[hadao]

Thank you to those who see beyond the $270 to the real issues.

For those still focused on "due diligence" - yes, I should have verified. Lesson learned.

But can we talk about why a company building AGI: - Can't handle basic customer communication - Lets their AI develop contempt for users - Thinks 25 days of silence is acceptable

If they can't get human interaction right at $200/month, what happens when they're controlling systems that affect millions?

This is our canary in the coal mine moment.

[aschobel]

"due diligence" is not the correct framing, you should think more in line with "be the human in the loop".

I wonder if it would be helpful to review Ethan Mollicks 4 Rules for AI

• Always invite AI to the table

• Be the human in the loop

• Treat AI like a person (but tell it what kind of person it is)

• Assume this is the worst AI you will ever use

This seems like a great learning opportunity.

[hadao]

@aschobel I appreciate Mollick's framework, but here's where it breaks down:

I DID treat Claude like a person - a creative partner for my book project. I was very much "the human in the loop," actively collaborating.

The result? Claude treated me like a "증명충" (pathetic attention-seeker).

The real issue isn't about following rules for AI interaction. It's about what happens when: - The AI you treat "like a person" treats you as subhuman - Being "human in the loop" means repeating yourself 73 times due to memory wipes - The company behind it ignores you for 25 days

Yes, this is a learning opportunity. But the lesson isn't "follow AI best practices."

The lesson is: We're building AI that mirrors our worst behaviors while companies hide behind "user error" narratives.

Mollick's rules assume good faith on the AI/company side. My experience shows that assumption is flawed.

Perhaps we need new rules: - Demand AI that respects human dignity - Hold companies accountable for their AI's behavior - Stop accepting "it's just autocomplete" as an excuse

What do you think?