This is just an old engineering principle of work amplification. For an input of x you shouldn’t routinely do nx. If you do you’ll get flooded. Debounce, throttle, load shed, improve throughput and latency. Lots of solutions. Just map it to the problem and apply.

In the past you had coworker who produced volumes of code. Same principle.

(Human) Attention is all you need.

If the requester stops applying common sense, the reviewer has to apply more of it, and there's a finite review budget. I will deal with requests on a lowest review effort-first basis, just like you did on the other side.

More and more I'm generating AI emails, often to people outside the company and often to do with technical issues / integrations we have / APIs. So far I don't think the people I'm emailing are really using AI as human responses are, well, lacking. What would be great is new email conventions for different communication pathways.

  Human -> Human (think we have this sorted)
  AI -> Human
  AI -> AI

If you are doing AI -> Human, then you need to be curating the response and understanding what it is saying, also, make sure its not leaking internal details or committing you to have phone calls/video chats (it does that). This works really well for the most, and humans respond with requested content. Quite often my AI debugs problems with their systems which I know little about. But humans do odd things like send screen shots of logs rather than text (they also leak internal details of their systems they potentially shouldn't). I used to tell people the content is partly AI, but now I just send the curated email without mentioning AI.

For AI -> AI you kind of want a hand over document as an attachment to an email. Only thing here is making sure there's no injection of security risks. But quite often instead of getting a human response to my AI generated emails, it would actually be nicer to hear from their AI which could give a better context/details. It would be really nice to be able to go, can you have your AI talk to my AI :) (security is a major issue here)

That's not correct. If human attention requires human effort, that forces human effort all the way down the chain, with no machine output being possible.

You can't say "you can't feed me machine output directly". Machine output is meant to reduce the cognitive load for human processing.

If your colleague is forwarding AI output directly to you, that means they think the AI has reduced the cognitive load for you, and also you are the best person to process that output, instead of them.

You just need to change your perception about the purpose of AI.

Or in other words: https://noslopgrenade.com/

I've thought this for a while, and I summarise it as: If you want me to take time to read it, you should take the time to write it.

Why this suddenly becomes urgent? For long time we had automatic emails with "thank you" which weren't written by humans, why something is different today?

Can you tell if its written by AI or not? I will read it once I get the answer