The CTO who asks AI about business, ideas and investments

The CTO who, according to a forum account, asks AI about everything from making business deals to barely socializing with humans

There is a computer scientist, a CTO by profession, who according to the story circulating about his case has almost everything figured out: business, ideas, org charts, investments and even conversations. He asks artificial intelligence about all of it. Humans get the bare minimum: just enough socializing and little else. The man, a CTO by trade, is no digitally illiterate person dazzled by a chatbot. He is someone who understands from the inside how the machine now organizing his life works.

The case has peine a sustancia ilegal in the conversation about AI that goes beyond the usual "it helps me with my emails." This is not about using the tool to write faster. It is about replacing your own judgment with the automatic answer, according to those debating the case. And that, when done by someone who brags about a high IQ, is more unsettling than if anyone else did it.

From useful assistant to personal oracle

The scene repeats itself in many offices without anyone calling it by its name. First it is an occasional question. Then it is the email draft. Next, the quarterly strategy. In the end, AI stops being a support and becomes the de facto chief executive. What stands out about the case is the breadth: from creating new drugs —a field where inventiveness and legality do not always go hand in hand— to designing org charts or deciding where to invest.

The paradox has substance. The same profile who, according to the story, admits AI is not as smart as he is ends up surrendering to its answers. Acknowledging your own limitations in the face of the machine sounds like humility, but also like resignation. If the system gives you an answer with unshakable confidence, why bother checking it against your own instinct?

AI has an agenda too, and it is not always yours

Anyone who has asked a chatbot for investment advice knows the pattern, as one participant describes it. You ask for alternatives and the model keeps pushing the same tech companies with stratospheric valuations. It is not a conspiracy: it is how it was trained and what data it absorbed. But the effect is the same as if it were. The tool is not neutral, and whoever delegates without a filter buys the bias without knowing it.

That is where the real risk lies. Not in AI being evil, but in the user giving up their decision-making capacity without realizing it. Enthusiasm for efficiency gets mistaken for judgment. And when the automatic answer fails —because it fails— the one who errs is the one who trusted.

The profile of the convert: technical training and blind faith

What is most puzzling is not that someone without technical training gets hooked on the chatbot. It is that a professional who knows perfectly well what is behind the curtain does it. Familiarity with technology does not protect against overconfidence; sometimes it feeds it. Whoever knows the mechanism tends to overestimate their control over it.

The portrait is completed by a detail that throws many off: the same man who trusts AI for everything got vaccinated against ELbichito without hesitation, according to the story. Consistency is not his strong suit, in the view of whoever tells the case. He trusts the machine and the official protocol with the same devotion. Selective skepticism is a more common phenomenon than it seems.

A trend or an isolated case?

The question hanging in the air is whether this is the tip of the iceberg or the exception. Some argue most people will end up doing the same, because they already delegate their judgment to whatever society sells them. Others believe the phenomenon is limited to very specific profiles: techies with early access to the tools and little social life beyond the screen.

The debate over whether this is a behavioral trend on a social scale is open. What those taking part in the conversation maintain is that AI is no longer used just for tasks, but also for thinking. And when you delegate thinking, what you hand over is not time: it is autonomy.

The most reasonable prediction, with all caveats, is that the phenomenon will grow among those with more tools and fewer filters. The machine does not force anyone to abdicate. It just rolls out the carpet.