ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
Claim◆Video · 3:43 — 5:13

New technology as transformative as GenAI triggers a 'storming' phase of role confusion before things re-form into a new normal, but that's not a reason to pull AI back—it means being more thoughtful about capturing its benefits while limiting its costs.

Stone likens AI's disruption of PM, design, and engineering roles to a 'storming' phase that precedes a new 'forming' phase, arguing companies shouldn't retreat from AI but must add guardrails and reaffirm human accountability for outcomes. ✦ AI generated

Elizabeth Stone · Lenny's Podcast · 2026-07-19 · original ↗

Share card ↓Export .mdExport .txt

starts at this moment · 3:43

Elicited by

“There's a bunch of elements to this conversation. One is that I've heard from people that there's also this kind of confusion and frustration of like what is my job anymore? Like what am I responsible for as a PM, as a designer? Is that something you've experienced?”

I hear it within Netflix, for sure. I think anytime a new technology comes along, especially one that's as transformative as GenAI, you go through a storming phase before you go through the forming phase of things. And I think we are in the middle of that right now. I don't think that means we should put AI back into the box and say let's not use it.

verbatim transcript · starts at 3:43

Transcript · around this moment

3:43>> I hear it within Netflix, for sure. I think anytime a new technology comes along, especially one that's as transformative as GenAI, you go through a storming phase before you go through the forming phase of things. And I think we are in the middle of that right now. I don't think that means we should put AI back into the box and say let's not use it cuz this is kind of this is

4:10complicating all of our preconceived notions about our roles, but I do think it means we have to be much more thoughtful about how do we get the benefits while reducing the costs. I think it's a great thing that people are experimenting with how can I develop an idea faster, prototype an idea, put together an initial set of code that would allow us to test it. Do I believe that means anyone should be

4:35shipping code to production? That everyone should actually be doing everything? Probably not. But I think that it's good for people to be exploring what's possible. And then, like I mentioned earlier, the benefit of having product and tech teams together is that if the business problem is clear, I think it's okay and it's healthy for there to be some fluidity in the roles that people play because instead of having to wait for the

5:00engineering team to be ready to be able to prototype something, product and design can move faster on it. But they should still work with their engineering partner to think through how should we productize this? How do we scale it? What are the guardrails for it? So, I don't think it makes the functional expertise obsolete. I think it means that teams have to be more comfortable with maybe this helps us move faster in

5:22a certain direction. From an organizational perspective, things I think about to make this more coherent or less frustrating are some of the things that have to be in place for us to get the benefits rather than the costs. So, that includes clarity on source of truth data, guardrails on shipping code to production or testing before we make large changes, thinking about opportunities where we can trust the output of AI versus we

▦ Netflix✳ GenAI
Related moments