Tech CEOs are suffering from AI psychosis over next quarter's earnings, while I'm suffering from RI(Rent Installment) psychosis. It makes me wonder if human beings are simply hardwired to suffer from some form of obsession-whether it's FOMO or financial pressure
Humans beings are hardwired to be unhappy, and IMO this has helped civilization's progress, even if individuals are unhappy.
No matter how good we have it, eventually we normalize it, become bored, and find something to be unhappy about. It happens from children to old people.
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.
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 automatically win the argument, instead of saying something substantive or interesting.
"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. its the punchline of many r/maliciouscompliance writing exercises.
the higher up the company you go, the more disconnected you are from the workers on the front line, the less you understand about their needs, and the more likely you are to push for something without understanding the totality of the impact of the decision.
I have had higher ups that actually understand the products, work flow and have a great grasp on things. Slow to understand things but make well educated and deliberate moves. These folks are are VERY rare however.
AI investment and spending is frequently cited as one of the few bright spots in the economy, I wonder if the continued over-optimism is mostly about keeping the bubble inflated. If you are a tech CEO, would it be a disservice to your shareholders to express skepticism about AI?
The article itself isn't great, but it speaks to one of my greatest concerns about AI. People who engage heavily with it are falling in the behavioral billionaire trap: It is deeply unhealthy to be constantly affirmed in your behaviors. No, not all of your ideas are great, not everything you say has value. You are not a cut above the rest.
There are enough stories of people completely losing the plot, thinking they've invented a new type of maths or similar, but there's almost certainly also a much more subtle influence in most of us, where the constant affirmation, obedience, apologia, reframes our expectations of how interactions should be.
We are already the most narcissistic generation, having been molded by social media to compare, stats-max, and overobsess about who we are. Chatbots are now fanning the flames.
When Marc Benioff was talking about how he spends like 3 hours a day chatting with AI, things made a bit more sense. I suspect that a lot of these guys are just chattering away with self-affirming LLMs and have just completely lost the plot.
I hadn’t considered that before Marc was talking about how much time he spends chatting to LLMs.
A lot of the younger Big Tech CEOs are notoriously averse to human interaction, so I’m sure there’s some of that at play.
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.
If all CEOs were as reasonable, there would be no AI bubble. Working in tech constantly means checking what's new and if you can wait it out or risk being left behind. That requires wisdom, but many CEOs seem driven by FOMO.
It doesn't help FOMO that scaling the executive ladder also means progressively staying behind in technical skills to stay ahead in managing skills. It's awesome that your CEO has managed to keep his fangs sharp enough.
Tech CEOs are psychotic. Most CEOs are psychotic, disconnected from most of the actual work going under them. This is just a new drug for them to huff.
> , models will “be able to complete most text-related tasks with success rates of, on average, 80%–95% by 2029 at a minimally sufficient quality level.”
If this is true, then companies should focus on hiring juniors out of college. The investment is less risky.
However, I don't personally believe this number and timeline is true, but if you do, the conclusion should be to wait and invest in humans.
I think that study is the wrong framing of the problem for identifying economic returns on AI. We don't need AI to complete tasks perfectly, just to be able to generate a good enough approximation that is easy to review and correct such that an employee has to spend less time correcting AI's errors than they would spend producing the entire output from scratch. So it won't be a drop in replacement for an employee for another 4-10 years, but in the interim, will shift an employee's role from generating a complete solution to primarily reviewing and correcting an LLM-generated solution to get it from that 80-95% level (or whatever the starting point might be prior to 2029) to 100%.
At this point, the vast majority of the work required to make GenAI capable of producing that sufficiently reviewable/correctable content isn't improving model quality, but creating the harnesses, infrastructure, and workflows around the models. Companies aren't seeing returns yet because too many early adopting companies have conceived of AI as a drop in replacement for employees, or at least as a reason to cut staff immediately, without first building out the supporting systems needed to compensate for the inadequacies of the models.
I’m convinced that if you’re a sociopath you are especially vulnerable to AI psychosis. It would explain tech CEO’s insane behaviour since you would have to be one to do the kind of sh*t they do regularly.
It's hardly a tech CEO thing, and I dunno if "psychosis" is a fair or accurate way to talk about it.
I worked with someone who was kind of a Shopify power user, managed the store, could do a lot of things, but wasn't a programmer. She showed me how Shopify does that AI block generator now to deliver something that was like 65% done in a minute.
