AI Mania Is Eviscerating Global Decision-Making

Note: This has been cross-posted to my company's blog, in case you think there is some use in sharing with someone in a format that looks more authoritative. Link here .

I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and it’s impossible to have rational conversations with them about it. I can’t name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out.

Over the past year, I’ve run point on all of our company’s sales, led the technical components of all but two of our engagements, and over the lifetime of this blog have had something like 300 catchups with professionals from around the world. This has ranged from people on the ground in niche service industries to executives at Fortune 500 companies 1 . Because of this, I've had a front-row view to our collective institutions across both the private and public sector undergoing breath-taking mass psychosis. This essay is an attempt to describe the bizarre dynamics that are currently at play, as I am in the rare position where my wellbeing is not contingent on paying lip service to madness, and to reassure the people trying to survive amidst all of this that they are not crazy.

The reality is thus: the people in charge either have no plan, or see no path forwards other than keeping their heads down. Not at banks, not at hospitals, not in our government institutions. The world’s organisations have been captured by people in the throes of frothing excitement, and saner people who now live in a state of constant commingled fear and frustration.

Reading this while working for a division that pivoted to provide interfaces for agentic workflows, only to discover that only ten users had ever touched the products we made for agents, only to pivot again to support for agentic workflows, which has a lot of competition because every company has to do something agentic now and there's only like four things you can do in that space, is bracing.

Are companies actually seeing massive productivity gains from their AI adoption? Does any of this sordid affair make sense ?

This should be an easy question, but it is surprisingly hard to get a straight answer to it. Executives that tell the press that their company has gone insane will quickly find themselves removed from their positions. Employees who are honest will find themselves fired in short-order, or “randomly” selected for a round of layoffs. In fact, it is in the interests of almost every actor in the space – boards, executives, employees, vendors, consultants – to obfuscate and misrepresent the success rate of AI projects. Many publicly traded companies are putting out announcements about their AI productivity gains when I know for a fact that the businesses have done nothing other than purchase Copilot licenses and declare victory.

Yet we need to know if these projects are panning out – if the total focus on AI as a core tenet of business strategy is succeeding at a reasonable rate, then a discussion about the relative risk and reward is warranted.

Unfortunately, we live in a dark timeline. All of the AI projects we have observed as a team are failing. Every single one – we have seen 0% success in a year and a half, not only amongst projects we have been asked to participate in 2 , but even within projects that we have observed in passing while doing totally unrelated work. Even if you grant that AI tooling accelerates specific workloads, the method and scale of the current investments is senseless. Frequently the failure is not related to AI itself, but rather that companies are terminally bad at running software projects effectively, and as I have remarked previously , AI projects are subject to all the failure modes of normal projects plus you can get everything right and then still fail because of the method's novelty. Very few companies are so good at shipping software that they can afford the extra risk profile.

Often enough, though, it’s an actual failure in what LLMs can accomplish. The most common version of this, being rolled out across businesses around the world, is the internally-facing chatbot, or for the more daring company, the customer-facing chatbot. The story is always the same. For the former, I’ve never seen substantial internal uptake from inside a business. Employees don’t use internal chatbots because companies tend to have low-quality documentation and an LLM is not psychic – it can only know things that have been written down and made accessible. For the latter customer-facing applications, I have rarely had a pleasant experience as a consumer, with perhaps the exception of live transcription during medical appointments – hardly something worth pivoting an entire organisation around. In both cases, project leaders are very careful to avoid tracking basic metrics, such as whether the tools are being used at all, or they track metrics that are easily gamed.

For example, my last consumer interaction was attempting to get help from Mitsubishi following an automotive failure, where a very polite robot asked me to describe the problem and that I’d receive a call back as soon as someone was available. This was the single most competent implementation of such a project I’ve seen in the wild, in that the voice was natural sounding, responded quickly, was clearly “live” in production, and promised a swift resolution.

That was six months ago, and I did not, in fact, get a call back.

When Mitsubishi did not call me back, what happened? Did that request just go into the void, showing one less incident for the year? Does it appear that the phone bot resolved my query without the need for human intervention? All we know is that it didn’t show up as an error, or I’d have received a call. I’m sure it looks great in all sorts of ways except the one that matters, which is that I was planning to buy a car and decided not to buy another one of theirs.

