> Generative AI goes further. It changes evaluative capacity. A director who cannot read an architecture diagram can still form a direct judgement about a summa

> Generative AI goes further. It changes evaluative capacity. A director who cannot read an architecture diagram can still form a direct judgement about a summary, a search result, a recommendation, a draft, or a chatbot answer. It may technically be a "direct" judgement... except it's judging a very indirect artifact, one that likely has absolutely no review or validation by any human with any domain-knowledge or involvement. We should be careful to distinguish between the capabilities it actually gives people versus the capabilities they assume they've obtained. > That objection misses the political point. Governance action is triggered by confidence, not by methodological purity. The board does not need a technically valid comparison to demand an explanation. It only needs a comparison that feels legible. Right, whether that "directly evaluated summary" is itself correct matters less than we'd hope: Its mere presence can affect what happens. "Yes Minister" is a classic British comedy series, and in it certain manipulative bureaucratic characters are very aware of this phenomenon, cynically penning or revealing "reports" and "cautions" in order to achieve a certain policy outcome.