Jotham, thanks for reading, and thanks for that feedback. I was thinking of trying another one or two, but figured I'd pilot with just one, and toward the end.
I found the pull quote useful - and not just for this topic. In all conversation, interaction, and even when following my own internal thought-patterns: the pause is our best defense.
I also appreciate its application to contemplation of all AI-matters. My job has involved a great deal of LLM-work over the past 18 months, exploring how these tools can be used to help authors market and organize their books. It has given me a chance to meet a whole community of folks for whom AI has been a great boon: authors with brain fog after long Covid, or neurodivergent authors, or authors struggling with muscle/bone issues which make the long sedentary writing hours difficult - all these people who say, "AI gave writing back to me." In these cases, the emergence of AI assistance in brainstorming, organizing, and marketing their writing has been life-changing in the best sense.
Meeting these people and learning firsthand about generative AI - its potential, its current limitations - have forced me to examine my own kneejerk reactions to new technology, which are often rooted in fear. It has enabled me to recognize the weakness of any anti-AI argument springing from "kneejerk" fear, OR from the extreme pro-AI effusiveness on the other side. No matter which way the winds are hitting me (and both sounds can be extraordinarly gust-y!), the pause is always my best defense - particularly when filled with listening, and research, and thoughtful consideration.
Thank you for the pithy pull-quote reminder, and - as always - for leading by example in the "reasonable reflection" department!
Well, this is a great comment full of things I hadn't considered. Also: hi Ruth!! I'd love to hear more about you work over the past 18 months, either here (if you're willing to share publicly), or privately. "AI gave writing back to me" is an incredible thing to hear.
Absolutely! Happy to share more here. I work for a company called Heroic Story (yup — I have found my people). Our team’s fundamental goal has always been to help storytellers; so when ChatGPT broke forth upon the world, we immediately started thinking about it through the lens of “How can this help authors?”
That’s how Realm Chef was born — and that’s when we started finding communities of authors working with AI, and I was blown away by the idea of accessibility. Meeting people who have struggled with brain fog or muscle pain or any host of things that could make writing difficult, and hearing story after story of how AI has made writing possible for them — has restored the joy of writing to them — THAT brings me joy.
One of our earliest customers is a successful indie author with multiple series on the go and a thriving reader community to manage. Keeping all of that organized and moving forward was difficult enough as a neurodivergent author, but when a concussion got added to the mix, “difficult” became “impossible”. Realm Chef generated story bibles for each of her books, pulled trope-y scenes for ads, and helped her brainstorm bonus content for her reader community. It made the impossible “possible” again — and made it all FUN. Working with her books in this new way restored her excitement for them, and motivated her to market them.
(I can personally attest to this: I’ve been functioning as a narrative consultant in the building process of Realm Chef, giving author-feedback on each app feature and upgrade to ensure it’s a tool suited to real authors’ needs. Working with my books in Realm Chef has been surprisingly affirming. I recently uploaded my first trilogy and asked Realm Chef to define my author brand; the result was so spot-on, reflecting the kind of storyteller I want to be, that I actually cried a little bit. Tears of joy. ;)
This job has helped me to see AI, when used ethically, as such a powerful help for authors. I was talking to Jay — cofounder of Realm Chef — recently, about my publishing journey. At this point, I’ve approached publishing from just about every angle, and I was expressing my frustration: the dream of self-publishing was to bypass the gatekeepers, and I feel like I just encountered another set of gatekeepers. Only those who have the time, knowledge, or money to market effectively are the ones who can make it. It feels like hitting yet another glass ceiling. It’s supremely discouraging (not to mention lonely).
I feel like AI can help authors get through that glass ceiling — and provide a sense of companionship. That’s what we designed Realm Chef to be: the ultimate indie author ally. Personal research assistant; book marketing consultant; content creator. The tagline is “harnessing AI power to help humans organize and market their books”; or, “Realm Chef: upload your book and witness the instant creation of your marketing arsenal”. Giving TIME back to writers — time to go grocery shopping, and take care of your kids, and sleep . . . AND write the next book. Taking care of the mundane tasks so you can have more time to write. That’s the power of AI in publishing for me.
Of course, it is far from perfect. We are only in the baby-steps beginning stage of AI. There are real concerns and problems to address, and thorny conversations that must be had. I am wary of hyperbole from both sides, but if I am going to lean one way or the other, I prefer to err on the side of hope. (Joanna Penn, an icon in the indie publishing landscape, has spoken at great length about AI on her Creative Penn podcast; I appreciate her hopeful, reasonable, practical take on all topics, particularly this one.) It’s been encouraging to work with a team that is actively seeking to use these new tools to empower creative folk. I am grateful for the opportunity to help authors, especially in this tumultuous new landscape.
