 |
|
|
|||||
Artificial intelligence began as a quest to simulate the human brain. Is it now in the process of transforming the human brains role in daily life? The Industrial Revolution diminished the need for manual labor. As someone who researches the application of AI in international business, I cant help but wonder whether it is spurring a cognitive revolution, obviating the need for certain cognitive processes as it reshapes how students, workers, and artists write, design, and decide. Graphic designers use AI to quickly create a slate of potential logos for their clients. Marketers test how AI-generated customer profiles will respond to ad campaigns. Software engineers deploy AI coding assistants. Students wield AI to draft essays in record timeand teachers use similar tools to provide feedback. The economic and cultural implications are profound. What happens to the writer who no longer struggles with the perfect phrase, or the designer who no longer sketches dozens of variations before finding the right one? Will they become increasingly dependent on these cognitive prosthetics, similar to how using GPS diminishes navigation skills? And how can human creativity and critical thinking be preserved in an age of algorithmic abundance? Echoes of the Industrial Revolution Weve been here before. The Industrial Revolution replaced artisanal craftsmanship with mechanized production, enabling goods to be replicated and manufactured on a mass scale. Shoes, cars, and crops could be produced efficiently and uniformly. But products also became more bland, predictable, and stripped of individuality. Craftsmanship retreated to the margins, as a luxury or a form of resistance. Today, theres a similar risk with the automation of thought. Generative AI tempts users to conflate speed with quality, productivity with originality. The danger is not that AI will fail us, but that people will accept the mediocrity of its outputs as the norm. When everything is fast, frictionless, and good enough, theres the risk of losing the depth, nuance, and intellectual richness that define exceptional human work. The rise of algorithmic mediocrity Despite the name, AI doesnt actually think. Tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini process massive volumes of human-created content, often scraped from the internet without context or permission. Their outputs are statistical predictions of what word or pixel is likely to follow based on patterns in data theyve processed. They are, in essence, mirrors that reflect collective human creative output back to usersrearranged and recombined, but fundamentally derivative. And this, in many ways, is precisely why they work so well. Consider the countless emails people write, the slide decks that strategy consultants prepare, and the advertisements that suffuse social media feeds. Much of this content follows predictable patterns and established formulas. It has been there before, in one form or the other. Generative AI excels at producing competent-sounding contentlists, summaries, press releases, advertisementsthat bears the signs of human creation without that spark of ingenuity. It thrives in contexts where the demand for originality is low and when good enough is, well, good enough. When AI sparksand stiflescreativity Yet, even in a world of formulaic content, AI can be surprisingly helpful. In one set of experiments, researchers tasked people with completing various creative challenges. They found that those who used generative AI produced ideas that were, on average, more creative, outperforming participants who used web searches or no aids at all. In other words, AI can, in fact, elevate baseline creative performance. However, further analysis revealed a critical trade-off: Reliance on AI systems for brainstorming significantly reduced the diversity of ideas produced, which is a crucial element for creative breakthroughs. The systems tend to converge toward a predictable middle rather than exploring unconventional possibilities at the edges. I wasnt surprised by these findings. My students and I have found that the outputs of generative AI systems are most closely aligned with the values and worldviews of wealthy, English-speaking nations. This inherent bias quite naturally constrains the diversity of ideas these systems can generate. More troubling still, brief interactions with AI systems can subtly reshape how people approach problems and imagine solutions. One set of experiments tasked participants with making medical diagnoses with the help of AI. However, the researchers designed the experiment so that AI would give some participants flawed suggestions. Even after those participants stopped using the AI tool, they tended to unconsciously adopt those biases and make errors in their own decisions. What begins as a convenient shortcut risks becoming a self-reinforcing loop of diminishing originalitynot because these tools produce objectively poor content, but because they quietly narrow the bandwidth of human creativity itself. Navigating the cognitive revolution True creativity, innovation, and research are not just probabilistic recombinations of past data. They require conceptual leaps, cross-disciplinary thinking, and real-world experience. These are qualities AI cannot replicate. It cannot invent the future. It can only remix the past. What AI generates may satisfy a short-term need: a quick