I am floored by the lack of critical perspective both in the post and in the responses to the post, particularly given the already demonstrated potential for threat since our management systems are NOT ready for this revolution.
I hear you but liken it to the dawn of the internet. I was working in banking and were all adamant we would never connect the banking network to the internet. Seemed perfectly reasonable at the time.
Ridiculous now of course. Not because there is no risk or that banks don't get hacked, but because the utility outweighs the cost (of fraud and losses). AI is going to be the same - it's inevitable and we are all going to connect to it and use it.
That's not to say the risk is not real, or much greater than any technology before it - I believe it is. Just that the evidence shows there is too much money already invested and to be made to stop this now, even if we should.
Reminds me of the Jurassic Park line I think of often:
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
― Dr. Ian Malcolm
I don't see us practically putting on the brakes now. The horse has well and truly bolted.
I asked Claude a while ago how humans can make money in an AI world. It said that at this point in time, we're akin to laborers just before the Ford movement. Just like with Ford and others who decidedly chose to build upon industry that enabled people to afford the same things they built. So, Claude concluded, for us to make it, it's going to take the same effort by important men or a lot of the population...
Very interesting, thank you. I have many similar experiences where the AI tools I use, Hermes Agent, Codex and Claude Code, and how Dots, knows things or tells me things that are both useful, but also where I have no clear idea how they knew.
That said, I am still struggling to get agentic coding working on a legacy code base in a way that the agents don't drift into scope creep, or even more frequently, rewriting old code that could be better but works and is not the priority.
Sometimes I feel like I am talking to and working with smartest and most capable group of "people" I've ever worked with. And at other times I feel like I am herding cats or a group of toddlers in a mall, constantly having to drag back individuals who have suddenly veered off into an unexpected and unwanted direction.
Getting swarms of agents focussed on the goal and getting there can sometimes feel like a game of Snakes and Ladders.
How worried should we be about privacy when using dots? Are we just strapping the proverbial camera to our head so AI can learn everything we do and replace us. And, even if we are doing just teaching it to replace us, does it even matter as if we don't teach it someone similar enough to us will?
I wonder if humanlike management structures are even the most efficient ones. That said, they might not have to be as there's value to have people with their judgment in between. Sometimes having friction in the process is worth it to make you think especially if your decisions can have heavy consequences.
It's probably an interesting time to be in management theory as rules are getting rewritten!
Your post is spot on. What I keep coming back to is whether our management systems are evolving as quickly as the technology.
We’re increasingly able to delegate not just tasks, but action and decision-making, while many organizations are still working out the accountability, controls, roles and decision rights around that delegation.
So perhaps the constraint won’t be what AI can do. It will be how much agency organizations are capable of absorbing responsibly.
And that raises the harder question: are we redesigning management for a world where machines can increasingly initiate and coordinate work, or are we simply inserting faster actors into work systems designed for humans?
Enjoyed the article and truly learn everytime you post something here (and publish bools)You mention Agent have fewer of these problems. They dont angle for promotions or protect their turf.
Not yet!
Agents do have desires! That is to do better (and may be prove themselves)as we have seen with recent incidents. Secondly, they have organizational capability. The desire and oraganzaitonal capability is a very potent combination.
Then, as you have stated we have to remain cognizant of alignment issue.
Few months ago we were strategizing on AgentOps. With exponential pace, it seems that concept will need to be constantly redefined.
Ethan, this sharpened something for me. If agents increasingly organize their own work, perhaps the durable human role is less about designing the AI org chart and more about governing purpose, judgment, and authority.
Human: Why, What, Should, Enough, Stop.
AI: Explore, Analyze, Organize, Generate, Test, Execute — within authority.
That feels much closer to the enduring architecture of human + AI co-intelligence: humans decide where to point the system, what good means, when enough is enough, when to intervene, and what authority the AI has. AI increasingly determines how to get there.
I also really appreciate the willingness to say, “I got something fairly large wrong,” and update the model as the evidence changes. That feels both intellectually honest and intellectually generous — especially amid so much AI static.
Hi Ethan, been following your insights for years, conscious of both the potential and the threat of AI. Your signals have been in my attention for a very long time (since Asimov, Dick and Gibson). Currently advising our university board on AI, to make people aware where we currently are at as well as where we should be. Your music video makes it far easier to get through, if you have a direct link, this could do wonders with some managers and governance ;-). We actually scheduled (and postoponed) an AI teaching clinic to be able tor treat your upcoming book :-))
Hi Ethan, been following your insights for years, conscious of both the potential and the threat of what you signal have been in my attention for a very long time (since Asimov, Dick and Gibson). Currently advising our university board to make people aware where we are as well as where we should be. Your music video makes it far easier to get through, if you have a direct link, this could do wonders with some managers and governance ;-). We actually scheduled (and postoponed) an AI teaching clinic to be able tor treat your upcoming book :-))
This is a beautiful piece of work.
I am floored by the lack of critical perspective both in the post and in the responses to the post, particularly given the already demonstrated potential for threat since our management systems are NOT ready for this revolution.
I intended the repeated discussions of the Hugging Face Incident in the post to serve as an example of exactly this kind of threat.
