The Latest Wired Hit Job
Those tools at
Wired
really don't get it, do they?
Their
latest piece of libelous insanity quotes a dubious-at-best report from BCG and MIT about the general efficacy of AI.
They talk at length about how blind application of AI doesn't lead to better business outcomes. Um, if you can program, you're not blind - has anybody told them that?
They note that "[t]he report highlights businesses that implemented AI as part of a bigger rethink of how they operate, and saw greater returns as a result", as if driving value with AI isn't at least partially about rethinking. What if you're not ready to rethink? What if you're only ready to try out proofs-of-concept with great AI partners? You have to think before you can
re
think. You have to be able to swim before you can scuba. You have to eat the taco before it can fuel your scuba adventures. Checkmate, bozos.
Listen: thinking too hard about AI is a bad thing. The vast majority of the time, it's a plug-and-play situation, where you hire or contract great data scientists, value-creators, and others to automatically generate insights that you can activate and action. It's as simple and direct as it sounds. Obviously this can (and often does) lead to rethinks and more involved applications, but that's not always the case - sometimes it's better to let go, avoid helicopter-style oversight, and let the people involved in the AI handle all the AI. You wouldn't let your plumber do your taxes, would you? You wouldn't let a sloth run the Large Hagrid Collider, right? Now why listen to some word jockey tell you that AI often isn't as effective as it should be?
These prose-slinging heretics don't know what real AI is. They maybe
Wired,
but they're not plugged in.