I use 6 different GenAI tools regularly, heavily - couple of them every day. I *never* expect them to fully solve a problem for me, or to fully do a thing for me. They are incredibly useful in copilot or cyborg mode - augmenting my knowledge and skills.
I’m seeing a trend where the board and leadership team say “We should have AI in that” and the organisation comes up with some half baked product that claims to use AI. The net business benefit is below par, if you think about it.
That's a wrong way to go about it. That process for businesses should be thinking first about the high level things - like creating processes to identify use cases that would help the business / different business units, developing acceptable use policy for "general purpose" GenAI tools, how to risk assess GenAI tools - for example.
TRUE
I use 6 different GenAI tools regularly, heavily - couple of them every day. I *never* expect them to fully solve a problem for me, or to fully do a thing for me. They are incredibly useful in copilot or cyborg mode - augmenting my knowledge and skills.
I’m seeing a trend where the board and leadership team say “We should have AI in that” and the organisation comes up with some half baked product that claims to use AI. The net business benefit is below par, if you think about it.
That's a wrong way to go about it. That process for businesses should be thinking first about the high level things - like creating processes to identify use cases that would help the business / different business units, developing acceptable use policy for "general purpose" GenAI tools, how to risk assess GenAI tools - for example.
By the way, and overdue, thanks Chaitanya for starting this interesting discussion.