New research involving 776 Procter & Gamble experts suggests individuals using AI can perform as well as traditional two-person teams.
Study confirms that a randomizer creates a lot of random stuff quickly, notes some of the limitations include whether the random stuff is actually going to be useful.
Unfortunately, AI has the creativity of a turnip.
A team with one creative and one gets things done is not too bad. I’d take the headline with a grain of salt since AI are known to not always get things done and sometimes will lead their pilots around in circles for no good reason, but still, they don’t really need to be creative to beat most teams.
They might not need to be creative but they do need to produce useful results and AI is just really bad at that, especially without a human spending a large part of their time correcting and filtering its output.
As someone who has been paired with such a person before, that means AI gets half way there.
If I’m paired with an AI will it also get me to all its work as well as mine and then play politics to get itself promoted over me?
Or, to rephrase that, every other employee just as useless as AI because HR and managers are clueless about judging performance.
Plot twist, one of the two people is schizophrenic.
