There is a certain wildness in the tech industry these days that both mimics previous eras of large changes, like cloud computing (runaway costs in the early days), and is like nothing we\u2019ve ever seen before (record revenues accompanied by mass layoffs).<\/p>\n
One possible explanation: tech executives, especially CEOs, are collectively suffering from delusions of AI grandeur. And at least one tech CEO has said as much out loud: Box founder Aaron Levie.<\/p>\n
\u201cCEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they\u2019re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI,\u201d Levie wrote on X<\/a>.<\/p>\n CEOs \u201cplay with AI,\u201d develop a prototype, or generate a contract, to use Levie\u2019s examples, and then make the leap to believing agents can do the work.<\/p>\n But these top-level executives aren\u2019t the people who have to review code, discover bugs, and identify calls to hallucinated libraries before software is deployed. They aren\u2019t responsible for training AI models on a company\u2019s idiosyncratic contract terms, nor do they have to spend days combing through contracts to find sneaky terms, as Levie indicates.<\/p>\n In other words, Levie\u2019s theory posits, CEOs don\u2019t really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can\u2019t be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn\u2019t stop them from acting on their beliefs.<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to note that Levie is not an AI hater. Quite the opposite. He mostly posts AI positivity on X to his 2.7 million followers, writing blogs titled, \u201cHeadless software is the future\u201d<\/a> on how software built for AI agents is the way forward. He also puts his money where his mouth is, backing AI startups as an active angel investor.<\/p>\n So what are CEOs to do instead? Levie advises CEOs to use AI \u201ca ton\u201d to really see what it can and can\u2019t do, \u201cand come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work.\u201d<\/p>\n CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they\u2019re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI.<\/p>\n So when they play with AI, they see the happy path results, often not considering the next 10 or 20 things that have\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/ne5mvJ4Rgx<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Aaron Levie (@levie) May 24, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I have enough faith in humanity to believe that there are CEOs out there attempting to do just that, but right now, they seem to be in the minority.<\/p>\n In only the first five months of 2026, the tech industry has already had nearly as many layoffs as in all of 2025: 115,430 people have been fired from 152\u00a0tech companies so far in 2026, compared to 124,636 people let go by 275 companies in 2025, according to industry layoff tracker Layoffs.fyi<\/a>. <\/p>\n And the bulk of companies have pointed to AI as a reason for cutting these jobs. Many argue that the biggest tech companies are AI washing<\/a>, or crediting AI productivity gains in the past or future, when other business decisions and metrics are really driving the cuts.<\/p>\n Still, some of these stories are surprising. Zeb Evans, the CEO of project management and productivity software startup ClickUp, proudly declared<\/a> on X that he had laid off almost a quarter of his employees \u2014 22% \u2014 after rolling out about 3,000 AI agents to do internal work.<\/p>\n Evans swore this wasn\u2019t done to reduce costs. Instead, he wants a workforce composed of people who run AI agents and spend their days quickly reviewing the agents\u2019 work. He believes this will create a \u201c100x org,\u201d as he calls it.<\/p>\n While AI can be a very useful tool, the data on AI and productivity doesn\u2019t support such assumptions. By miles.<\/p>\n A meta analysis of other research published in October in UC Berkeley\u2019s California Management Review<\/a> found \u201cno robust relationship between AI adoption and aggregate productivity gain.\u201d<\/p>\n Research published in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research did conclude<\/a> that AI adoption improved productivity, but noted \u201ca productivity paradox, in which perceived productivity gains are larger than measured productivity gains.\u201d<\/p>\n After creating thousands of agents to work on tasks, researchers at MIT<\/a> concluded that agents just aren\u2019t doing human-quality work yet in many cases. They predict at the current rate of LLM improvement, models will \u201cbe able to complete most text-related tasks with success rates of, on average, 80%\u201395% by 2029 at a minimally sufficient quality level.\u201d <\/p>\n In other words, AI is on track to perform at base competence on most tasks in about three years. These researchers believe agents will need another few years to outperform humans.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, research published in the Harvard Business Review<\/a> showed that when everyone is using AI to produce more stuff, the bottleneck simply shifts to executives. Their work awaits the people that must authorize all the stuff everyone is producing. If everyone is empowered to act, then from what OpenAI experienced last year<\/a>, we can tell that things may get out of control.<\/p>\n Are CEOs ready for that? If not, the most certain outcome of the ongoing CEO AI psychosis will simply be organizational chaos.<\/p>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/p>\n\n