Quick notes to help you find new business in less time with less effort. . . sometime next week.
In this issue:
- Thoughts on HBR's "AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It"
- Being Human – Who's fooling who?
- Random Stuff
- Back In The Day
Thoughts on HBR's "AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It"
- Working faster sounds great. As we covered extensively in "The Human Being's Guide to Business Growth," going fast isn't the goal. Getting more done is. To do more over time requires using our strengths at a reasonable speed. Ask how AI can enhance our strengths to do more versus improve our weaknesses.
- It takes more energy to try new tasks or use new skills. AI makes us think, "I know what I want, and I kind of know what to do, so maybe this will be easy." What happens is the new thing makes us tired. Not right away, but over time. In the long run the basics slip and outcomes begin to erode.
- It takes time to build expertise. Learners go through a cycle of This is easy–Wait, maybe I don't get this–Now I'm starting to understand–Ok I got it. When the non-coder uses AI to try new code, it's the old-coder that has to fix it, extending everyone's work day.
- The part that resonated with me the most is AI taking away from dead time. Time spent lost in thought gets lost by an urge to respond to the bot's "If you want, I can generate [thing you never thought of]". Now we're down the rabbit hole of responding versus thinking. Fight for free time to think.
Being Human – Who's fooling who?
“If a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.”
― Alan Turing
Years ago, there was a kerfuffle about whether or not the Turing Test had been passed so convincingly that we could leave the debate on whether or not machines think behind. The test, if you remember, tests the machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior. If the machine fools humans into thinking they are interacting with a human most of the time, it's proof machines are thinking.
I thought about this today as I reformatted an email being sent to a client I am helping. We've gone back and forth via email a few times, and based on his responses I'm not convinced he reads my emails. At the bottom of his email signature is "Sent via Superhuman." On a hunch, I go to the site and see:
"Superhuman AI is constantly working beside you. Organizing your inbox. Making sure you never drop the ball. Drafting — and if you want — sending fully written emails on your behalf."
It made me wonder, is this guy even reading my emails? He is young, full of energy, works fast, and gets a million things done. Email is not his favorite mode of communication. In my world, email still reigns supreme, so the problem is on my side. Re-reading the notes/responses that make me think, "does this guy get it?" versus his cogent replies and it's easy to see where I am going wrong. More than one idea in an email gets a bad response. An idea that starts one way and goes another (a feature of my emails) gets a really bad response.
Armed with this, I started reformatting my emails before sending. Like this morning. We have three important subjects about deals he's working on, and in my mind they all relate. The trick is, I need the bot to keep them separate for him to get the most from whatever summary he is reading. I split the ideas into three emails, use the send later feature for two of the three, and move on. I've been doing this with him for a few weeks it's working. Each response is good and we're making progress on the deals. He is learning.
Or is he? I mean, if I am being trained to talk to his bot, who's training who?
Random Stuff
"Listen now. When people talk listen completely. Don’t be thinking what you’re going to say. Most people never listen." – Ernest Hemmingway
My neighbor works for the local power company. It came in handy when a big storm roared through here a few summers ago, knocking out the power to the neighborhood. He didn't get our power on any faster, but he did explain why our across the street neighbors had power days before we did. Something about grids, shelter priorities, and the church at the end of the street. I should listen more carefully, but I got the gist of it.
From where I sit I can see a solar panel in his backyard. His first one is probably 6 feet by 4 feet. At the time, I asked him how much it helped during the power outages. He told me how much power it provides, what he plugs into it, and a bunch of other things that sounded like math.
Yesterday a big wind came through and we lost power for a couple of hours. Walking around the house, I notice power man now has at least three of these solar panels. I wish I could remember what the one panel did, so I could imagine what his now three panels are doing. I mention this to my lovely bride who said, "That's concerning. I wonder if the power company made him get those?"
I need to get better at listening.
Back in the Day
What was on my mind last year, five years ago, and ten years ago.
- Last Year: Right FIT #480 – A lot about growth. I mean, that's usually my subject, but this one used that word a lot. Growth means finding new ways of doing a thing and today there are a lot of new tools promising growth from new ways. Look for new tools that fit your old ways. It's the fast way to grow.
- Five Years Ago: Right FIT #271 – I advise people on big "pitches." When the stakes are high, people want advice. This time five years ago I was reminding you that its a process, not an event. Think of big pitches as a step in the process, not an end in and of itself. Plus, one of my many near death experience stories.
- Ten Years Ago: Right FIT #9 – I got some new headshots in preparation for the book cover. What's funny about that is the publishing company I used didn't have space for a photo on their stock covers. I still got use from it. Not a problem.
