The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Tom Davenport no published score: only 2 usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
2exchanges match
2on raw tape
0redirected or not addressed
Answered raw tape D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60

Q you can go to as this flood of automation comes in, how do you guys Think about that. I mean, what is the reality? I mean, I don't think it's enough to say, let's just give people skills training and better STEM. I mean, these are all realities that, that we need to adjust to, of course, but what now? What can people do? How should they think about this?

A We generally think that, um, since there's no higher ground to which humans can retreat, then they have to find common ground with the machines that are going to be their colleagues, and so a lot of our book is around this idea that we'll need to augment their capabilities and have them augment ours rather than a set of activities that humans will always be better than computers. We just don't think those will necessarily exist, But at least for the foreseeable future, there will be ways that we can add value to what they do and work with them as colleagues in a whole variety of fields, and I think that augmentation-oriented future we think is by far the most, the most likely one for how AI travels through the occupational world.

AI assessment note: “they have to find common ground with the machines that are going to be their colleagues”

Answered raw tape D 4 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30

Q off is you guys have this section in your book where you talk about this ode to the AI spring, and I think that's a really important place to start because both listeners on this podcast and people who've been following the world of artificial intelligence for a long time often talk about their scars from the contrasting AI winter before that. Do you want to talk briefly about that?

A As you suggest, we've gone through various cycles in this space, and this is probably the most spring-like spring we've ever had in the sense of interest in the technology, the number of firms that are adopting it. One of the things that always fascinates me is that even during winter, there were a lot of things kind of quietly happening. I mean, 10 years ago, I wrote an article saying that automated decision-making was really percolating its way through lots of Insurance companies and banks and so on for underwriting and credit issuance and so on. But now I think probably with big data and analytics gave a lot of impetus to the topic and everything is in full flower all over the place.

AI assessment note: “even during winter, there were a lot of things kind of quietly happening.”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 1,000 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.