I also have a friend who knows enough code to be dangerous in WordPress: he was able to vibe code an API integration, got immensely excited about it, and wanted to make it into a plugin/product for others.
It's just the state of the art: a good prompt and some small tweaks can get you something that's minimally viable really quickly. And that's very...intoxicating! Empowering! Exciting! Something that felt way too hard or out of your reach in the past has just materialized before your eyes, and because you got that far, that fast, surely you can get the thing over the finish line with a bit more work. (It tends not to work that way right now, but I don't blame people for feeling how they feel!)
It’s more than the C-Suite, it’s everyone who no longer has a knowledge specialty. Their domain is shattered and there is nothing left for them because before LLMs all they did anyway was search for companies to contract out an integration to solve a niche problem. 99% of the C-suites/boards are now this. Your IT guy, scrum master, Product lead, integration team, etc. Everyone who’s chosen to NOT understand because they can offload/contract-away their work and knowledge is under psychosis that LLMs know best.
You cannot discuss tradeoffs with anyone anymore because they chose to give their brain and authority away to a statistically incorrect robot. The LLM has already generated potential tradeoffs real or not.
> it’s everyone who no longer has a knowledge specialty.
> Everyone who’s chosen to NOT understand because they can offload/contract-away their work and knowledge is under psychosis that LLMs know best.
Right on the money!
These people's ignorance was compensated for by other non-ignorant intelligent people in the organization who actually had knowledge of the domain and tools/techniques for problem-solving. The latter were the ones doing the course-correcting and ensuring things stayed on track for delivery.
With the adoption of AI, ignorance is in the driver's seat viz. "i don't have to know anything since AI will do it for me". I guarantee that a few years down the line when there is enough AI generated messy/obfuscated/wrong code the C-Suites will realize the hole they have dug themselves into and will again look for human engineers to either fix or rewrite the above.
Even senior developers can succumb to it. They try agentic development, they see that a single prompt can generate a day's worth of work in mere minutes _and it works_ and they are so impressed that they immediately turn to Twitter to share the joy. Understandable!
Once they inevitably discover that the AI generated code is called "slop" for a reason, they are too embarrassed to post to Twitter that they were deluded.
Sometimes that happens though: a few days ago a developer on Twitter bragged that they have created a C to Metal compiler using AI and it works. Today they had to post regrets, explaining that nothing works except tests and the code is shit. Sadly can't find the tweet though.
If you manage 500+ people organization, most of the headaches with agents already exists with you - you set directions, ask people to go run fast in those directions, check in frequently and course correct on results without actually understanding those people do.
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.
> AI tools look like that, but don't have any of the useful conflict which came for free with employing humans.
Sure, but your list should also include the most fundamental distinction: AI does not know what it is saying, understands nothing, has no real connections to reality and can easily degenerate in all kinds of undesirable directions.
> 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.
Depends on the people and the organisations. Its easy for people in charge to surround them selves with flatterers or crooks of whatever they want. A lot of CEOs have weird ideas because no-one says no to them. Look at companies that turned out to be run by multiple crooks, like Enron.
Man, it must be hard to be a tech CEO these days./s
Even if you take a realistic position on AI, you can’t get off the train. Wall Street and your investors will hang and quarter you the moment you start expressing doubts.
So you grind your teeth, make grandiose investment promises, sign lofty budgets, and hope it all works out.
Comparisons with luddites are absurd. AI is much closer to a religion.
I would love to get on this bandwagon, but I think strangely tech CEOs are spot-on on this one, it's the public that has mass-hysteria (I wouldn't say psychosis).
There have been several leaps in tech over the past few centuries, this is just sort of one. I can't find much original arguments or reasoning on either side that hasn't been made before for other tech. I think people are afraid it will replace them/jobs and they don't know what that will mean for their future, and society's future. It's also an issue with a few at the top of the pyramid controlling the tech. But it was so with petroleum, cars, even the internet (still is, handful of tech companies). There is also the quality thing, people think in a very binary way, where either AI work is perfect or it's a disaster, because it is replacing people after all. In reality, it's a sliding scale, and how well it does dictates how much work one person needs to do.
There was a time people didn't have text editing computers for example, lots of time spent writing on pen and paper, copy writers spell checking, carbon-copies being used to copy as you write,etc.. suddenly printers and text editors came. people still edited text, just more efficiently, you didn't need as many people. and with the internet, lots of different types of jobs were created.
