The account comes from a lawyer at a legal tech startup. Her manager started using ChatGPT to write his Slack messages. Then his emails. Then he mandated that all employees consult AI before every meeting. Eventually, he fed a multi-hundred-page company document into the chatbot — employees called it "the Bible" — and directed staff to route every decision through it. He used ChatGPT to evaluate who should be let go.
She quit.
Futurism published the story on Monday alongside several similar accounts. A sales professional described a manager who had outsourced performance review prep entirely to AI. A founder's team was fed nonsensical directives generated by chatbot and told to act on them. In each case, the manager's logic was approximately the same: AI is smarter and faster than I am, therefore AI should make the decisions I used to make.
There is something instructive in how quickly this goes wrong. The problem is not that these managers are using AI. The problem is the model they have in mind when they use it. They are treating an AI tool as a replacement for judgment, not a complement to it. They are asking a language model to answer questions it was not designed to handle — questions that require context, relationships, and accountability. The results, predictably, erode exactly the trust that makes teams function.
What a business owner should take from this
The fear that AI will replace human decision-making is less useful than the observation that bad AI use does not replace decision-making — it just obscures who is actually responsible for the decision. That is not efficiency. That is liability dressed up as productivity.
The distinction that matters is between AI that does tasks and AI that substitutes for judgment. One frees you up. The other creates a layer of plausible deniability that tends to corrode everything underneath it.
Viktor lives inside Slack and Microsoft Teams. You @mention it in a thread the same way you would ask a colleague. The output — a PDF, a report, a task created in your CRM, an email drafted in Gmail — lands where it should land.
That architecture matters more than it might appear. Viktor runs on Claude, GPT-4, and Gemini — all three models in a single credit balance, with automatic model selection — and it is built around tasks, not conversations. It does not make decisions. It prepares the ground for them.
What that looks like in practice: a weekly briefing document drafted and waiting in your inbox before your leadership meeting, rather than an AI you interrogate live to generate talking points you then present as your own thinking. A customer complaint thread in Slack triaged and summarised for the support lead who handles the outcome, not a bot that writes the resolution on their behalf. A research brief on a prospective client pulled from available sources and delivered to the account manager before the call — not a chatbot the account manager presses in the meeting when they have not prepared.
The managers in the Futurism piece were not malicious. They were overwhelmed, and they found something that felt like relief. The mistake was handing the tool the wheel instead of using it to reduce the friction of doing the job themselves.
You get $100 of free credits to begin. Registering for the free credits runs a $1 card check — it is a validity hold, not a charge, and it releases automatically. No time limit, no commitment. When you are ready to go further, $50 comes straight off your first bill.
Disclosure: Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you choose to get started with Viktor using the links provided, I may receive a commission — at no additional cost to you. I only recommend tools I use and believe in.