Leadership

Reading the “Man and Machine” chapter of Zero to One, I was struck by how confidently Peter Thiel and Blake Masters argued that computers would complement humans rather than replace them. Their reasoning was straightforward: computers excel at processing data; humans bring judgment. Build businesses that combine those strengths. Then AI advanced. In a December 2025 interview with The Spectator, Thiel described AI as “probably more of a substitute than a complement” to human labour. ...

There is a pattern in senior resumes and LinkedIn profiles that makes me more uncomfortable every year. Someone “grew revenue by 38%.” Someone else “reduced costs by $4.2M.” Another “increased engineering productivity by 60%.” Sometimes I know the work behind these lines well enough to know that the link between the person and the number was much weaker than the sentence suggests. It is tempting to call this a problem of dishonest people. My view is that it is worse than that. I believe we built a market that rewards the performance and punishes the truth. In my experience, the candidate who writes “grew revenue by 38%” is more likely to get the interview than the one who honestly describes a shared effort. When the reward for exaggeration is high and the chance of being checked is low, I do not see exaggeration as a personal failure. I see it as the rational response to the system we built. ...

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has published an unusually direct argument about the future of AI development: the companies building the most capable models need to slow down. He is not calling for them to stop, or to give up the benefits AI may bring. He is asking them to leave enough time to understand, evaluate, and control the systems they are making more powerful. What makes this worth reading is who is saying it. Amodei runs one of the companies competing to build those models. He faces the same pressure to move faster as everyone else, and he is arguing that the pace itself has become part of the problem. ...

Anthropic published a new piece last week, The AI-Native SDLC Playbook. It is long, detailed, and worth the time. It also lines up closely with what I have been writing here for the better part of a year. The argument at its center takes one sentence: code is no longer the bottleneck. Everything in the document follows from it. Once agents write most of the implementation, the constraint moves to the stages on either side, the ones still running at human speed. Approval queues build. Controls sized for human output stop matching what arrives at them. Governance that meets monthly cannot govern work that ships hourly. ...

A few days ago I kicked off several research tasks in parallel and didn’t check which model was running underneath. All of them defaulted to Claude Opus 4.8. When I looked at the bill, I’d spent $350. So the question became obvious. Was the output better? No. I compared the results against similar research I’d run before on cheaper models. No meaningful difference in quality. I still had to verify every source and go deeper on half the areas myself. The expensive model just sounded more confident while doing it. ...

I ended the last post with a question: the next challenge is not building the Judgment Log. It is whether anyone writes in it once the deadline is two hours away. That question only has a useful answer if the artifact is light enough to actually use. So instead of arguing for it further, I want to show it. Take a fictional but familiar scenario. A checkout flow. A promotional window. A promo code validation feature built using AI-assisted development. It shipped. Three weeks later, it broke when the campaign introduced expired codes. In the post-mortem, nobody could answer the three questions that mattered: what did the PM cut and why, what did the designer choose between, and what did the engineer override. ...

In April, Meta employees burned through 73.7 trillion tokens in roughly thirty days. The company found out not because spending crossed some alarming threshold, but because an internal leaderboard, nicknamed Claudeonomics, had turned token consumption into a competition. Employees and teams were ranked by how much they used. The system did exactly what it was built to do: usage went up. What it could never show anyone was whether any of that usage produced something worth the cost. Meta is now dismantling the leaderboard in favor of a centralized monitoring platform called AI Gateway, built to track spending in real time and flag unusual spikes. ...

In 2012, I was given a project at Dalet that I did not fully understand at the time: move the entire company from waterfall to Agile. We were a mid-size product company with engineering teams spread across time zones, and waterfall was doing what waterfall always does at that scale, creating the illusion of control while real problems accumulated in the gaps between phases. The transition worked. And the productivity gains were not incremental. Engineers who had spent months waiting for approval to write code were suddenly shipping every two weeks. The business could see working software, give real feedback, and change direction without blowing up a six-month plan. It felt like the industry had discovered something fundamental. ...

In a post I wrote last December, I discussed the production triangle: the constraint that governs every production system, including software. You can optimize for two of three dimensions, time, quantity, and quality, but never all three. Push velocity while adding features, and quality absorbs the cost. Every time, without exception. This constraint is not new. Kahneman mapped the cognitive mechanism in Thinking, Fast and Slow: under time pressure, we disengage System 2, the slow, deliberate reasoning that catches the things that will hurt us later, and default to fast, intuitive pattern-matching. Kuutila et al.’s 2020 systematic review of the software engineering literature confirmed the outcome: increased throughput, decreased quality, and a root cause that almost always traces back to the pressure itself being a product of bad estimation. The triangle is not a theory. It is physics. ...

The bar for building has collapsed. Anyone with an AI assistant can produce a prototype, a draft, a working script. That is not the challenge anymore. The challenge is identifying people who can tell whether what was built is right, catch what is wrong, and make the call on what to do about it. That is a different hire than the one most managers have been trained to make. And the stakes are higher now, because your hiring decision is no longer a baseline. It is a multiplier. ...