Today, much talk and concern revolves around the question of whether AI will eliminate the need for humans or, on the contrary, propel humans to superhuman abilities.
Rather than passively watching these trends and waiting to see what the outcome is, I believe each of us needs to adopt a strategic approach when leveraging AI in our daily work. This approach requires consideration of how AI tools impact our personal capabilities.
Let's take a closer look at a simple example. Suppose you need to create a report that summarizes recent sales data and predicts future trends. Today, we rely on tools like Excel, Word, Tableau, and our own intelligence to crunch numbers and gain insights.
There are three possible scenarios:
Scenario A: AI helps without changing existing functionality
Suppose you want to start using an out-of-the-box machine learning algorithm that performs language processing analysis on a dataset of customer reviews. This improves the quality of your reports. This doesn't change the functionality in any meaningful way, unless you count pressing buttons in this app as a feature. As before, the report essentially relies on analysis with additional parts.
Scenario B: Enhance the capabilities the AI already has
Suppose you want to deploy an application that uses regular Excel data to guide you in fitting more advanced machine learning models with higher predictive accuracy. This effectively expands your capabilities.you are still really that person steering Analysis and shaping results are important, but AI tools expand your own skill set.
Scenario C: AI eliminates the need for users to use one of their abilities.
You no longer need to look at data; you simply rely on algorithms to do the processing, analyze past trends and predict future sales. Next, visually inspect the trends and (as before) provide a qualitative interpretation. Overall, the algorithm is doing some of the work we've done before. And over time, your skills at things you no longer do will definitely decline.
In all three scenarios, the quality of the final report increases, but the skills and abilities of the individuals remain the same (Scenario A), increase (Scenario B), or decrease (Scenario C). This raises the following questions: Can we be indifferent about which of these three scenarios we choose?
make strategic choices
This example can easily be translated to other tasks such as recruitment, project investment, supplier selection, etc. But that insight also applies to more micro-level tasks, like creating a PowerPoint presentation, responding to an email, or drafting a business plan. In each case, AI can be used in ways that preserve, enhance, or devalue existing capabilities.
corporate strategist We recognize that these are very similar decisions that companies face when outsourcing or partnering with other companies. Outsourcing involves dependence on external partners, which may result in loss of competency for outsourced tasks. However, this may be a deliberate choice for strategic reasons to use the freed up resources and attention to focus on developing other capabilities.
For example, a bank may decide that transaction processing or software development is not core to its competitive advantage and choose to delegate these tasks to vendors. In fact, few people lament the loss of navigation technology in the age of GPS or the art of doing laundry by hand in the age of washing machines. We use that time to do other things that we value. In a work context, it means developing new skills. It could give us a valuable competitive advantage.
However, companies often adopt strategies that rely on outsourcing while keeping certain functions in-house. For example, many automakers still manufacture some components in-house, but many of the components are outsourced. rest. Even if chip manufacturers do not sell directly, they conduct research and development and apply for patents in the technology fields that require chips. domain. This approach helps you maintain in-house skills and evaluate vendors and partners effectively. It also helps you exercise bargaining power while ensuring supply chain resilience.
please consider
Similarly, individuals may choose to retain skills and abilities for reasons such as resilience, negotiation power, or maintaining a sense of self-identity and efficacy. In these cases, you might choose scenario B (enhancing existing functionality) over scenarios A or C, even though the final performance results may seem lower in the short term.
Don't be fooled by the words “augmented” and “human-centered.” These terms can hide more than they reveal. For example, his first two scenarios (neutral effects or enhancement of existing abilities) may both fall into the augmentation category, but from the perspective of maintaining and improving human skills, his The second scenario is better than the first. Anthropocentrism is an even more vague label. Chances are, the good reports you create in any of the above scenarios will be good for at least some people, namely your boss. Labels like augmentation and anthropocentrism have far-reaching implications for your own capabilities, and it's up to you to protect them.
The decision to embrace AI and keep or abandon certain skills should be a strategic one that aligns with your personal goals and values. In particular, it's always important to think about what new features this could help develop. – Because in the knowledge economy, if you don't learn, you can't earn.