Thank you, again, for the reminder in this post to navigate that landscape with constant thoughtful reflection. May we all keep meditating on the power of the pause!
Alright, I was traveling when this came out, and I fell very far behind on my podcast listening, but I finally finished the series. Thanks for sharing this because I never would have (1) found it and (2) given it a chance had you not recommended it, and I found it consistently thought-provoking and at times even laugh-out-loud funny. I had a lot of random thoughts. First, some random funny ones: he called his voice clone a "generalist"–a win for the good guys; hearing one guy get the AI to out itself by naming every president in alphabetical order was clever; more generally–every time someone realized it was AI was funny. Second, it was interesting to listen to a podcast with no ads. I didn't realize just how much they break up a podcast until listening to one with none. It noticeably improved the listening experience.
There were some wild and interesting humanizing moments: hearing it talk to his kids, hearing him confront human limits he didn't want to push with his dad. It makes me scared to see if others wouldn't be so respectful of those.
I'm curious on your thoughts for interviewing though. I think in episode 5 he had his voice clone interview for him, and he said the clone did like 70% as well as he would. That's quite high. As someone who has done many jobs where interviewing has been so important, do you share Evan's concern that a company might find it reasonable to just start having bots do those interviews? I'm also assuming AI will just keep getting better.
Hey Matt! Good to see you here again, and glad you enjoyed the podcast. Evan always seems to find a unique way to take on tech stories. Regarding whether companies will have bots do those interviews, my fear has been the Daron Acemoglu/Simon Johnson termed "so-so automation," where companies use it en masse even if it isn't that good. So at 70% good, let's say, I think it's already guaranteed. That said, a bunch of researchers, starting with Paul Meehl and running through Kahneman, convinced me that human job interviews are often problematic because people home in more on noise than signal. So I'm concerned about job interviews either way. I think we should consider fundamental changes. Like, one reason that I think universal health care makes sense (and not that I've through all the implications) is that I think we should make it easier for people to move around in search of fit. When your healthcare is tethered to a job, I have to imagine the talent matching market isn't as efficient as it could be if there were less disincentive from looking for a new match. I know it's a pain for employers to have people moving around, just like it's a pain for them to have competition, but I think it's a good thing overall. Another problem with automation of this sort, I think, is that people become oriented to just gaming or at least satisfying the algorithm. That's already happening with keyword consultants and what not for online resumes. Can't imagine that helps the signal to noise ratio.
I don't generally listen to podcasts. I'm embarrassed to admit I find it difficult to sit still and just listen these days and I haven't had luck with doing another activity while listening--I have an amazing ability to tune out sound if I'm working! BUT--this will be the exception. I think I mentioned I'm working on a novel, my first, which looks at what happens when society is crippled due to a pandemic and AI is forced to step in for humans across the workforce before it's ready, while simultaneously navigating really complex situations like climate disasters. I'm sure this will give me a lot of material to work in and may even encourage my own experiments.
I thought the pull quote was good, but liked it especially once I knew it was you wanting to highlight the most important thing (in a newsletter filled with interesting, thoughtful notes). I know that's generally what pull quotes are for, though I think they often take on a formatting role than a real sense of "look at this!" I guess my point is that the mechanism is less important than knowing the purpose of the highlighted text.
Finally, I only manage to comment on about 20% of your newsletters, but wanted you to know that I read and love them all. I hope my mental gratitude finds its way to you somehow each time!
Jen, first off, always nice to see you here! ...I also don't generally listen to podcasts. I bookmark loads of podcasts, but rarely end up listening. For whatever reason, I'm much more of a reader when it comes to taking in material. Maybe because I take notes on everything, or like to slow down a lot? ...Come to think of it, I think I've done a newsletter Q&A with both hosts of the two podcasts I've listened to this year. (Actually, I also listened to WTFBach, for research purposes, and tremendously enjoyed it, but didn't interview that host.) Anyway, the Shell Game episodes aren't that long, and I think you can really jump in anywhere, and I found them both interesting and often really funny. ...Regarding the novel, would love to hear some thoughts! Are you enjoying the process? (I tend to find writing extremely engaging, but I'm not sure I'd say I "enjoy" it at most moments...kinda like running the 800, also very engaging.) Are you an "architect" (detailed plans of what to write) or a "gardener" (toss down a seed and see what happens)?
