managers who believe firmly that AI is going to replace their entire engineering organization, and are acting on that assumption as though it's a thing to take for granted, not discuss/consider/evaluate.
And my understanding of delusion is
> a fixed, false belief that is firmly held despite clear, contradictory evidence
which seems to apply pretty well in this case.
These folks are operating with the same abandon that the folks who have AI telling them they're gods are - and both are incorrect, arguably delusional.
At best you can try to argue that maybe the contradictory evidence isn't clear, and they're going to be correct. I think that's a very tenuous argument to be making, though.
Using "psychosis" is a cheap rhetorical trick. There's no need to label something "psychosis" when making your point, except to automatically discredit whatever you're responding to. In other words, only people who are afraid their point won't stand on its own merits would resort to saying "X is suffering from AI psychosis." An idea is true or false on its own. If you're resorting to labels, you're just trying to aut…
Clickbait title. Should be more like "Box founder Aaron Levie says CEOs should use AI more and learn its limitations." He's essentially saying that C-suite people overestimate how effective LLMs are at one-shotting hard problems, and underestimate the human maintenance work that follows.
whats being described is in no way unique to ai. " In other words, Levie’s theory posits, CEOs don’t really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can’t be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t stop them from acting on their beliefs. " i have been in the workforce for a long time. this "theory" has been theorized since as far back as i can remember. its the premise of undercover boss. it…
This kind of thing only increases the disconnect between what CEOs think employees do and what they actually do.
After all they are always wrong and journalists always right proven by stats. Hm. Wait.
Comparisons with luddites are absurd. AI is much closer to a religion.