It's quite possible that any one new AI tool is wrong, but it is unlikely all of them are

> It's quite possible that any one new AI tool is wrong, but it is unlikely all of them are. A great historical analogies are the adoption of PCs in the 80s and the adoption of the internet/web in the 90s. Not everything we tried back then was an improvement on existing technologies or processes but in general if you weren't experimenting across a broad swath of your business you were going to get left behind. There is a difference between experimentation and mandated usage, however. In the former, you typically see "shadow IT" attempt to access useful tools outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable, as compared to mandated usage. This indicates a greater willingness to adopt. There is also a difference between a technology replicating an existing functionality in a new medium (email vs usps) and introduction of a new technology. In the former, there is clear market demand, and…

> but it is unlikely all of them are How so? I have access to a huge number of these tools and they're all pretty similar.

> It's quite possible that any one new AI tool is wrong, but it is unlikely all of them are. All can absolutely be wrong at the same time, but the tool isn't the main issue IMHO. Its the user. For simple generic stuff its not an issue, but where you need an expert, it has to be an expert in that field who uses the AI. So you know what is wrong. A good recent example is the OpenAI Academy. Clearly the site content is generated by ChatGPT, and completely misses the point of the areas it claims to be training you in.

> A great historical analogies are the adoption of PCs in the 80s Another historical analogy is Scientific Management, pushed top down and widely adopted by the industry. It has many flavors and all of them were wrong. We have samples in basically any direction one would like to argue for. Historical precedence isn't a good argument IMHO.

> I think coming to the conclusion that bosses/managers shouldn't be pushing or mandating the use of AI tools in general is incorrect. It's quite possible that any one new AI tool is wrong, but it is unlikely all of them are. If the tool is good, then management won't need to mandate it. People will be tripping over themselves to get access to the tool that helps them to do their job better. So perhaps you're right that some of the tools will be good (though I personally haven't yet had that experience), but I think that it is incorrect for managers to push for (let alone mandate) tool usage. Measure the result , not the path an employee takes to get there. If Bob uses AI tools to great effect, but Alice is doing just as well as him without using said tools, it's a mistake to force her to change her workflow thinking that the tools will be just as good for her as for Bob.

Do you also believe that open-plan offices make people more productive by "fostering collaboration"?