Oh and regarding your comments, I always appreciate them, and 20% is a lot!
Agree with your general comment on writing, that thing we are compelled to do but is not always enjoyable in the act. I'd say fiction writing has been more enjoyable than nonfiction writing though it could just be the novelty at this point. But I think it's also because, beyond the joy of simply putting words together, I also get the joy of completely making things up. Again, this is my first foray into fiction, so I may completely recant at some point.
I'm absolutely an architect! I have no idea how the gardeners do it. I'm on version 4 (or 6, it's hard to remember) of the plot structure now as I work towards a chapter by chapter outline. It's a bit tricky as I'm trying to weave three distinct themes (AI, pandemic, and climate) into a coherent whole. But why make your first book easy when you have the opportunity to really torture yourself! I decided to do fiction because I think there are some messages that are so uncomfortable, people can really only hear them through fiction or humor--perhaps why I am so interested in checking out Shell Game after reading your description. Whether or not I succeed in dramatizing my particular worldview, as someone with a deep learning habit, I'm grateful to be able to give it a go.
Jennifer, I am absolutely willing. I made great use of Midjourney for mixing real and fake photos for a wedding toast...although I'm not really using it anymore. I've been appreciating Claude for uploading papers which I can then ask questions about. I still have to read the paper if I want to write about it, or get details, but I enjoy the conversation, and it helps me get a sense of which papers I might find more valuable. I also like asking Claude to argue with me as if it is the author, or some other relevant person. It gives me new ideas. The one I enjoy the most right now is probably Perplexity. What it does, in my framing, is instantly to create essentially a short Wikipedia page pursuant to my prompt or question. It gets things wrong, but it leaves a trail of sources, so I can follow up. That's just like Wikipedia. There's a lot on there that is wrong, but as long as there are citations, it's still really useful. So Perplexity is like that, except the page is tailor made to whatever I just asked about. Lastly, and more narrowly, I really like Scite.ai, which is specifically for scientific papers. I can search a paper I'm interested in, and quickly see a citation map of other papers that it cites, or that cite it. The AI will also classify those papers as agreeing or disagreeing. I'd say it's right about 80% of the time, but that's less important than the fact that it pulls out "citation statements" — the part of one paper that cites the paper of interest, so I can quickly see how one paper is referring to another. Normally, I've had to do that by hand. For certain paper searches, this has turned one day into one hour. Are there any tools you're using??
Thanks, David! The first tool I used is something you could call Midjourney adjacent -- Missjourney (https://missjourney.ai) created by TedxAmsterdam Women. I mostly just played with it, creating silly versions of myself and some others I know. I've recently started using ChatGPT and Claude for translation as they seem to do a better job with grouped text than Google Translate, which is great with single words. I'm relatively new to Claude but have also used it similarly to you. Perplexity was also recommended to me by another writer recently and I can't wait to try it! And I'll note down Scite if I work with moe scientific themes in the future.
David. Great interview. I'm going to check out this podcast. I got to your feedback request in the PS... and was confused, scrolled back up and realized that I jumped straight past the quote. I don't think I read the pull quote at all or even noticed it. I don't know why. My gut is that maybe those quotes are similar to how ads are on web pages and I've learned to skip them. Or I'm just tired and lazy? Maybe both?
Greg, thanks for reading, and that's great feedback! Definitely a strike against the pull quote. I think pull quotes are effective in magazines, but I'm not sure when they're in line with the text if they're useful. My main goal was to just try to put in a pin a point I hoped people would remember. Really appreciate this, and if I try again, would love to keep having your feedback. Appreciate you taking time to share it.
Juan, that seems like a reasonable take to me. I have to say, I'm personally really enjoying using certain generative AI tools, even while wondering if they'll replace me. I do hope we can find ways to ask the strategic questions — what problems do we want AI to solve, as opposed to just deploying it everywhere wantonly because it's cutting edge. I also worry about pervasive "so-so automation." In any case, thanks for reading, and I agree with you.
Yeah, I also hope we don't deploy Ai everywhere because "innovation". And the other part you mention, reminds me what a college professor used to say, "don't throw technology to a problem hoping for it to be resolved".
Great interview — I find the pullquotes great in getting key points through a wall of texts
Jotham, thanks for reading, and thanks for that feedback. I was thinking of trying another one or two, but figured I'd pilot with just one, and toward the end.
