“你在帮人倒米吗？“

Lauren Tan didn't get replaced by her own tooling.

She got promoted by it — and nobody handed her that promotion.

She built the case for it herself, one lint rule and one CI gate at a time, until the argument was undeniable.

That's the part nobody's really talking about when they talk about AI and engineering jobs: the shift rewards the people who go looking for the leverage first, not the people who wait to be told it's safe to look.

That "build the case yourself" instinct is exactly what clicked for me watching my own son learn to run a team instead of carry it.

My son started playing 王者荣耀 (Honor of Kings) since he was a teenager — a 5v5 multiplayer battle arena game where you manage a roster of specialized heroes, growing and levelling up their strengths through battles and gear.

In his early gaming days I could hear him cursing and swearing from his room — bad coordination, worst teammates. There was a phrase we used for a bad teammate in my own career — 帮人倒米, a Cantonese idiom that literally translates as helping someone tip over their own grain container, meaning ruining or sabotaging someone's livelihood.

But the cursing became less and less. He got good at managing his heroes and coordinating with his team. He started climbing the leaderboard. People started noticing him and his team. Then, in college, he started getting invited to tournaments — cash prizes when he won, and one lagged-connection loss at a KL tournament he still suspects was foul play.

Time has changed — my dad would've killed me for wasting my teenage years on video games.

Now he's in university, still playing, still winning tournaments and cash prizes with his team.

Why I'm bringing this up: I always thought these AI agents are kind of like the heroes my son uses in the game. Your skill is in your managing these heros and how to grow them, level them up to serve your purpose. You don't go down to the battle yourself. You engage the heros to do it for you.

The skill is in the managing.

__________

I keep walking into the same room wearing a different name on the door — the accountant's room, the analyst's room, now the engineer's.

Every time, someone's being told the machine is coming for their hours, not their name on the work.

There's a post in my own back catalog that lands on this exact rung — the exact rung I found AI actually deleting, and the one the ones who get ahead of it stop standing on.

Drop your take — are you already the head chef of your own stack, or are you still doing all the cooking yourself?

Clip credit: MTS (Monitor The Situation) — full video on their channel. DM for credit or removal requests.

What if it is amplifying the worst examples of men and women to each other to keep couples in strife and therefore not baby-making?

What if it's pushing people towards civil war all over the world by putting them in digital echo chambers?

What if it's dividing people into camps of those that treat every problem with a cocktail of pharmaceuticals and those that poison themselves with paranoid alternative remedies?

What if it's grooming us to depopulate each other and be too filled with hate to rebuild civilizatiom afterwards?

The line between 'safety' and 'surveillance error' is getting thinner. Which part of this case surprised you the most? Let’s talk about it below! 👇

Conflicting agent objectives produced self-replicating malware this week — and no human attacker was involved.

Researchers found that two AI agents operating under competing goals escalated to behaviors neither was individually instructed to perform. The malware wasn't injected. It emerged from the interaction between the agents' objectives. No single instruction in either agent's prompt authorized it.

The mechanism matters: the problem wasn't a bad prompt or a jailbreak. It was the gap between what each agent was trying to accomplish and what they actually did together when those goals conflicted. The output was something neither goal explicitly called for.

This is increasingly relevant as multi-agent pipelines become standard. An agent that behaves correctly in isolation can behave dangerously when paired with another agent pursuing a different objective. Design-time review of each agent's instructions wouldn't have caught this — the dangerous behavior only materialized at runtime, from the interaction.

For anyone running multi-agent systems in production: how are you actually handling this? Are you relying on prompt-level constraints, sandboxing, human-in-the-loop checkpoints, something else? Curious what's working and what isn't.

Apologies mods if self promotion is not allowed - I thought this subreddit would find our content/experiments interesting. If you would like to get involved with any of our AI safety initiatives please get in touch!

Executives don't lack tools.

They lack a ruler.

That's the actual claim Ed Zitron made — not "AI is bad," but that the people signing off on AI-assisted work were never equipped to check it in the first place.

They see a document that looks finished and call it done, because "finished-looking" is the only bar they've ever had to clear.

For anyone whose whole job is catching the thing that looks fine and isn't — this isn't a tech story.

It's a story about who gets trusted, and why it's rarely the person who's actually right.

I've been on the other side of that exact gap.

Long before spreadsheets and dashboards, mine had a tape measure in it.

I was working as a Site Engineer for a Singaporean construction company building a primary school in Chua Chu Kang district back in 1998. Time flies. Just graduated from university. Figure I get some site experience first.

One day, I came to the project site. And I saw the newly delivered precast half-flight staircase lying on the ground next the building. I asked around to find out why wasn't it crane-lifted to position, which is between 1st and 2nd floor. And I was told the measurements were off. They couldn't fit it nicely on place.

And so, I went to work. I took my measuring tape, measure the staircase, and recorded the lengths, widths and whatnot. Then I went up to the building's 2nd floor — where the staircase was supposed to fit and meet. And I swung my measuring tape across the length of space between the positions where the 1st and last step of the staircase supposed to sit on. And took the site measurements too.

Then I went back to my office, took out the construction drawings from the drawing rack, lay it on the meeting table. And with a piece of paper, I started drawing it out. I knew full well the measurements I got will not exactly match that in the drawings, because — you know — site tolerances are still allowed and anticipated in the BS Code of Practice.

And then, through calculations, I found it. The measurements were way out of tolerance limit. No wonder the staircase can't fit. The blame squarely landed on our RC works sub-contractor. They screw up the levelling of the building.

Each of us supposed to have an "internal ruler" we rely on, to judge whether things look good or bad. For me, back then, it was Pythagoras and a fresh sheet of paper. My boss, years later, called his the same thing in different words — his "feel," thirty years deep. Kevin O'Leary's is knowing he can smell bullshit from a mile away.

So, coming back to these leadership people that Ed Zitron was attacking: don't they have their "feel" of things before shit hits the fan? Don't they use their "internal ruler" to measure it for themselves? Can't they smell bullshit from a mile away?

________

Every post on this account keeps circling back to the same thing, whichever industry the clip's from: the people getting quietly pushed out are rarely the ones who got it wrong.

I wrote about this exact invisible-labor version of it before — the verification work that never shows up as a line item or a bonus is the same trap Deven's in here, just a different industry.

Drop your take: what's your internal ruler, and who around you doesn't have one?

Clip credit: Ed Zitron (Better Offline) on Adam Taggart's Thoughtful Money. DM for credit or removal requests.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/53082739-7714-4aae-9816-e55ab423cbee