Is this really a thing a lot of people do? I talk to a lot of people about their AI use and I don't think anyone has ever mentioned treating AI agents as coworkers.
9:44 AM · Jun 29, 2026 · 2.7K Views
AI safety researcher David Manheim argues high volume, not coworker status, prevents managers from vetting AI outputs
A Boston University study found managers overlook AI-generated errors.
522053.3K
Sentiment
Sentiment building, check back later.
Cluster Engagement
Digg Deeper
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS1KBOOKMARKS1LIKES5REPLIES2
Timothy B. Lee@binarybits
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/business/artificial-intelligence-workplace-consequences.html
Timothy B. Lee@binarybits
Is this really a thing a lot of people do? I talk to a lot of people about their AI use and I don't think anyone has ever mentioned treating AI agents as coworkers.
2hViews 1KLikes 5Bookmarks 1
David Manheim@davidmanheim
@binarybits Not treating them as coworkers, but I've definitely seen people with a view that AI work needs less vetting, even when they should know better. But I'd bet this is because of relative volume and speed of AI produced work making review infeasible, not different mind-sets.
2hViews 13Likes 2
John Thacker@Thackej
@davidmanheim @binarybits Agreed. I find that AI work, at least in software development, requires as much code review as any other work. Sometimes a bit less than a junior coder's output per LOC, but volume more than makes up for it. Not as fun if you're the type who prefers coding yourself to review.
2hViews 2