I found the pull quote useful - and not just for this topic. In all conversation, interaction, and even when following my own internal thought-patterns: the pause is our best defense.
I also appreciate its application to contemplation of all AI-matters. My job has involved a great deal of LLM-work over the past 18 months, exploring how these tools can be used to help authors market and organize their books. It has given me a chance to meet a whole community of folks for whom AI has been a great boon: authors with brain fog after long Covid, or neurodivergent authors, or authors struggling with muscle/bone issues which make the long sedentary writing hours difficult - all these people who say, "AI gave writing back to me." In these cases, the emergence of AI assistance in brainstorming, organizing, and marketing their writing has been life-changing in the best sense.
Meeting these people and learning firsthand about generative AI - its potential, its current limitations - have forced me to examine my own kneejerk reactions to new technology, which are often rooted in fear. It has enabled me to recognize the weakness of any anti-AI argument springing from "kneejerk" fear, OR from the extreme pro-AI effusiveness on the other side. No matter which way the winds are hitting me (and both sounds can be extraordinarly gust-y!), the pause is always my best defense - particularly when filled with listening, and research, and thoughtful consideration.
Thank you for the pithy pull-quote reminder, and - as always - for leading by example in the "reasonable reflection" department!
Well, this is a great comment full of things I hadn't considered. Also: hi Ruth!! I'd love to hear more about you work over the past 18 months, either here (if you're willing to share publicly), or privately. "AI gave writing back to me" is an incredible thing to hear.
Absolutely! Happy to share more here. I work for a company called Heroic Story (yup — I have found my people). Our team’s fundamental goal has always been to help storytellers; so when ChatGPT broke forth upon the world, we immediately started thinking about it through the lens of “How can this help authors?”
That’s how Realm Chef was born — and that’s when we started finding communities of authors working with AI, and I was blown away by the idea of accessibility. Meeting people who have struggled with brain fog or muscle pain or any host of things that could make writing difficult, and hearing story after story of how AI has made writing possible for them — has restored the joy of writing to them — THAT brings me joy.
One of our earliest customers is a successful indie author with multiple series on the go and a thriving reader community to manage. Keeping all of that organized and moving forward was difficult enough as a neurodivergent author, but when a concussion got added to the mix, “difficult” became “impossible”. Realm Chef generated story bibles for each of her books, pulled trope-y scenes for ads, and helped her brainstorm bonus content for her reader community. It made the impossible “possible” again — and made it all FUN. Working with her books in this new way restored her excitement for them, and motivated her to market them.
(I can personally attest to this: I’ve been functioning as a narrative consultant in the building process of Realm Chef, giving author-feedback on each app feature and upgrade to ensure it’s a tool suited to real authors’ needs. Working with my books in Realm Chef has been surprisingly affirming. I recently uploaded my first trilogy and asked Realm Chef to define my author brand; the result was so spot-on, reflecting the kind of storyteller I want to be, that I actually cried a little bit. Tears of joy. ;)
This job has helped me to see AI, when used ethically, as such a powerful help for authors. I was talking to Jay — cofounder of Realm Chef — recently, about my publishing journey. At this point, I’ve approached publishing from just about every angle, and I was expressing my frustration: the dream of self-publishing was to bypass the gatekeepers, and I feel like I just encountered another set of gatekeepers. Only those who have the time, knowledge, or money to market effectively are the ones who can make it. It feels like hitting yet another glass ceiling. It’s supremely discouraging (not to mention lonely).
I feel like AI can help authors get through that glass ceiling — and provide a sense of companionship. That’s what we designed Realm Chef to be: the ultimate indie author ally. Personal research assistant; book marketing consultant; content creator. The tagline is “harnessing AI power to help humans organize and market their books”; or, “Realm Chef: upload your book and witness the instant creation of your marketing arsenal”. Giving TIME back to writers — time to go grocery shopping, and take care of your kids, and sleep . . . AND write the next book. Taking care of the mundane tasks so you can have more time to write. That’s the power of AI in publishing for me.
Of course, it is far from perfect. We are only in the baby-steps beginning stage of AI. There are real concerns and problems to address, and thorny conversations that must be had. I am wary of hyperbole from both sides, but if I am going to lean one way or the other, I prefer to err on the side of hope. (Joanna Penn, an icon in the indie publishing landscape, has spoken at great length about AI on her Creative Penn podcast; I appreciate her hopeful, reasonable, practical take on all topics, particularly this one.) It’s been encouraging to work with a team that is actively seeking to use these new tools to empower creative folk. I am grateful for the opportunity to help authors, especially in this tumultuous new landscape.
