wired.com · via Wired
The judgment, relationship and timing work doesn't automate away — it becomes the job. Pairs with the glue-work argument.
Topic
#systems-thinking
10 entries
hbs.edu · via HBS / BCG
Field study: people who kept judgment over both what and how (centaurs) were most accurate and upskilled; the self-automators who abdicated stalled.
roughtype.com · via Nicholas Carr
The sharpest critic's case: automation dependence quietly erodes the very competence it was meant to support. Worth steelmanning.
arxiv.org · via Margaret-Anne Storey
AI pays down code debt while running up two new kinds — eroded shared understanding (cognitive) and lost rationale (intent). Agency loss as a measurable org-health property.
sequoiacap.com · via Sequoia
If AI takes over hierarchy's information-routing job, what is the org chart even for? A provocation about rebuilding the company as an intelligence.
sloanreview.mit.edu · via Thomas Malone
Malone's collective-intelligence frame: groups plus machines as "superminds" that can out-think either alone — the optimistic bookend to the surrender literature.
cutlefish.substack.com · via John Cutler
Cutler's sharpest take on the theme: AI's value depends on whether it supports multiplayer collaboration or accelerates single-player isolation. Uses 4E cognition and stigmergy — shared context and trace-based coordination compounding into collective capability.
cutlefish.substack.com · via John Cutler
Context is not a transferable input you merge into understanding — teams enact it through interaction. The single-player fantasy of "just give the AI all the context" misses distributed cognition.
When every post carries tags, the tag index stops being navigation and becomes a mirror — you see where your attention actually went. A small consistent act accumulates into judgment you couldn't have designed up front.
Organizations write characters on people. When AI enters org dynamics, it responds to actual information flows — not the hierarchy.