The core PM drive to maximize value for the largest addressable market (TAM) inherently leads to excluding edge cases and marginalized users, which is the root cause of bias and irresponsibility in AI systems.
Product managers should leverage AI to get 80% of the way on tasks like competitive analysis, but must apply their own intellect for the final 20%. Fully abdicating responsibility to AI can lead to factual errors and hallucinations that, if used to build a product, result in costly rework and strategic missteps.
AI leaders aren't ignoring risks because they're malicious, but because they are trapped in a high-stakes competitive race. This "code red" environment incentivizes patching safety issues case-by-case rather than fundamentally re-architecting AI systems to be safe by construction.
It's a common misconception that advancing AI reduces the need for human input. In reality, the probabilistic nature of AI demands increased human interaction and tighter collaboration among product, design, and engineering teams to align goals and navigate uncertainty.
Shift the view of AI from a singular product launch to a continuous process encompassing use case selection, training, deployment, and decommissioning. This broader aperture creates multiple intervention points to embed responsibility and mitigate harm throughout the lifecycle.
In the rush to adopt AI, teams are tempted to start with the technology and search for a problem. However, the most successful AI products still adhere to the fundamental principle of starting with user pain points, not the capabilities of the technology.
As foundational AI models become commoditized, the key differentiator is shifting from marginal improvements in model capability to superior user experience and productization. Companies that focus on polish, ease of use, and thoughtful integration will win, making product managers the new heroes of the AI race.
Despite having the freedom to publish "inconvenient truths" about AI's societal harms, Anthropic's Societal Impacts team expresses a desire for their research to have a more direct, trackable impact on the company's own products. This reveals a significant gap between identifying problems and implementing solutions.
Teams that become over-reliant on generative AI as a silver bullet are destined to fail. True success comes from teams that remain "maniacally focused" on user and business value, using AI with intent to serve that purpose, not as the purpose itself.
Effective AI policies focus on establishing principles for human conduct rather than just creating technical guardrails. The central question isn't what the tool can do, but how humans should responsibly use it to benefit employees, customers, and the community.
Companies racing to add AI features while ignoring core product principles—like solving a real problem for a defined market—are creating a wave of failed products, dubbed "AI slop" by product coach Teresa Torres.