Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

‘It makes no sense’: Sam Altman calls his email habit ‘psychologically inconsistent’

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman still manually processes emails, finding it psychologically inconsistent. He acknowledges AI tools could manage routine tasks, but old habits persist. Altman believes ingrained notions of work hinder adopting more productive AI-assisted methods. Other leaders also employ strategies to manage email effectively and prevent workday takeover. Some executives are already using AI…

‘It makes no sense’: Sam Altman calls his email habit ‘psychologically inconsistent’

In a recent podcast, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted that despite having access to AI tools capable of managing routine work, he still prefers to manually sift through his emails. Sam Altman described his habit as "psychologically inconsistent" when contrasted with the potential benefits of AI tools. He expressed frustration with the mindless scrolling and decision-making involved in picking the least painful email to respond to.

Altman suggested that AI could potentially handle more routine tasks, such as moving information between applications and tackling items on his to-do list. However, he acknowledged that ingrained habits and the perception of productivity make it difficult for him to change his email handling methods.

Written by urgent.news from Times of India's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at timesofindia.indiatimes.com →

More in AI

5 Undocumented Rules for Gemini Structured Output, Measured in Production

We run a document extraction pipeline on Gemini with a native responseSchema attached, not a "please reply with JSON" instruction in the prompt text.

  • Order required properties as per required array, then optional properties
  • Measure order effect on gemini-3-flash-preview model, adjust if needed
  • Enum value count limit exists, exceeded schemas rejected in production

Even an AI cost-management vendor can lose control of its agent spending

In one instance, an AI agent stayed open for four days and ran 4,819 calls for almost $4,000. No one had budgeted for this cost.

  • AI agents can cause unexpected expenses if not monitored properly
  • Revenium experienced $3,762 cost from AI coding assistant running 4 days
  • Top 1% of runs drive nearly half of total AI spending

More from Friday 28 August →