I sometimes think of Patrick Stewart the same way as Huey Lewis and the News. Patrick was a stellar actor, and he prefered theater. But Hollywood paid the bills. Huey was energentic, charismatic and put on a great show. He and the News had a pasion for soul music. But pop music paid the bills.

Both got to follow their passion while making it big in something related. And good for them.

You seem to be confused. Yes-men were often rather smart. They said yes in a ploy to get what they wanted, like a promotion and higher pay.

Lemmings, sheep and such weren’t necessarily not thinking, they are drawn to being part of a social group and follow it for a sense of belonging. They often spend a lot of time thinking about how to stay part of the group.

Doormats are people who avoid confrontation, and again, they think about it a lot, but find themselves unable to stand up to it.

There are of course people who just have low IQ. But I assume you aren’t belittling them for using AI to help them do what they can’t.

I will give you that on average, a human partner is less likely to agree. But there are plenty who will just agree with everything you say. So as humans, we evaluate what kind of partner we have, and treat their feedback accordingly. It’s the same with AI. You could of course tell AI not to be that way if you want.

When brainstorming with an AI, you aren’t brainstorming with their CEO. Even Grok can’t do that, no matter how much they try. Amd that is why people don’t use grok. They do have some influence over what the AI says… but they also influence people with news and ads. So both the person and the AI are being influenced by billionaires and companies. The person by many many more actually.

So when I brainstorm with a person, they are never confidently wrong? And they never have their own ideas on how I should do it.

The brain is a muscle… really? I wonder where you heard that. Probably a person. Maybe you should fact check that with AI next time.

Noone says that asking a person a question is offloading their thinking. But if you ask AI it is? How does that work?

How about if the AI was marketed saying it specifically would not allow such things, but it did anyway. Does the company get off scott free? (Can’t say I have ever typed out “scott free”. That can’t be the real words, can it?)

Like others have said, CEO is different. Tax/legal wise there is a set of positions with the company that are defined, and registered with the government. They are empowered to act for the company in ways regular employees are not. I think the line to draw is between them and the rest. If a person is a federally registered representative of the company, then all behaviour outside the office matters. I also think they should bear legal responsibility for the crimes of the company as well. But we know that won’t happen.

Reading this tells me the guy doesn’t know much about AI. It just isn’t as simple. You have multiple real people involved in anything an AI does. So which one is resposible… The people who built the AI model? The people who built an agent on top of the model? The person who told it to do what it did? I mean, certainly it isn’t the AI. At least he has that part right…