Zenn essay: AI push needs 3-way split, not full autonomy

The argument starts from a gap the author sees inside companies: leadership pictures an AI that thinks through an employee's work by itself and performs at its best around the clock, while AI adoption is really driven by hopes of efficiency and relief from staff shortages. The contributor's three-way split — assistant, side-by-side, and self-running — places that 24-hour picture in the third category, which the author says only works for a limited range of tasks.

The essay draws a distinction that runs through the whole piece: a business app built with AI's help may run on ordinary code and never let AI process the work directly, yet it still counts as an AI-enabled project because it delivers an improvement that cost and effort had previously ruled out. The author also notes that AI help does not remove the need for expertise — someone who does not understand the work well enough can get a polished but unusable app, since business constraints and exception handling may be missing.

The final section separates old automation from AI proper. A program can already repeat a fixed process around the clock, while large language models are valuable for interpreting ambiguous text and for judgments that cannot be fully defined in advance. The author points to Jev, announced in September 2026, which returns classifications and scores as structured data rather than generating text, as an example of AI supplying the judgment while ordinary programs handle data retrieval, calculation, and updates — one way of combining methods rather than handing everything to AI.