21–30 of 282 posts
Well, this sounds like perfect tasks for GPT: "Participants responded to a total of 18 tasks (or as many as they could within the given time frame). These tasks spanned various domains. Specifically, they can be categorized into four types: creativity (e.g., “Propose at least 10 ideas for a new shoe targeting an underserved market or sport.”), analytical thinking (e.g., “Segment the footwear industry market based on…
Says more about how useless BCG consultants are.
People who have no background in writing or editing think LLMs will revolutionize those fields. Actual writers and editors take one look at LLM output and can see it’s basically valueless because the time taken to fix it would be equivalent to the time taken to write it in the first place.
Similarly people who are poor programmers or have only a surface level understanding of a topic (especially management types who are trying to appear technical) look at LLM output and think it’s ready to ship but good programmers recognize that the output is broken in so many ways large and small that it’s not worth the time it would take to fix compared to just writing from scratch.
Not surprised. It's frighteningly good, and a perfect match for programming. I often ask GPT4 to write code for something, and try if it works, but I seldom copy and paste the code it writes - I rewrite it myself to fit into the context of the codebase. But it saves me a lot of time when I am unsure about how to do something. Other times I don't like the suggestion at all, but that's useful as well, as it often clari…
Not to say you're of of those programmers, but it certainly enables those sorts of programmers.
Having been a consultant, what strikes me about this is the next, to me seemingly obvious question: What if you just removed the consultants entirely and just had GPT-4 do the work directly for the client? If you’re a client and need a consultant to do something, you have to explain the requirement to them, review the work, give feedback, and so forth. There will likely be a few meetings in there. But if GPT-4 can ma…
Companies like BCG and McKinsey are mostly about liability, as a CEO you call them, pay them the big bucks, have them make up plans and strategies, if it works out you get the credit, if it doesn't then well "we worked tightly with experts from McKinsey, etc. so the blame isn't on me"
> Two distinct patterns of AI use emerged: “Centaurs,” who divided and delegated tasks between themselves and the AI, and “Cyborgs,” who integrated their workflow with the AI. It was nice of them to explain that the article was total horse dung before having to read the whole paper
Says more about how useless BCG consultants are.
"It says more about [insert]" anytime GPT does something just makes the phrase lose all meaning. Surely you have something meaningful to say?
Says more about how useless BCG consultants are.
Number 1. In a team of 20-30 engineers there is only one extremely god "why is he with us" engineers who is great at technical stuff and being a people person. However, no matter how nice he is his approach to his job, it is a job and I will only drop hints how the management should be done. He doesn't care about where the company is headed because he plays video games, has a family and has a literal life. He doesn't care about management and taking on undue responsibilities. Moreover, the people up to has a label for him as an "engineer" does not see as a "manager".
For the rest of the engineers and managers, have also adopted the approach of "not my problem", you see a bizarre communication gap. Engineers working closesly with the product don't want to talk to their managers, becase the conversation goes like "if you know this so much, why don't you.... " and managers don't want to talk with engineers because "if you are you so interested, why don't you.... " From this progressive distance between managers and engineers comes the "manaegment consultant". Management consultant have the upper management given flexibility of going back and forth between engineers and managers. They can have conversations with full flexibility but they are not bound to "why don't you...." phrases. They can talk with anyone and submit a report and take home 1 years worth of salary of managers/engineers in 1 month. The conversation gap between product and business where management consultants come in. And the funny thing is that, management consultants target those "I don't want to but I should" work things and report to the upper management. They can do this so well, because they are not burdened with the "work" part. Seriously, if you do some introspection, you will see there is plenty of things you know your company should do, but you don't want to voice them because it results in more work and in fact more risk. There comes a "good" management consultant who will discover those things and report to upper management who will create the system to get those jobs done. That is my pitch if anyone wants a management consultant hire me. I am going to tell them why their company sucks in 20 different ways with 18 of those points being generated by ChatGPT.
Not surprised. It's frighteningly good, and a perfect match for programming. I often ask GPT4 to write code for something, and try if it works, but I seldom copy and paste the code it writes - I rewrite it myself to fit into the context of the codebase. But it saves me a lot of time when I am unsure about how to do something. Other times I don't like the suggestion at all, but that's useful as well, as it often clari…
I’ve also found the act of describing my problem to GPT4 is sometimes just a helpful as the answer itself. It’s almost like enhanced rubber duck debugging.