‘Overhyped’ generative AI will get a ‘cold shower’ in 2024, analysts predict::Analyst firm CCS Insight predicts generative AI will get a “cold shower” in 2024 as concerns over growing costs replace the “hype” surrounding the technology.
‘Overhyped’ generative AI will get a ‘cold shower’ in 2024, analysts predict::Analyst firm CCS Insight predicts generative AI will get a “cold shower” in 2024 as concerns over growing costs replace the “hype” surrounding the technology.
Regardless of what anyone says, I think this is actually a pretty good use case of the technology. The specific verbiage of a review isn’t necessarily important, and ideas can still be communicated clearly if tools are used appropriately.
If you ask a tool like ChatGPT to write “A performance review for a construction worker named Bob who could improve on his finer carpentry work and who is delightful to be around because if his enthusiasm for building. Make it one page.” The output can still be meaningful, and communicate relevant ideas.
I’m just going to take a page from William Edwards Deming here, and state that an employee is largely unable to change the system that they work in, and as such individual performance reviews have limited value. Even if an employee could change the system that they work in, this should be interpreted as the organization having a singular point of failure.
If all the manager is going to input into the process is, at best, some bullet points then they should just stop pretending and send their employee the bullet points. Having some automatically generated toss around it makes the process even more ridiculous than it can already easily be.
If my manager gave me my performance review and it was some meaningless auto-praise/commentary, structured around the actual keywords they wanted to express to me, then I would think less of them. I would no longer value the input of my manager or their interest in my development.
There’s nothing wrong with being concise, and my upcoming review for my report will be clear and concise without generating fluff around it. I’m not asking them to change the system, I’m asking them to either maintain or change themselves, depending on the feedback I’m giving, it’s for them.
That’s kinda why I bring up Deming and his views of the entire purpose of a quality management system. “they should just stop pretending and send their employee the bullet points.” I couldn’t agree more. My bro is sending out the bullet points, but AI is formatting it, so it is acceptable to his boss.
In an ideal world, there’d be someone who actually examined the business operation to determine what the benefits of doing individual performance reviews are. Instead, things at his work are done a certain way simply because that’s the way they’ve always been done… and thus, that’s what he’s doing.
“I’m not asking them to change the system…” That’s not really what I meant, I apologize if i phrased what I said weird. If you’re evaluating a person, then they’re already probably not too far to any extreme. If they were the worst employee ever, you would let them go. If they were the best employee ever, your company would be dependent on them and would suffer if they voluntarily decided to leave. Your ideal employee would, therefore, be somewhere within the norm and would need to conform to your system. An individual review exists simply to enforce this conformity, and the reality of the situation is that most employees’ true output is directed more by the operational efficiency of the business than an individuals own actions. If an employee is already conforming, then the review is effectively useless.
Anyways, I’m kinda droning on, but I think the horses have already left the barn with AI. I think the next logical step for many businesses is to really evaluate what they do and why they do it at an administrative level… and this is a good thing!