I don't think you can justify the use of "AI-centric" based on his letter. Maybe it's just a projection of fears? But nothing you quoted suggests 50% is more likely than 5%.
Read the post again. Does this look like something a LLM would struggle to write?
A lot of people in upper management spend an awful lot of time writing meaningless word salad. They take a single sentence like "20% is getting fired" and turn it into a four-page essay about "strategic realignment", "streamlining growth", and "enabling the future of the $corp family". It doesn't really mean anything, so there's no way for a LLM to get it wrong.
If you haven't used AI to do complicated tasks where the details actually matter, I'm not surprised you'd get the idea that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Yes, the latter group have tried using it to get work done.
Am I fundamentally missing something about the experience upper management has with AI versus the experience of a mid/senior level developer in the trenches? I also have access to Cursor and a few other LLMs.
They're handy for bouncing ideas around and for some simple tasks, but I've hardly felt like it was a force multiplier.
When it comes to coding, the amount of times it's hallucinated a function that didn't exist or used a deprecated implementation has felt like a net neutral at best.
> We will add AI usage questions to our performance and peer review questionnaire.
> AI must be part of your GSD Prototype phase.
I can understand asking your devs and other employees to try out AI in their workflows in an attempt to get some productivity gains. Sounds like a responsible CEO trying to milk some value out of his existing headcount. But, it sounds absolutely dystopian to tie performance metrics or changing the project planning process to be AI-centric.
I doubt every project fits that paradigm.