Every “AI” tool is missing critical features that you would need if you wanted to do real work with them. What would those look like, if they existed?
This piece is quite technical but the section “Human Processes” (which is really good, btw) near the end is the kind of thing even a manager could understand.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a bit questionable, IMO, where we’re going with AI. I mean we want a problem-solving tool. But that’s not really what we have. We have a text generator instead. With a lot of limitations and really weird quirks. Now we add a lot of duct-tape on top. Try to minimize stuff in the harness/framework, add guardrails, citations, make another text generator fact check the first one… But that’s all still just something that isn’t a proper problem-solving machine at the core, with lots of hot glue and duct tape around. And once it’s used for more complex tasks, it all shows, and issues always add up. Plus the framework is notoriously bad at fixing edge-cases and stuff like that. So it’s very limited in what it can do and doesn’t have good accuracy.
I think the only proper fix is to dig down and really fix the issues. Come up with a way to not make it make up wrong facts. But that remains to be an unsolved challenge.