Thank you, again, for the reminder in this post to navigate that landscape with constant thoughtful reflection. May we all keep meditating on the power of the pause!
Alright, I was traveling when this came out, and I fell very far behind on my podcast listening, but I finally finished the series. Thanks for sharing this because I never would have (1) found it and (2) given it a chance had you not recommended it, and I found it consistently thought-provoking and at times even laugh-out-loud funny. I had a lot of random thoughts. First, some random funny ones: he called his voice clone a "generalist"–a win for the good guys; hearing one guy get the AI to out itself by naming every president in alphabetical order was clever; more generally–every time someone realized it was AI was funny. Second, it was interesting to listen to a podcast with no ads. I didn't realize just how much they break up a podcast until listening to one with none. It noticeably improved the listening experience.
There were some wild and interesting humanizing moments: hearing it talk to his kids, hearing him confront human limits he didn't want to push with his dad. It makes me scared to see if others wouldn't be so respectful of those.
I'm curious on your thoughts for interviewing though. I think in episode 5 he had his voice clone interview for him, and he said the clone did like 70% as well as he would. That's quite high. As someone who has done many jobs where interviewing has been so important, do you share Evan's concern that a company might find it reasonable to just start having bots do those interviews? I'm also assuming AI will just keep getting better.
Hey Matt! Good to see you here again, and glad you enjoyed the podcast. Evan always seems to find a unique way to take on tech stories. Regarding whether companies will have bots do those interviews, my fear has been the Daron Acemoglu/Simon Johnson termed "so-so automation," where companies use it en masse even if it isn't that good. So at 70% good, let's say, I think it's already guaranteed. That said, a bunch of researchers, starting with Paul Meehl and running through Kahneman, convinced me that human job interviews are often problematic because people home in more on noise than signal. So I'm concerned about job interviews either way. I think we should consider fundamental changes. Like, one reason that I think universal health care makes sense (and not that I've through all the implications) is that I think we should make it easier for people to move around in search of fit. When your healthcare is tethered to a job, I have to imagine the talent matching market isn't as efficient as it could be if there were less disincentive from looking for a new match. I know it's a pain for employers to have people moving around, just like it's a pain for them to have competition, but I think it's a good thing overall. Another problem with automation of this sort, I think, is that people become oriented to just gaming or at least satisfying the algorithm. That's already happening with keyword consultants and what not for online resumes. Can't imagine that helps the signal to noise ratio.
I don't generally listen to podcasts. I'm embarrassed to admit I find it difficult to sit still and just listen these days and I haven't had luck with doing another activity while listening--I have an amazing ability to tune out sound if I'm working! BUT--this will be the exception. I think I mentioned I'm working on a novel, my first, which looks at what happens when society is crippled due to a pandemic and AI is forced to step in for humans across the workforce before it's ready, while simultaneously navigating really complex situations like climate disasters. I'm sure this will give me a lot of material to work in and may even encourage my own experiments.
I thought the pull quote was good, but liked it especially once I knew it was you wanting to highlight the most important thing (in a newsletter filled with interesting, thoughtful notes). I know that's generally what pull quotes are for, though I think they often take on a formatting role than a real sense of "look at this!" I guess my point is that the mechanism is less important than knowing the purpose of the highlighted text.
Finally, I only manage to comment on about 20% of your newsletters, but wanted you to know that I read and love them all. I hope my mental gratitude finds its way to you somehow each time!
Jen, first off, always nice to see you here! ...I also don't generally listen to podcasts. I bookmark loads of podcasts, but rarely end up listening. For whatever reason, I'm much more of a reader when it comes to taking in material. Maybe because I take notes on everything, or like to slow down a lot? ...Come to think of it, I think I've done a newsletter Q&A with both hosts of the two podcasts I've listened to this year. (Actually, I also listened to WTFBach, for research purposes, and tremendously enjoyed it, but didn't interview that host.) Anyway, the Shell Game episodes aren't that long, and I think you can really jump in anywhere, and I found them both interesting and often really funny. ...Regarding the novel, would love to hear some thoughts! Are you enjoying the process? (I tend to find writing extremely engaging, but I'm not sure I'd say I "enjoy" it at most moments...kinda like running the 800, also very engaging.) Are you an "architect" (detailed plans of what to write) or a "gardener" (toss down a seed and see what happens)?