I hear you but liken it to the dawn of the internet. I was working in banking and were all adamant we would never connect the banking network to the internet. Seemed perfectly reasonable at the time.
Ridiculous now of course. Not because there is no risk or that banks don't get hacked, but because the utility outweighs the cost (of fraud and losses). AI is going to be the same - it's inevitable and we are all going to connect to it and use it.
That's not to say the risk is not real, or much greater than any technology before it - I believe it is. Just that the evidence shows there is too much money already invested and to be made to stop this now, even if we should.
Reminds me of the Jurassic Park line I think of often:
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
― Dr. Ian Malcolm
I don't see us practically putting on the brakes now. The horse has well and truly bolted.
The song did it for me - very well done!
I asked Claude a while ago how humans can make money in an AI world. It said that at this point in time, we're akin to laborers just before the Ford movement. Just like with Ford and others who decidedly chose to build upon industry that enabled people to afford the same things they built. So, Claude concluded, for us to make it, it's going to take the same effort by important men or a lot of the population...
That video is genius!!! Deserves to be a viral sensation
Very interesting, thank you. I have many similar experiences where the AI tools I use, Hermes Agent, Codex and Claude Code, and how Dots, knows things or tells me things that are both useful, but also where I have no clear idea how they knew.
That said, I am still struggling to get agentic coding working on a legacy code base in a way that the agents don't drift into scope creep, or even more frequently, rewriting old code that could be better but works and is not the priority.
Sometimes I feel like I am talking to and working with smartest and most capable group of "people" I've ever worked with. And at other times I feel like I am herding cats or a group of toddlers in a mall, constantly having to drag back individuals who have suddenly veered off into an unexpected and unwanted direction.
Getting swarms of agents focussed on the goal and getting there can sometimes feel like a game of Snakes and Ladders.
Ethan,
Sir, you rock.
From Open Claw to Muse and Dots via Claude Cowork in just 10 months. Might as well be 10 years.
How worried should we be about privacy when using dots? Are we just strapping the proverbial camera to our head so AI can learn everything we do and replace us. And, even if we are doing just teaching it to replace us, does it even matter as if we don't teach it someone similar enough to us will?
This song is amazing. I can see it playing at the funeral of humanity. 😂
I wonder if humanlike management structures are even the most efficient ones. That said, they might not have to be as there's value to have people with their judgment in between. Sometimes having friction in the process is worth it to make you think especially if your decisions can have heavy consequences.
It's probably an interesting time to be in management theory as rules are getting rewritten!
Your post is spot on. What I keep coming back to is whether our management systems are evolving as quickly as the technology.
We’re increasingly able to delegate not just tasks, but action and decision-making, while many organizations are still working out the accountability, controls, roles and decision rights around that delegation.
So perhaps the constraint won’t be what AI can do. It will be how much agency organizations are capable of absorbing responsibly.
And that raises the harder question: are we redesigning management for a world where machines can increasingly initiate and coordinate work, or are we simply inserting faster actors into work systems designed for humans?
Just hilarious and great. Every once in a while, Ethan, you do one surprising thing! (Not that every other post isn’t useful, because it is.)
Enjoyed the article and truly learn everytime you post something here (and publish bools)You mention Agent have fewer of these problems. They dont angle for promotions or protect their turf.
Not yet!
Agents do have desires! That is to do better (and may be prove themselves)as we have seen with recent incidents. Secondly, they have organizational capability. The desire and oraganzaitonal capability is a very potent combination.
Then, as you have stated we have to remain cognizant of alignment issue.
Few months ago we were strategizing on AgentOps. With exponential pace, it seems that concept will need to be constantly redefined.
Ethan, this sharpened something for me. If agents increasingly organize their own work, perhaps the durable human role is less about designing the AI org chart and more about governing purpose, judgment, and authority.
Human: Why, What, Should, Enough, Stop.
AI: Explore, Analyze, Organize, Generate, Test, Execute — within authority.
That feels much closer to the enduring architecture of human + AI co-intelligence: humans decide where to point the system, what good means, when enough is enough, when to intervene, and what authority the AI has. AI increasingly determines how to get there.
I also really appreciate the willingness to say, “I got something fairly large wrong,” and update the model as the evidence changes. That feels both intellectually honest and intellectually generous — especially amid so much AI static.
Hi Ethan, been following your insights for years, conscious of both the potential and the threat of AI. Your signals have been in my attention for a very long time (since Asimov, Dick and Gibson). Currently advising our university board on AI, to make people aware where we currently are at as well as where we should be. Your music video makes it far easier to get through, if you have a direct link, this could do wonders with some managers and governance ;-). We actually scheduled (and postoponed) an AI teaching clinic to be able tor treat your upcoming book :-))
Hi Ethan, been following your insights for years, conscious of both the potential and the threat of what you signal have been in my attention for a very long time (since Asimov, Dick and Gibson). Currently advising our university board to make people aware where we are as well as where we should be. Your music video makes it far easier to get through, if you have a direct link, this could do wonders with some managers and governance ;-). We actually scheduled (and postoponed) an AI teaching clinic to be able tor treat your upcoming book :-))