a cpu about 1000x as strong as need to beat any human at chess, can't show a simple vibe coded website...
1,389 karma · joined October 11, 2012
Who will take responsibility and get fired and lose all pension etc.? Oh wait no one.
Well the citizens need to suck it up.
E.g. getting two r's in strawberry could very well have a very high "confidence score" while a random but rare correct fact might have a very well a very low one.
In short: LLM have no concept, or even desire to produce of truth
---
Way to go in showing you want a discussion, good job.
1. Introduce a “Clarity Standard” (Not an Anti-AI Rule) Don’t frame it as anti-AI. Frame it as decision hygiene. Propose lightweight norms in a team doc or retro:
TL;DR (≤3 lines) required
One clear recommendation
Max 5 bullets
State assumptions explicitly
If AI-assisted, edit to your voice
This shifts evaluation from how it was written to how usable it is. Typical next step: Draft a 1-page “Decision Writing Guidelines” and float it as “Can we try this for a sprint?”
2. Seed a Meme That Rewards Brevity Social proof beats argument. Examples you can casually share in Slack:
“If it can’t fit in a screenshot, it’s not a Slack message.”
“Clarity > Fluency.”
“Strong opinions, lightly held. Weak opinions, heavily padded.”
Side-by-side: AI paragraph → Edited human version (cut by 60%)
You’re normalizing editing down, not calling out AI. Typical next step: Post a before/after edit of your own message and say: “Cut this from 300 → 90 words. Feels better.”
3. Cite Credible Writing Culture References Frame it as aligning with high-signal orgs:
High Output Management – Emphasizes crisp managerial communication.
The Pyramid Principle – Lead with the answer.
Amazon – Narrative memos, but tightly structured and decision-oriented.
Stripe – Known for clear internal writing culture.
Shopify – Publicly discussed AI use, but with expectations of accountability and ownership.
You’re not arguing against AI; you’re arguing for ownership and clarity. Typical next step: Share one short excerpt on “lead with the answer” and say: “Can we adopt this?”
4. Shift the Evaluation Criteria in Meetings When someone posts AI-washed text, respond with:
“What’s your recommendation?”
“If you had to bet your reputation, which option?”
“What decision are we making?”
This conditions brevity and personal ownership. Typical next step: Start consistently asking “What do you recommend?” in threads.
5. Propose an “AI Transparency Norm” (Soft) Not mandatory—just a norm:
“If you used AI, cool. But please edit for voice and add your take.”
This reframes AI as a drafting tool, not an authority. Typical next step: Add a line in your team doc: “AI is fine for drafting; final output should reflect your judgment.”
6. Run a Micro-Experiment Offer:
“For one sprint, can we try 5-bullet max updates?”
If productivity improves, the behavior self-reinforces.
Strategic Reality If the CEO models AI-washing, direct confrontation won’t work. Culture shifts via:
Incentives (brevity rewarded)
Norms (recommendations expected)
Modeling (you demonstrate signal-dense writing)
You don’t fight AI. You make verbosity socially expensive.
If helpful, I can draft:
A 1-page clarity guideline
A Slack post to introduce it
A short internal “writing quality” rubric
A meme template you can reuse
Which lever feels safest in your org right now?
70K a year is poor in California, but top 1% rich in almost any country in the world.
Low income disparities are countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Armenia to name the first three with below 30 GINI income.