For this reason, our team has quickly learned while on an engagement not to ask anything about ongoing AI projects in any context – by the time that project has started, it is too late for the management team, and intervention is not possible until a crisis point is inevitably reached. There is no conceivable positive outcome. The failure rate is so high that even basic inquiry leaves us in an untenable position. Any coherent question about how it’s going, what the goal is, who is using it, constitutes an inadvertent attack on the chain of command responsible for the work because there are no good answers to anything . Even in rare cases where my interlocutor has stated that things are going well (usually while the project is still mid-flight and failure has not had a chance to manifest), it is generally obvious that they are doomed, but at least in these cases I can simply agree and then go home to scream into a pillow for six hours straight 3 .

All of this is to say that I am very confident that almost every report at a company about “massive AI productivity gains” is untrue as a matter of brute fact. Even if some companies are seeing clear gains, this is the exception, not the norm. With that assumption in place, we can talk about the dynamics at play, and how it has become impossible for many organisations to stay focused on things that actually matter to their long-term (or even short-term) health.

It has become outright dangerous to even raise the possibility that AI might not be the solution to a problem, let alone be the sole focus of a company’s entire strategy.

In every sufficiently large business we have observed (say, with 500+ employees), we have noted that continued advancement, and increasingly continued employment, has started to require repeated professions of belief in the transformative power of AI for said business. I am not talking about providing ideas about how to use AI in the business – I mean religious profession, declarations of faith. Overwhelmingly these statements are made by non-technicians, though it is not uncommon for technicians to emit deranged statements to curry favour.

There have been several occasions where I have seen someone, apropos of nothing, blurt out almost word-for-word “AI is changing everything”, only to concede moments later that their organisation does not currently use LLMs for anything, and indeed, that they cannot name a single thing that has changed other than they get some use out of ChatGPT (frequently the free-tier). In one extreme case, I have seen an executive confess that they had never even used ChatGPT or any AI tool in their life, immediately after producing a technical strategy for an organisation with $2B+ in revenue which was entirely centered around AI.

Initially these statements were so absurd on their face that I thought it was some cynical ploy to achieve thought leader status, and there are certainly some people doing this – I have had it admitted to me. But the broader reality is so much worse: people who have no background in the technology at all actually believe what they are saying . As a general rule you should avoid getting into business with a liar, but if you must , you can at least reason with them even if only in private. A true believer is much more threatening because they are impervious to even inducement by self-interest.

The turning point in my belief was watching someone with a spectacular amount of money on the line fire their highest performers because they were achieving that performance without LLMs. When an employer publicly talks about AI innovation, we have to ask ourselves if they’re simply trying to manipulate the market or customers. When they privately commit to strategies like this with their own money at stake, with no attempt to communicate that strategy to external clients, I can only assume they really mean what they’re saying.

A while ago, I wrote “Contra Ptacek’s Terrible Article On AI” , which was focused on the fact that many of Ptacek’s points in his own essay “My AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts” were internally inconsistent 4 . But on the crux of the matter, we are actually in total agreement, because he opens his essay with this:

Tech execs are mandating LLM adoption. That’s bad strategy.

Which is to say that we can sidestep arguments about the precise utility of LLMs entirely and we’re left in a very simple place – it is entirely obvious to both myself and Ptacek, two people that are coming at this from fairly opposed views, that people are being really, really stupid about this, and that organisations are demanding bizarre workflow constraints from their specialist staff. 5

These mandates have led to extremely strange places. Several of my peers now “AI-wash” their work, meaning that even when they can perfectly competently execute on their jobs to the satisfaction of their management teams, said managers are unhappy if the engineers haven’t used AI in the work… so now they’re lying about using LLMs even in contexts where their professional judgement is that they aren’t the appropriate tool. They just do the work, the same way they have for decades, and say Claude did it. Others are being measured on their AI bills with “token leaderboards”, where higher is better because I have evidently fallen into the pocket of Hell where the demons torment me by doing elaborate impressions of absolute fucking morons, so the people hired for their freakish ability to perform system optimisation do the obvious thing. They set the LLMs prompting themselves in a semi-plausible loop in case someone inspects the token consumption and then they watch Netflix. Not a single one has been caught, even when their own assessment of the output is that it isn’t suitable for deployment.

Checking out a parallel copy of our Go repository and telling the AI to rewrite the whole thing in Zig while I work on something else just so I can keep my job. I hate this shit so much. My job has usage tracking and quotas. I don’t use it for ac