summary, a plausible design, a passable script. But it rarely transforms, and genuine originality risks being drowned in a sea of algorithmic sameness. The challenge, then, isnt just technological. Its cultural. How can the rreplaceable value of human creativity be preserved amid this flood of synthetic content? The historical parallel with industrialization offers both caution and hope. Mechanization displaced many workers but also gave rise to new forms of labor, education, and prosperity. Similarly, while AI systems may automate some cognitive tasks, they may also open up new intellectual frontiers by simulating intellectual abilities. In doing so, they may take on creative responsibilities, such as inventing novel processes or developing criteria to evaluate their own outputs. This transformation is only at its early stages. Each new generation of AI models will produce outputs that once seemed like the purview of science fiction. The responsibility lies with professionals, educators, and policymakers to shape this cognitive revolution with intention. Will it lead to intellectual flourishing or dependency? To a renaissance of human creativity or its gradual obsolescence? The answer, for now, is up in the air. Wolfgang Messner is a clinical professor of international business at the University of South Carolina. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
When organizations face disruption, whether its a corporate restructuring, the sunsetting of a product line, or a shift in return-to-office policies, executive teams often turn to internal communications professionals to guide the messaging and navigate change. However, theres a missing link in this equation: the middle manager. As an employee communications cloud platform, we at Staffbase are always looking at what (and who) is impacting the effectiveness of those communications most. Our recently released communication impact study found that direct managers are the most trusted source of information for U.S. employees. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that their immediate supervisor is their preferred communication channel, and 56% said they place a great deal of trust in them. Despite that trust, theres a glaring disconnect: Non-desk workers, those on the frontlines in healthcare, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, and retail, say they are consistently less well-informed than their desk-based colleagues. Simply put, companies can’t afford for frontline workers to miss out on their communications efforts. Internal comms teams can set the strategy together with executive leadership, but they must put the effort into fostering the pipeline that supports middle managers who bring these communications to life. The current state of the world is leading many organizations to lay off middle managers, but thats a grave error, severing one of the most vital communications lifelines between upper management and their workforce. Why internal comms cant go it alone The pandemic, ongoing economic volatility, and evolving employee expectations have fundamentally reshaped how companies communicate. In many cases, internal comms teams have shrunk, been centralized to one part of the organization, and generally had their reach stretched thin. The best communications in the world mean little if they arent reinforced and humanized by the people employees interact with daily. Our research revealed that only 10% of non-desk workers are very satisfied with the internal communication at their companies. Furthermore, nearly 60% of employees who are considering quitting cite poor communication as a significant contributing factor. The implications are clear: If companies want to improve retention, reinforce change, and build trust, they must focus on improving both the quality and consistency of communications with all levels of employees. Since middle managers are one of the most trusted sources of information, organizations need to work toward empowering them to become stronger communicators who can provide that consistency and quality across the business. Closing the information gap between desk and non-desk workers One of the most striking findings in our study was the communication divide between desk-based and non-desk employees. While 67% of desk-based workers say their managers keep them well-informed, that number drops to 48% for frontline workers. This gap is about both access and equity. Frontline employees are often the most critical to day-to-day operations, yet theyre also the least likely to receive timely or high-quality updates. Many dont use company email or sit at a desk, meaning they rely heavily on their direct managers to pass down critical information. When that chain breaks, confusion, misinformation, and disengagement follow. Creating dedicated communication processes can better equip managers with the knowledge and ability to deliver key information to those who struggle to receive it most. Tech can be a huge boon in this process. While there’s no all-encompassing app that can replace employees’ trust in their managers, utilizing an employee app as a main communication channel can help improve frontline access to information. These tools must be paired with training that ensures managers are both enabled and motivated to properly pair these communications channels with necessary in-person communications. Through posts, comments, and