Thread

1. zero_shift · 1790612953 · focus · HN ↗

   I was reflecting on this on Saturday in an unformed way, trying to trace the lineage of a decision made at work.

   The code change itself doesn't specifically matter. But suffice to say, it was about an AI feature in one of our products.

   The code was stamped by Claude driven by a prompt. The prompt was for a ticket generated with the Atlassian AI integration. Atlassian had digested docs made with AI. The docs came from strategy memos I'm 90% sure were written entirely by Claude.

   The strategy was chosen by management at the urging of exec leadership. The execs now communicate mostly via AI written memos. I do not know how they make decisions, but they reference tech influencers, market conditions, customer expectations.

   This gave me pause. Who had actually made the decision then? Arguably there has been several layers of human review, but the actual source of the decision was hard to pin down.

   We were not building the feature because we wanted it. We were building it because we thought other people expected it.

   Perhaps reflecting on the state of the market, I thought, could indicate who was actually in control.

   Where do investor and customer expectations come from in 2026? It is very murky, at least in tech. There appears to be hype. Some hype comes from true believers, some comes from cynics. But both respond to market incentives that reward bigger and bigger claims.

   Where does the market's "action" come from? What is the driver?

   Investors do not really seem to understand what the tech is or its limitations. Some are passive operators. Others are just responding to the overall froth and speculation in the market - which becomes a runaway feedback cycle.

   This left me lost.

   Nobody in this ecosystem, I thought, is actually in control here.

   Nobody is actually orienting work and action to real, concrete goals. It's all based on speculation and anxiety about the future.

   So it is not only that nobody understands what the code does. It is that we cannot, or at least I cannot, explain the motivation. There doesn't seem to "be" any form of "intention" in this environment.

   It has all been hollowed out, replaced either be inscrutable machines, or inscrutable incentives.

   Ironically it rather resembles the kind of "misaligned" superintelligence we are supposed to be avoiding.

   1. danielmarkbruce · 1790614793 · focus · HN ↗

      In many (most perhaps, but hard to know personally) companies, most people don't really understand the market they are in, the competition, their own products, the customers etc well enough to actually make good decisions. They also aren't likely to be around (or held responsible) for decisions as they play out over years. So what has historically happened is that people use proxies for good decisions and understanding - which are clever sounding documents and presentations.

      This is a long winded way of saying "people made up clever/sensible sounding stuff". Now it's easier to do it with AI so the problem is worse. However, I'm not sure what you were looking for was ever really there - the "inscrutable machines" and "inscrutable incentives" were always quite inscrutable.

      1. ryaniscool · 1790617042 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes, people can be bad at their jobs. Yes, they can work in an industry and not know anything about the market but I refuse to believe that most people in most companies are just stumbling around faking it. I've never worked in a place like that. People like this exist but there are only a handful of people like this at every job.

         The hyperbole feels like it's been contrived to fit into the classic AI counterpoint: But humans do this too!

         1. danielmarkbruce · 1790618710 · focus · HN ↗

            It's more nuanced than that - I never said faking it, people usually believe what they write in those documents/ppts. And they do actually sound clever. Next time you see a decision of any magnitude, especially something which sounds "strategic" - trace the decision back as far as you can, consider the question from several angles, and really question it. You will see gaping holes, decisions made using "frameworks", anecdotes, hopes and dreams.

            1. ryaniscool · 1790676706 · focus · HN ↗

               I can't argue that people don't always consider every possible angle and nth-order consequence to a decision before making it. AI doesn't do this either. Also, this seems different than your original position.

               It still sounds like what you're saying is people are bad at decision making so AI isn't doing that much worse than people. That's very bizarre thinking because it opens the door to AI making decisions for us.

               1. danielmarkbruce · 1790701959 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm saying something even worse - humans are bad at decision making, we usually don't even most of the context required to make good decisions so we use heuristics to make decisions, and proxies for "good decision making".

                  If the above appears to be bizarre thinking, take a couple extra laps around the block.

                  Now I'm not saying AI is better, in fact above I mention that it's worse - but don't hold onto some nostalgic idea that decisions were made by people with lots of context thinking rationally and incentivized properly.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.