The colleague test kind of predates AI... Plenty of people couldn't have handed off their 2021 workflow either. I retype basically the same prompt most mornings so I know which bucket I'm in. Makes me wonder how much of that flat gap is education vs. jobs that just never reward handing anything of.
I would like to challenge one contention and it’s an assumption I see a lot of AI enthusiasts making.
You draw the right conclusion about the barrier to further and deeper adoption of AI tooling and management of the ever deepening stack required to get the results you describe beyond prompting. The critical elements missing are threefold.
1. Systems thinking: A brain that values and embraces Systems Thinking. The reality is a good proportion of people have rejected formal logic systems thinking. To be honest Software coding tools have existed long before LLMs and AI tooling arrived. The biggest hurdle is some people just dont have exposure to the logical process stepping thoughts to take advantage
2. The Builders Desire to even embrace it. Even people with real challenges don’t want to have to create the tool. In a recent article I described this as just because you have the woodworking tools available in your garbage doesn’t mean you have the desire to build shelves. You’d rather just go online to IKEA and order a Billy Bookshelf. Sometimes you can’t even be that arsed, and just pile the books on top of a cardboard box!
3. The Time. People’s lives a really busy with all kinds of stuff. Some of it work, some love, some illness and grief. Finding the time to embrace a new learning cohort that takes you up a capability ladder is hard. Taking it further and getting beyond to some degree of competence is a huge challenge for people whose life budget is full.
So before critiquing the masses. Level set whether your expectations are everyone’s expectations
“The data is blunt: the people pulling ahead prompt well, and then they refuse to let it end there. They turn what works into systems, verification, and workflows a colleague could run. The gap between them and everyone who stopped at the first rung is measurable, it is teachable, and right now it is not closing on its own.
This post is what we found, what we changed because of it, and where you can start today for free.”
I read the remainder of the article too first time around before my comment, and my comment was addressing the assumption that your survey sample represented the universe rather than a corner of a galaxy. The people not “pulling ahead” in your terms might actually be ‘suffering’ from one or all three of the conditions I raised. That is all I was trying to say.
If you look at my track record I am a very infrequent notes commenter. So assuming I am a Notes engagement hunter is pretty weak sauce! But I’ll take the back handed compliment anyway.
I drew conclusions from analyzing data from 918 participants. The data represents the 918 people from the data set and infers solutions from that data to help adjust the methodology I use in my skills evaluation and learning roadmap on AI Cred. It's a reasonable assumption that people who will use AI Cred are similar to the people who have already used AI Cred.
I'd be happy to give you a credit for the full evaluation and learning path so you can take it for yourself. DM me your email.
You sound pretty confident in your assessment, by all means, if you have done a similar study with this or a similar sample size I would love to see that data and/or the conclusions you drew from it.
BTW, speaking of missing the mark: when I thanked you for commenting on my post because the algorithm loves engagement, that had everything to do with you helping boost my post in the algorithm. Not sure where you got the idea that I was calling you an engagement hunter, lmao.
On it..
The colleague test kind of predates AI... Plenty of people couldn't have handed off their 2021 workflow either. I retype basically the same prompt most mornings so I know which bucket I'm in. Makes me wonder how much of that flat gap is education vs. jobs that just never reward handing anything of.
This is heading more toward a PAICE-style weighting now. I heartily approve!
Great critique and advice buried in here.
I would like to challenge one contention and it’s an assumption I see a lot of AI enthusiasts making.
You draw the right conclusion about the barrier to further and deeper adoption of AI tooling and management of the ever deepening stack required to get the results you describe beyond prompting. The critical elements missing are threefold.
1. Systems thinking: A brain that values and embraces Systems Thinking. The reality is a good proportion of people have rejected formal logic systems thinking. To be honest Software coding tools have existed long before LLMs and AI tooling arrived. The biggest hurdle is some people just dont have exposure to the logical process stepping thoughts to take advantage
2. The Builders Desire to even embrace it. Even people with real challenges don’t want to have to create the tool. In a recent article I described this as just because you have the woodworking tools available in your garbage doesn’t mean you have the desire to build shelves. You’d rather just go online to IKEA and order a Billy Bookshelf. Sometimes you can’t even be that arsed, and just pile the books on top of a cardboard box!
3. The Time. People’s lives a really busy with all kinds of stuff. Some of it work, some love, some illness and grief. Finding the time to embrace a new learning cohort that takes you up a capability ladder is hard. Taking it further and getting beyond to some degree of competence is a huge challenge for people whose life budget is full.
So before critiquing the masses. Level set whether your expectations are everyone’s expectations
Cheers 😊
Hi there! I appreciate the comment. It certainly is engagement and the algorithm loves engagement.
However you appear to be responding to a post I didn't write, happy to have a conversation with you about this one … Once you've read it.
🍻
Sure Jonathan, I’ll take a whirl at it. Always curious for confirmation bias of my dunceworthiness :-)
Not sure that’s true :-)
You started right at the top with:
“The data is blunt: the people pulling ahead prompt well, and then they refuse to let it end there. They turn what works into systems, verification, and workflows a colleague could run. The gap between them and everyone who stopped at the first rung is measurable, it is teachable, and right now it is not closing on its own.
This post is what we found, what we changed because of it, and where you can start today for free.”
I read the remainder of the article too first time around before my comment, and my comment was addressing the assumption that your survey sample represented the universe rather than a corner of a galaxy. The people not “pulling ahead” in your terms might actually be ‘suffering’ from one or all three of the conditions I raised. That is all I was trying to say.
If you look at my track record I am a very infrequent notes commenter. So assuming I am a Notes engagement hunter is pretty weak sauce! But I’ll take the back handed compliment anyway.
I drew conclusions from analyzing data from 918 participants. The data represents the 918 people from the data set and infers solutions from that data to help adjust the methodology I use in my skills evaluation and learning roadmap on AI Cred. It's a reasonable assumption that people who will use AI Cred are similar to the people who have already used AI Cred.
I'd be happy to give you a credit for the full evaluation and learning path so you can take it for yourself. DM me your email.
You sound pretty confident in your assessment, by all means, if you have done a similar study with this or a similar sample size I would love to see that data and/or the conclusions you drew from it.
BTW, speaking of missing the mark: when I thanked you for commenting on my post because the algorithm loves engagement, that had everything to do with you helping boost my post in the algorithm. Not sure where you got the idea that I was calling you an engagement hunter, lmao.