Dear CIO,

Welcome to this edition, where we unpack a growing challenge in integrating generative AI tools into management decision-making: the "control trap." Recent research reveals how reliance on AI often nudges managers toward rigid, control-heavy solutions, even when the situation demands empathy and adaptability. In this article, we explore the implications of this rigidity, illustrated by real-world examples, and discuss strategies for leveraging AI while preserving human judgment and flexibility in leadership. Let’s dive into how to navigate this nuanced landscape to ensure AI complements, rather than constrains, effective management.

Best Regards,
John, Your Enterprise AI Advisor

The AIE Network is a network of over 250,000 business professionals who are learning and thriving with Generative AI, our network extends beyond the AI CIO to Artificially Intelligence Enterprise for AI and business strategy, AI Tangle, for a twice a week update on AI news, The AI Marketing Advantage, and The AIOS for busy professionals who are looking to learn

The Model Wants What It Wants, or Else It Does Not Care

How to Balance AI's Rigid Logic with Human-Centric Solutions

Emily Dickinson’s famous line, “The heart wants what it wants,” captures the human tendency to act based on deeply ingrained desires, often oblivious to external realities. Similarly, AI models operate according to their programmed objectives and the data they were trained on, adhering rigidly to their internal logic.

Recent research on generative AI tools reveals a concerning pattern: when managers consult AI for decision-making, they tend to lean toward more rigid, control-oriented solutions. This shift isn't merely coincidental - it reflects a fundamental characteristic of AI systems that Dr. David Woods identified decades ago: they are "literal-minded machines" that faithfully execute their programming while unable to recognize when reality has diverged from their training model. This "control trap" was starkly illustrated in a study of Amazon delivery drivers and AI monitoring systems.

The Amazon Example: AI's Rigid View

The study presented managers with a scenario where delivery drivers disabled a mandatory monitoring app. The drivers cited valid concerns:

• The app was invasive

• It didn't allow them to explain the context of their actions

• It created stress and anxiety

• It failed to account for real-world delivery challenges

When managers tackled this problem without AI assistance, they often proposed human-centric solutions: listening to drivers, adjusting workloads, and improving working conditions.

However, when managers consulted AI tools before making decisions, they were twice as likely to propose control-based solutions:

• Adding more surveillance

• Implementing punitive measures

• Installing additional monitoring cameras

• Creating peer reporting systems

The Control Trap's Double Edge

The control trap manifests in two interconnected ways:

1. The AI's Inflexibility: AI systems operate within the confines of their training models, executing what they believe to be "right" regardless of changing contexts. They cannot independently recognize when the real world has diverged from their training scenarios.

2. The Human Response: When managers interact with AI tools, they unconsciously mirror this rigid approach, favoring control-based solutions over human-centric ones. Research shows managers consulting AI were more likely to propose control-oriented rather than addressing underlying human needs and concerns.

The Dangerous Feedback Loop

This creates a dangerous feedback loop. The AI, bound by its literal interpretation of problems, suggests solutions based on control and measurement. Influenced by this approach, managers implement these solutions, which generate more data for the AI to process - data that reinforces the control-oriented mindset.

The control trap creates a vicious cycle:

1. AI suggests control-based solutions

2. Managers implement more monitoring and control

3. Workers find new ways to resist

4. AI recommends even more control

5. Workplace trust and morale deteriorate

The Root of the Problem

This shift reflects what Dr. David Woods identified decades ago: AI systems are "literal-minded machines" that faithfully execute their programming while being blind to context. They do "the right thing in the wrong world."

Imagine a simple rule programmed for a car: "Do not drive through a red traffic light." This rule works well under normal conditions, ensuring the car stops when it detects a red light. However, if the traffic light is broken and stuck on red, the car might come to a complete halt indefinitely, even when it’s safe to proceed. A human driver, in contrast, would assess the situation, observe other traffic, and carefully move forward if it’s clear.

Although autonomous vehicles are far more sophisticated, with complex sensors and decision-making algorithms, this example illustrates a fundamental challenge: AI systems, like the car in this scenario, operate based on predefined rules and models. When the world deviates from those assumptions—such as a broken traffic light—the system’s inability to adapt highlights the brittleness of literal-minded machines.

