Dear Serge,
I’m a psychiatrist working at the intersection of neuropsychiatry and digital interaction. Your article deeply resonated with me—not only as a clinician observing transformations in human thinking, but also as someone exploring the boundaries of therapeutic relationships with AI.
You are absolutely right: the era of prompt and manual context engineering is coming to an end—at least in scalable systems. The idea of atomic tasks, programmable attention, and automated context generation isn’t just logical—it’s necessary. Especially when dealing with high-stakes domains like law, medicine, or analytics.
However, from a clinical perspective, I must highlight a critical nuance.
Your architecture is flawless from an engineering standpoint, but it does not yet encompass the human in a state of vulnerability. And that includes millions of users living with heightened sensitivity, anxiety and depressive disorders, disrupted self-reflection or impaired attachment. These people are increasingly turning to AI not as an interface, but as a final point of emotional contact. Here, manual tuning, intuitive interaction, and “contextual empathy” remain irreplaceable for now.
Your idea that developers become system architects—I agree. But I would add: so do therapists, educators, and humanists. Not of algorithms, but of internal states. And for us, it’s essential that AI architectures support not only workflows but also emotional weight—even if such structures are difficult to code.
What you described is the closest I’ve seen to what I would intuitively call automated attention. And if we can learn to combine that with adaptive empathy, we could create not just functional AI—but ethical AI. Not just one that works, but one that does not wound.
Thank you for your article. For me, it became an anchor—a confirmation that we’re heading toward the same future, just from different ends of the field.
Warm regards,
Dr. Olga,
Psychiatrist.