Agreed, Diamantino, and that risk is why verification can't be a vibe check. My rule is before anything ships, the machine argues against its own draft. Strongest case, instructed to win, not to balance. Trust in the machine is rented daily, never owned. The moment "it drafted it" becomes "it settled it," the stake quietly changed hands.
Delegation is fine, but for the essentials we still need to own the decision and the outcome. Althoug in this modern age is hard no to fall prey of convenience.
AI, sorry the tool, can assist, but humans still own decisions, quality, and consequences. In today’s environment, saying ‘AI did it’ avoids responsibility. The better question is who reviewed, approved, and stands behind the outcome? That for me is a better approach.
It’s an advanced tool that changes how work gets done, not who is accountable for it. The risk isn’t using AI it’s using it without clear review, ownership, and quality standards. When we use it as a shortcut, a fix. Perhaps it’s a symptom in how we do work currently, which sometimes feels too rush to be sustainable.
My prowess starts the engagement, the machine drafts. I command it, verify, and sign. The recommendation is mine, and if it fails, my phone rings.
That’s a clear accountability model. The risk is when The machine drafted it becomes a reason to stop questioning it.
Agreed, Diamantino, and that risk is why verification can't be a vibe check. My rule is before anything ships, the machine argues against its own draft. Strongest case, instructed to win, not to balance. Trust in the machine is rented daily, never owned. The moment "it drafted it" becomes "it settled it," the stake quietly changed hands.
There are a few things we can delegate, but essential stuff I feel we need to still own it.
Delegation is fine, but for the essentials we still need to own the decision and the outcome. Althoug in this modern age is hard no to fall prey of convenience.
I wouldn't say I delegate…I query, challenge, research, and verify.
We need to start thinking what is going on, because in a way we are starting idolatry a tool, that is slowly convincing us that we can be bottle up.
AI, sorry the tool, can assist, but humans still own decisions, quality, and consequences. In today’s environment, saying ‘AI did it’ avoids responsibility. The better question is who reviewed, approved, and stands behind the outcome? That for me is a better approach.
It’s an advanced tool that changes how work gets done, not who is accountable for it. The risk isn’t using AI it’s using it without clear review, ownership, and quality standards. When we use it as a shortcut, a fix. Perhaps it’s a symptom in how we do work currently, which sometimes feels too rush to be sustainable.