I personally think, this is a timely rebalancing. Gen-Z has been suffering for a lack of entry level jobs, and it is getting worse because of AI.. but obviously AI has limits right? let's say we don't need software developers any more (ha!), does that mean AI can churn out perfect software each time? Alright, then who's paying AI to do that? does that mean I can create my own HN and have AI moderate it well on its own? Great, then how about something bigger, Facebook alternatives? How about more IRL things, like robotics, R&D work ,etc.. I just don't see how even if AI was dirt cheap and it replaces most of what people can do on computers, that would be a complete disaster.
I think the real issue is failure to re-architect society as time and tech changes. everything from academia, to WFH/RTO policies, labor law, housing, taxes, law,etc.. that's the issue, not AI on its own. It's the people not regulating it as they adjust and adapt to it without causing harm that are the issue. I'd love to blame tech CEOs, but they're just playing their part in capitalism. even in a communist society, the blame would be at lack of central planning and failure to regulate companies.
I'll say this though, it isn't so much they're delusional, but they don't get why people are emotional over something basic and utilitarian. to them, adaption and adjustment comes with a nice financial cushion. People tend to plan out their lives, without any cushions. i think there is mild psychosis going all around, but that isn't unusual. Even the hysteria and lack of perspective is in line with history, as well as how we continue to not learn from it.
Maybe the problem is that the people who report to the C-level have a huge incentive to use AI because it is so good at creating corporate BS.
Also AI is tuned to sycophantic behavior which perfectly matches the middle/upper management culture of selective ass kissing.
As a result the quality of input for C-level has gotten worse without the C-level being able to notice it, because the sugarcoating has increased tenfold.
93 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 69.6 ms ] threadNo matter how good we have it, eventually we normalize it, become bored, and find something to be unhappy about. It happens from children to old people.
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.
also clickbait title
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 automatically win the argument, instead of saying something substantive or interesting.
"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. its the punchline of many r/maliciouscompliance writing exercises.
the higher up the company you go, the more disconnected you are from the workers on the front line, the less you understand about their needs, and the more likely you are to push for something without understanding the totality of the impact of the decision.
There are enough stories of people completely losing the plot, thinking they've invented a new type of maths or similar, but there's almost certainly also a much more subtle influence in most of us, where the constant affirmation, obedience, apologia, reframes our expectations of how interactions should be.
We are already the most narcissistic generation, having been molded by social media to compare, stats-max, and overobsess about who we are. Chatbots are now fanning the flames.
When Marc Benioff was talking about how he spends like 3 hours a day chatting with AI, things made a bit more sense. I suspect that a lot of these guys are just chattering away with self-affirming LLMs and have just completely lost the plot.
I hadn’t considered that before Marc was talking about how much time he spends chatting to LLMs.
A lot of the younger Big Tech CEOs are notoriously averse to human interaction, so I’m sure there’s some of that at play.
It doesn't help FOMO that scaling the executive ladder also means progressively staying behind in technical skills to stay ahead in managing skills. It's awesome that your CEO has managed to keep his fangs sharp enough.
If this is true, then companies should focus on hiring juniors out of college. The investment is less risky.
However, I don't personally believe this number and timeline is true, but if you do, the conclusion should be to wait and invest in humans.
At this point, the vast majority of the work required to make GenAI capable of producing that sufficiently reviewable/correctable content isn't improving model quality, but creating the harnesses, infrastructure, and workflows around the models. Companies aren't seeing returns yet because too many early adopting companies have conceived of AI as a drop in replacement for employees, or at least as a reason to cut staff immediately, without first building out the supporting systems needed to compensate for the inadequacies of the models.
I worked with someone who was kind of a Shopify power user, managed the store, could do a lot of things, but wasn't a programmer. She showed me how Shopify does that AI block generator now to deliver something that was like 65% done in a minute.
I also have a friend who knows enough code to be dangerous in WordPress: he was able to vibe code an API integration, got immensely excited about it, and wanted to make it into a plugin/product for others.
It's just the state of the art: a good prompt and some small tweaks can get you something that's minimally viable really quickly. And that's very...intoxicating! Empowering! Exciting! Something that felt way too hard or out of your reach in the past has just materialized before your eyes, and because you got that far, that fast, surely you can get the thing over the finish line with a bit more work. (It tends not to work that way right now, but I don't blame people for feeling how they feel!)
