Hey, great read as always. You're so insightful. I'm curious about the 'skill gap and performance analysis on a hybrid workforce'. Do you think our current performance metrics for humans can evem be adapted for this new human-AI symbiosis, or do we need completely new framworks? It's a complex thought.
Hi! Thanks for the compliment. Really appreciate it. And a great question indeed. We already see that depending on the task, there are clearly winners, either that is the agent or the human (repetitive tasks vs evaluative tasks for example). But not to narrow the point of view where we only compare what is now, there is a good chance that we on both sides should look for new metrics to evaluate upon.
A human, using lots of different agents, orchestrating lots of very different things (creating a sales order, wireframing a product, giving input on marketing assets, going to a prepared 1-on-1, evaluating customer support tickets en masse, and the list really goes on and on) all from the vantage point of a human within a context, is a very powerful thing where you can feel our flexibility and evolutionary adaptability really play out in our advantage. We do have an (ad)vantage point that can also evolve and change depending on any situation. And the way to measure that is not yet really on our radar!
Answsering 'why?' is not something an agent is particularly good at and is exactly what a human excels in.
However, lets also be honest enough to figure out where it is agents will improve and where this will mean that what was once our unique advantage, will not be anymore. And there are a lot of 'skills' and cognitive tasks that are ready to become agentic.
Hey, great read as always. You're so insightful. I'm curious about the 'skill gap and performance analysis on a hybrid workforce'. Do you think our current performance metrics for humans can evem be adapted for this new human-AI symbiosis, or do we need completely new framworks? It's a complex thought.
Hi! Thanks for the compliment. Really appreciate it. And a great question indeed. We already see that depending on the task, there are clearly winners, either that is the agent or the human (repetitive tasks vs evaluative tasks for example). But not to narrow the point of view where we only compare what is now, there is a good chance that we on both sides should look for new metrics to evaluate upon.
A human, using lots of different agents, orchestrating lots of very different things (creating a sales order, wireframing a product, giving input on marketing assets, going to a prepared 1-on-1, evaluating customer support tickets en masse, and the list really goes on and on) all from the vantage point of a human within a context, is a very powerful thing where you can feel our flexibility and evolutionary adaptability really play out in our advantage. We do have an (ad)vantage point that can also evolve and change depending on any situation. And the way to measure that is not yet really on our radar!
Answsering 'why?' is not something an agent is particularly good at and is exactly what a human excels in.
However, lets also be honest enough to figure out where it is agents will improve and where this will mean that what was once our unique advantage, will not be anymore. And there are a lot of 'skills' and cognitive tasks that are ready to become agentic.
Does this makes sense?