real-life conversations, managers will be better equipped to provide the communications support their various employees need. Coaching managers to lead communication, not just tasks We often assume that people management is synonymous with people leadership. However, just because someone oversees a team, doesnt mean theyve been trained to navigate tough conversations, deliver clear change updates, or answer sensitive employee questions. Managers can subsequently become bottlenecks, delivering incomplete or inconsistent messagesor worse, avoiding communication altogether. Thats where communications coaching comes in. High-performing organizations are starting to view manager communication as a core competency, rather than a desirable trait. Theyre investing in tools and training that help managers distill key messages, understand the why behind changes, and create space for team dialogue. Theyre offering templates, talking points, and even in-the-moment coaching for big moments of transformation. The payoff is significant. When it comes to leadership communication, 91% of employees who say that the vision and strategy are very clear also report being very or somewhat happy in their jobs. When managers communicate well, employees are more likely to feel connected to the companys mission, confident about their future, and have clear expectations. What does this look like in practice? Leading organizations are rethinking internal communication as a shared responsibility. Theyre not asking comms teams to carry the burden alone, theyre making it a joint effort between leaders, HR, and middle managers. First, turn to training. Create or bring on formal communications training for all middle managers and leaders of the organization. This will help create a standard for the entire company and unify the skills for every voice across the business. Second, conduct an audit of your current systems and protocols to identify what tools are working well, which audiences are being underserved and what messages have resonated well to date. Third, create a set process for announcements, change and crisis communications. A team with representatives from the aforementioned core groups can work together to create toolkits and talking points that will help translating key messages much simpler and more direct for managers. Leadership may question the investment of time and money into the above efforts, so employee communications teams should work to measure success along the way. Develop a framework that measures the ROI of your communication efforts by tracking metrics like employee satisfaction, behavioral shifts, and impact on critical business goals. Doing so can help shine a light on the bottom line value of these efforts and create further buy-in across the entire team. In moments of uncertainty, employees dont need perfect messaging. They need consistency and transparency, and more than anything, they need to hear it from someone they trust.
Category:
E-Commerce
Professional sports is big businessand the stakes have never been higher. Sarah Spain, host of the podcast Good Game With Sarah Spain, longtime ESPN personality, and sports journalist, unpacks what those stakes mean for the leagues, teams, companies, and players involved. From the WNBAs breakthrough to the future of ESPNs streaming to the looming legal settlement that could transform college athletics, sports business is at a crossroads. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As women’s pro sports become more successful, do you worry that it’s going to take on some of the toxic qualities of men’s pro sports, more aggressive media conversations, bad behavior off the court or off the field? How much is that a looming question that these women’s leagues have to sort of grapple with or maybe redefine? Very much. And actually, we saw it last year with Caitlin Clark’s entry into the [WNBA]. It was awesome that more people were watching and more people were interested. It also meant talking heads who didn’t know the game, weren’t watching the games, and certainly didn’t understand the intersectionality of women’s sports, and how it intersects with race, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, all those things. And they created damaging and toxic conversations that were actually dangerous to players. There were multiple incidents of players addresses being sent, and [notes saying] “I’m going to find you.” Or people showing up in the places the players were and players feeling like they were endangered. Breanna Stewart’s wife actually got threats. So I think the attention is great, the investment is great, but what comes with that is an expectation that well suddenly turn women’s sports into the same as men’s. And there’s a real gift in it not being the same. There’s a real joy in the space feeling different than men’s. And I named my show Good Game With Sarah Spain, because originally I wanted to name it The Good Place With Sarah Spain. But that’s a TV show, and it would be hard for people to distinguish and find when they looked for it online. But that’s how I feel about going to a women’s professional sporting event. It’s the good place. It is incredibly diverse. It is incredibly kind. Everyone’s rooting for their team, and they’re very competitive, but there’s no fistfights. People aren’t getting hammered and falling down the stands on each other. I think that with the