You cannot discuss tradeoffs with anyone anymore because they chose to give their brain and authority away to a statistically incorrect robot. The LLM has already generated potential tradeoffs real or not.
> Everyone who’s chosen to NOT understand because they can offload/contract-away their work and knowledge is under psychosis that LLMs know best.
Right on the money!
These people's ignorance was compensated for by other non-ignorant intelligent people in the organization who actually had knowledge of the domain and tools/techniques for problem-solving. The latter were the ones doing the course-correcting and ensuring things stayed on track for delivery.
With the adoption of AI, ignorance is in the driver's seat viz. "i don't have to know anything since AI will do it for me". I guarantee that a few years down the line when there is enough AI generated messy/obfuscated/wrong code the C-Suites will realize the hole they have dug themselves into and will again look for human engineers to either fix or rewrite the above.
Even senior developers can succumb to it. They try agentic development, they see that a single prompt can generate a day's worth of work in mere minutes _and it works_ and they are so impressed that they immediately turn to Twitter to share the joy. Understandable!
Once they inevitably discover that the AI generated code is called "slop" for a reason, they are too embarrassed to post to Twitter that they were deluded.
Sometimes that happens though: a few days ago a developer on Twitter bragged that they have created a C to Metal compiler using AI and it works. Today they had to post regrets, explaining that nothing works except tests and the code is shit. Sadly can't find the tweet though.
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.
Sure, but your list should also include the most fundamental distinction: AI does not know what it is saying, understands nothing, has no real connections to reality and can easily degenerate in all kinds of undesirable directions.
Depends on the people and the organisations. Its easy for people in charge to surround them selves with flatterers or crooks of whatever they want. A lot of CEOs have weird ideas because no-one says no to them. Look at companies that turned out to be run by multiple crooks, like Enron.
Comparisons with luddites are absurd. AI is much closer to a religion.
There have been several leaps in tech over the past few centuries, this is just sort of one. I can't find much original arguments or reasoning on either side that hasn't been made before for other tech. I think people are afraid it will replace them/jobs and they don't know what that will mean for their future, and society's future. It's also an issue with a few at the top of the pyramid controlling the tech. But it was so with petroleum, cars, even the internet (still is, handful of tech companies). There is also the quality thing, people think in a very binary way, where either AI work is perfect or it's a disaster, because it is replacing people after all. In reality, it's a sliding scale, and how well it does dictates how much work one person needs to do.
There was a time people didn't have text editing computers for example, lots of time spent writing on pen and paper, copy writers spell checking, carbon-copies being used to copy as you write,etc.. suddenly printers and text editors came. people still edited text, just more efficiently, you didn't need as many people. and with the internet, lots of different types of jobs were created.
I personally think, this is a timely rebalancing. Gen-Z has been suffering for a lack of entry level jobs, and it is getting worse because of AI.. but obviously AI has limits right? let's say we don't need software developers any more (ha!), does that mean AI can churn out perfect software each time? Alright, then who's paying AI to do that? does that mean I can create my own HN and have AI moderate it well on its own? Great, then how about something bigger, Facebook alternatives? How about more IRL things, like robotics, R&D work ,etc.. I just don't see how even if AI was dirt cheap and it replaces most of what people can do on computers, that would be a complete disaster.
I think the real issue is failure to re-architect society as time and tech changes. everything from academia, to WFH/RTO policies, labor law, housing, taxes, law,etc.. that's the issue, not AI on its own. It's the people not regulating it as they adjust and adapt to it without causing harm that are the issue. I'd love to blame tech CEOs, but they're just playing their part in capitalism. even in a communist society, the blame would be at lack of central planning and failure to regulate companies.
I'll say this though, it isn't so much they're delusional, but they don't get why people are emotional over something basic and utilitarian. to them, adaption and adjustment comes with a nice financial cushion. People tend to plan out their lives, without any cushions. i think there is mild psychosis going all around, but that isn't unusual. Even the hysteria and lack of perspective is in line with history, as well as how we continue to not learn from it.
Also AI is tuned to sycophantic behavior which perfectly matches the middle/upper management culture of selective ass kissing.
As a result the quality of input for C-level has gotten worse without the C-level being able to notice it, because the sugarcoating has increased tenfold.