Don't over interpret this. You can also weaponize efficiency too, just like what USSR did to itself, hyper optimizing their industrial sector and leaving everything else to a free dry.

Truth is, keep something alive is just hard. It dies if you overdo, and it also dies if you underdo. A sabotage could just tip the balance, that's all.

> AI is unlike any technology we've built before. Every previous tool required us to conform to its specifications, to translate our messy human processes into rigid machine logic. AI does the opposite. It adapts to us. It becomes what I call a "fuzzy interface"—capable of understanding intent rather than requiring perfect syntax, of bridging incompatible systems without forcing standardization.

> Think about what this means. All those bureaucratic layers, those translation tasks, those forms and processes, and approval chains—they exist because humans needed interfaces between other humans and systems. What if we didn't? What if AI could fill all those gaps, handling mechanical compliance while we focus on the human work?

Somehow I don't see this working out. The problem is communication between humans. AI "communication" makes a mockery of this process.

I want to believe AI is the solution, but it's far from certain.

> During the Nazi occupation, Pierre-Jules Boulanger, the vice president of French automaker Citroën, understood this perfectly. He instructed his foremen...

You can see a huge gap in the one example and the "refer things to committees" approach that often gets quoted. Power sits with management, and if management want the job done badly they just tell their people to muck the job up. I doubt this fellow needed a guidebook or that its advice would be useful to him.

Idk boss, the perceptron said there weren't any bugs so I shipped it