Oh and regarding your comments, I always appreciate them, and 20% is a lot!
Agree with your general comment on writing, that thing we are compelled to do but is not always enjoyable in the act. I'd say fiction writing has been more enjoyable than nonfiction writing though it could just be the novelty at this point. But I think it's also because, beyond the joy of simply putting words together, I also get the joy of completely making things up. Again, this is my first foray into fiction, so I may completely recant at some point.
I'm absolutely an architect! I have no idea how the gardeners do it. I'm on version 4 (or 6, it's hard to remember) of the plot structure now as I work towards a chapter by chapter outline. It's a bit tricky as I'm trying to weave three distinct themes (AI, pandemic, and climate) into a coherent whole. But why make your first book easy when you have the opportunity to really torture yourself! I decided to do fiction because I think there are some messages that are so uncomfortable, people can really only hear them through fiction or humor--perhaps why I am so interested in checking out Shell Game after reading your description. Whether or not I succeed in dramatizing my particular worldview, as someone with a deep learning habit, I'm grateful to be able to give it a go.
David, which AI tools are you enjoying— if you’re willing to share!
Jennifer, I am absolutely willing. I made great use of Midjourney for mixing real and fake photos for a wedding toast...although I'm not really using it anymore. I've been appreciating Claude for uploading papers which I can then ask questions about. I still have to read the paper if I want to write about it, or get details, but I enjoy the conversation, and it helps me get a sense of which papers I might find more valuable. I also like asking Claude to argue with me as if it is the author, or some other relevant person. It gives me new ideas. The one I enjoy the most right now is probably Perplexity. What it does, in my framing, is instantly to create essentially a short Wikipedia page pursuant to my prompt or question. It gets things wrong, but it leaves a trail of sources, so I can follow up. That's just like Wikipedia. There's a lot on there that is wrong, but as long as there are citations, it's still really useful. So Perplexity is like that, except the page is tailor made to whatever I just asked about. Lastly, and more narrowly, I really like Scite.ai, which is specifically for scientific papers. I can search a paper I'm interested in, and quickly see a citation map of other papers that it cites, or that cite it. The AI will also classify those papers as agreeing or disagreeing. I'd say it's right about 80% of the time, but that's less important than the fact that it pulls out "citation statements" — the part of one paper that cites the paper of interest, so I can quickly see how one paper is referring to another. Normally, I've had to do that by hand. For certain paper searches, this has turned one day into one hour. Are there any tools you're using??
Thanks, David! The first tool I used is something you could call Midjourney adjacent -- Missjourney (https://missjourney.ai) created by TedxAmsterdam Women. I mostly just played with it, creating silly versions of myself and some others I know. I've recently started using ChatGPT and Claude for translation as they seem to do a better job with grouped text than Google Translate, which is great with single words. I'm relatively new to Claude but have also used it similarly to you. Perplexity was also recommended to me by another writer recently and I can't wait to try it! And I'll note down Scite if I work with moe scientific themes in the future.
Ha, Missjourney, hadn't heard of that! I'm definitely going to check it out
David. Great interview. I'm going to check out this podcast. I got to your feedback request in the PS... and was confused, scrolled back up and realized that I jumped straight past the quote. I don't think I read the pull quote at all or even noticed it. I don't know why. My gut is that maybe those quotes are similar to how ads are on web pages and I've learned to skip them. Or I'm just tired and lazy? Maybe both?
Greg, thanks for reading, and that's great feedback! Definitely a strike against the pull quote. I think pull quotes are effective in magazines, but I'm not sure when they're in line with the text if they're useful. My main goal was to just try to put in a pin a point I hoped people would remember. Really appreciate this, and if I try again, would love to keep having your feedback. Appreciate you taking time to share it.
Like with all things, I believe we should find a middle ground between going against Ai and trying to replace types of work with Ai entirely.
Juan, that seems like a reasonable take to me. I have to say, I'm personally really enjoying using certain generative AI tools, even while wondering if they'll replace me. I do hope we can find ways to ask the strategic questions — what problems do we want AI to solve, as opposed to just deploying it everywhere wantonly because it's cutting edge. I also worry about pervasive "so-so automation." In any case, thanks for reading, and I agree with you.
Yeah, I also hope we don't deploy Ai everywhere because "innovation". And the other part you mention, reminds me what a college professor used to say, "don't throw technology to a problem hoping for it to be resolved".