NWSL [National Women’s Soccer League], for instance, when they had the recent forced purchases of a couple teams due to the toxicity I mentioned, they had a new rule where the majority owner needed to be financially liable as one person. There could be a group of owners, but they required that one owner bear the financial burden, if necessary, and that person had to be a billionaire. That meant that these large groups of women, who have a lot of money but aren’t billionaires, were shut out. And it inevitably meant that once again, we were returning to ownership groups where it was going to be most likely a middle-aged white guy that owned it. And that’s fine if that person is really dedicated to women’s sports, and wants to learn the space and understand everything about it. It’s a little tougher if it’s another plaything that they have with four other teams, and they don’t feel as connected to the space. And, again, #notallmen. But what the problem with the previous iteration of the NWSL was how many owners and coaches it turned out were engaging in toxic or abusive behavior, or at the very least, covering up for each other, sending a coach on his way: “Thank you for your service.” Nice long letter: “Thanks for your time here.” While knowing that they were letting them go because of abusive behavior, and letting them get hired somewhere else. And that’s not to say that women won’t do that and never do that, but there is a belief that youve got to have more women at the highest levels to help prevent those kind of situations, and that kind of atmosphere and culture, from taking over again. You worked at ESPN in various roles for a bunch of years. And I want to ask you about ESPN’s new dedicated streaming service: $30 a month for all the live coverage, ESPN+, in-game betting, so on. What impact do you think that this will have on sports media? Bob, are you as confused by the name being ESPN as I am? I am. I was, like, so ESPN+ is on ESPN, but I can also get ESPN? I don’t know, it’s . . . Right. I just feel like we’re about to enter another HBO Max, Max, HBO, Max, ouroboros kind of situation here. But it feels inevitable. Obviously, during the massive shift away from traditional cable, and the unbundling, where ESPN no longer got $13, or whatever it was, from every human in America who had cable. What a great deal for ESPN, because not all of them were watching ESPN, right? But also, for cable, ESPN was a huge reason that people wanted to buy it. So it was a great partnership for a long time. That goes away, and it becomes quite clear that ESPN needs to try to keep up with the digital side of things, and needs to have a streaming direct-to-consumer service, because people aren’t just going with cable anymore. I think for a while, folks who appreciate the television side will still get an approximation of what it used to be. But you’re already seeing ESPN2 used to be an incubator for new shows, and creativity, and new talent, and now it’s mostly reruns. You’re seeing shows like Around the Horn, and others, that are shoulder programming for the live shows, that will start to go away. Because on streaming you don’t need to fill a specific amount of time. You just create whatever amount of content you want to have. So they’ll start focusing on rights, pre- and post-show Sports Center, and I would say a couple big-property studio shows. But I think those are going to go away more and more. And I think if you also look at ESPN’s decision-making around more influencer-type and former-athlete-type content, as opposed to journalistic content, that is unfortunate reacting to the world’s, I guess, demands, and the speed and desires of the current younger consumer. But I do worry about how that impacts ESPN’s position in the industry. Because what separates them from everyone else is that they’re the worldwide leader. If it’s on ESPN, it’s right, it’s accurate, it’s vetted, it’s journalistically sound. When you’ve got a Pat McAfee, whose show is produced elsewhere and dropped onto ESPN airwaves, and they wash their hands of the production and creation side of it, and they tell you it’s a little bit differentbut the viewer doesn’t know that. So when he goes on and says things that are factually incorrect, does stries that arefor instance, one he’s now being sued for libelessentially, that aren’t vetted, and aren’t sourced before he takes them in front of millions. That, I think, impacts how people view everything else on the network, even if it’s just subconsciously. When they turn it on, do they still think everything Adam Schefter says is journalistically sound? Or does the fact that Pat McAfee is on the same network. Or Stephen A. Smith, who will say, “Oh, I can’t talk about Dana White hitting his wife on camera; he’s a close personal friend of mine.” That’s not how journalism works, right? And so when that starts to blur the lines, does the rest of what’s coming out on that network get harmed by it? And does it then prevent them from being separated from the pack in a way that they used to be? I don’t know. I’m not in charge. It’s above my pay grade. From my point of view, yes, and that concerns me. But also, I get that everyone’s trying to get the younger consumer, and they seem to like a screaming head influencer or former athlete more than they like someone who knows how to do journalism.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||