This is an interesting way to think about AI and jobs. The more intertwined your routine and discretionary tasks are, the more resilient you likely are to it. theatlantic.com/economy/2026…

UC Berkeley researchers found AI is making white-collar workers MORE burned out, not less. Turns out nonstop AI-powered productivity doesn’t leave room for rest or quality. The tool is good; the expectations it creates are the problem. #AI #FutureOfWork fortune.com/2026/02/10/ai-fu…

A lot of people think this fix is as simple as "get people to write down stuff" Institutional knowledge, also includes life experience, instinct, world knowledge, it's not 100,000 txt files, it's essentially the world.

The golden years of AirBNB were a temporary arbitrage on depreciation. There was a universe of beautiful well-maintained properties and hosts that had not been worn down by short term guests. And the AirBNB hosts didn’t properly estimate the cost of depreciation to maintain that standard, so costs were irrationally low That era fundamentally cant return, it was a temporary arbitrage opportunity There was once a supply of fairly pristine unused space and now there’s not If a space does manage to hit the 2014 standard, it must charge a lot more to fight depreciation And at that point a hotel is generally better

Yes

CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they’re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI. So when they play with AI, they see the happy path results, often not considering the next 10 or 20 things that have to happen to get sustainable results from agents. “Look I made this awesome product prototype”. Yes but you didn’t have to review the code before it went into production and fix a bunch of issues. “Look I generated a contract”. Yes but you didn’t verify all the terms before it goes out to the counterparty and didn’t have to wire up all the past contracts to work with. The best thing you can do as a CEO is to use AI a *ton* to figure out the real implications of agents in the enterprise, and come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work that goes into them.

AI automates tasks, not necessarily jobs. Because a role is never just an isolated output but an assembly of judgment, coordination, accountability and context. That is probably what many analyses of "AI replacing white-collar work" still miss. buff.ly/nWsCrZq

Imo, this has more profound implications than it sounds. Middle management was largely performative theater but it was also a slight nod to a system of traditional career progression at tech companies - a ladder and a process of feedback by your immediate boss. Feedback meant companies were forced to define good behavior vs bad behavior aka values etc. With middle managers gone, the way this plays out is that all conversations become purely tactical over time with a tacit understanding that we are here to get the job done and gtfo. Sounds exciting to everyone tired of meaningless bureaucracy like 1:1s and quarterly appraisals. But this is actually more insidious. Because it depletes an org of its function as a career progressor. Meanwhile, pure tactical work quickly translates to the exact same cluelessness that orgs had with layers of heirarchy and bullshit titles. No one knows where the ship is going though it's moving. At some point most people mentally check out. It's not exactly quiet quitting - value gets produced in the short term. For all its flaws, AI actually helps keep the lights on and more. And folks aren't exactly planning to leave and jump ship. But they also don't come to work with a purpose. Orgs become temporary vehicles of sustenance, not places where careers are made. Now the extraordinary 0.1% still find a way to navigate the system and progress their careers due to sheer talent or ambition. Those with very high agency but poor people skills quit to start something of their own. What remains are schritte-für-schritte folks. These folks used to work for the promise of linear progression. They aren't poor performers by any means. In fact they are the most hard working middle who get shit done and hope that their work gets recognized. These are the ones who come prepared for their weekly 1:1s because it means something to them. They are the ones who care about values and culture and cheer when the org does well. They may be sceptical at times but are still sold on the overall idea of the org and its purpose. When orgs invested in people and promised a career progression, many of these folks did well for the orgs and for themselves. With that system officially or tacitly removed, they turn into zombies bracing for the next lay off cycle.

The impact of AI is already producing a massive flood of content in so many creative industries--I don't know how we are going review or evaluate all this stuff. The peer review system was already at a breaking point. washingtonpost.com/technolog…