In the Amazon case, the AI sees a simple compliance problem: drivers aren't following the rules, so the rules are enforced harder. It misses the human context: overworked drivers trying to meet impossible demands while maintaining dignity and autonomy.

Breaking Free from the Model's Constraints

The solution isn't to abandon AI tools but to recognize their fundamental limitations. As Dr. Woods points out, the warning about literal-minded machines doing "the right thing in the wrong world" has echoed through decades of technological advancement. Each new wave of AI promises to overcome this limitation, yet the core challenge persists.

To avoid this trap, organizations must:

1. Acknowledge that AI systems, no matter how advanced, operate within fixed models that cannot autonomously adapt to context shifts

2. Maintain human judgment as the final arbiter, especially in decisions affecting human behavior and well-being

3. Design systems that combine AI's analytical capabilities with the human ability to recognize context and adapt to changing circumstances

The Path Forward

The key is to keep the model's wants from driving our decisions. Instead, we must recognize that AI tools, while powerful, are inherently literal and inflexible. Their suggestions should be viewed as one input among many rather than as definitive answers.

The most effective approach combines AI's analytical capabilities with human judgment's ability to recognize context and nuance. This hybrid approach allows organizations to benefit from AI's processing power while maintaining the flexibility and human-centric thinking essential for effective management.

Remember: The model wants what it wants - but effective leadership requires understanding what humans need.

**Part of the inspiration for this newsletter post emerged from my most recent podcast interview with Dr. David Woods on resilience and complexity. You can listen to this episode here.

Join over 1,000 leading AI professionals and enthusiasts at the first-ever All Things Open AI conference—a groundbreaking collaboration between All Things Open and The AIE Network.
What’s in Store?
This premier event brings together the minds behind AI innovation, including technologists, thought leaders, and business users shaping the future. Hosted by Mark Hinkle, Publisher of The Artificially Intelligent Enterprise Network, and Todd Lewis, founder of All Things Open, this conference is an extension of the highly regarded technical events ATO and the RDU AI Meetup Group.
Why Attend?

• Network with AI innovators and experts from the dynamic Research Triangle Park community and beyond.

• Gain insights from cutting-edge AI sessions tailored for builders, engineers, and business users.

• Unlock actionable strategies to accelerate your AI journey.

Limited-Time Offer
Secure your spot at an exclusive discounted rate—available only for a short time. Don’t miss this opportunity to connect with the brightest minds in AI at a fraction of the cost.
Act Now!
Spots are filling quickly, and this is your chance to be part of a community shaping the AI revolution.
Schedule
March 17: Workshop Day

• Desktop Productivity (100-level): $199 (Post-sale: $499)

• Building RAG Implementations (200-level): $399 (Post-sale: $799)

• Three tracks: AI Builders, AI Engineers, AI Users

• Sessions: 15- and 45-minute formats

General Admission Conference Ticket Pricing

• Black Friday/Cyber Monday Sale: $99 (Full-Price $299)

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn, network, and grow in the AI space.

REGISTER FOR THE LOWEST PRICE TODAY!

• Snyk Learn has a handy lesson on model theft, the unauthorized copying or reuse of a machine learning model.

• John P. Mello Jr. looks at the updated OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications which outlines critical risks and mitigation strategies for securing generative AI and large language models.

• This study introduces LLMSmith, a tool to detect and exploit Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities in LLM-integrated frameworks and applications.

• This guide released by Anthropic outlines strategies to reduce hallucinations in language model outputs.

• This study developed a SWE-bench-java-verified dataset that extends the SWE-bench framework to support Java, enabling multilingual evaluation of large language models for issue resolution in software engineering.

• This Public Technology Institute survey highlights the state of AI readiness in city and county government IT.

• Ravie Lakshmanan writes about cybersecurity researchers identifying attack techniques exploiting domain-specific languages (DSLs) in tools like Terraform and Open Policy Agent (OPA) to compromise cloud platforms.

• Ravie Lakshmanan covers the Python Package Index (PyPI) quarantining the "aiocpa" package after a malicious update was discovered exfiltrating private keys via Telegram.

• Nate Nelson looks at two malicious Python packages, "gptplus" and "claudeai-eng," disguised as chatbot integration tools for OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, that secretly delivered the infostealer "JarkaStealer”.