 |
|
|
|||||
Greetings from Fast Company, and thank you, as always, for spending time with Plugged In. As a technology journalist, Ive always found value in using products I write about to get actual work doneeven when theyre imperfect or downright terrible. So at this point, Ive been knee-deep in AI for years. Ive used a bevy of tools to research topics, fine-tune my writing, and tend to various other day-to-day tasks. It hasnt always gone well. Sometimes, its even felt like AI was costing me time rather than saving it. Recently, though, Ive settled into my own particular AI groove. Blessedly, I work for a media outlet that isnt so smitten with the technology that anyone here believes gorging on it should be a goal in itself. But I call on AI every day, and am confident it helps me produce better work more efficiently. Some of the lessons Ive learned so far: Your technique matters at least as much as the specific AI you use. Mostly, I hop between ChatGPT and Claude. Ive also been using Copilot more lately, have been nudging myself to increase my Gemini time, and give Perplexity a shot every now and then. My biggest takeaway is that the differences between these chatbots are often tough to pinpoint and, since theyre all evolving rapidly, subject to change. Rather than settling on one of them, I recommend focusing on upping your own prompt-writing game. Describe what youre trying to do in painful detail, and youre more likely to get it. If your instructions come off as excessivemaybe even patronizingyoure in the right zone. AI is far better at general concepts than specific factsespecially arcane ones. Earlier this year, I wrote an explainer about quantum computing and needed to brush up on some of the technologys mind-bending basics. ChatGPT helped (along with plenty of old-fashioned legwork such as interviewing experts and reading technical papers, I hasten to add). But when Im searching for a discrete fact, I still dont trust LLMs to give me hallucination-free answers. For example, when working on our 1995 Week, I asked ChatGPT where the power button was on IBMs ThinkPad 701. It expounded at length on why IBM chose to put it to the right of the display, where it would be easy to reach. Which was a smart decision on the companys partexcept the switch was actually to the left of the keyboard, and a bit of a hassle to locate. Once again, an LLM had fabricated a simulacrum of a fact that was difficult to tell from the real thing. AI with citations is vastly more useful than AI without it. Hallucinations are most likely when a chatbot depends entirely on its own hermetically sealed LLM to gin up responses to your prompts. But these days, many AI tools can quickly hit the web as part of their answer-generation process. When they do thatand include citations with links to what they foundI find the accuracy of their responses dramatically better. And I can always click the links to see where the information originated. Bringing your own data makes AI way better. The one AI tool I love unreservedly is Googles NotebookLM. Thats because its not trying to synthesize and summarize all human knowledgea goal that frequently gets ChatGPT and Claude into troublebut only the documents I choose to upload. In my case, thats usually transcripts of interviews Ive conducted for an article. It scours them at least as well as I could if left to my own devices, does it far more quickly, and never introduces errors. Other more general-purpose AI bots also let you upload your own files, an option well worth exploring if you havent yet. At its best, AI is better at drudgery than I am. Some of it, at least. Producing this newsletter each week requires some truly tedious tweaking of HTML code, a process that took me about 15 minutes each time and was difficult to perform without mucking up the code even further. It was a great day when I realized Claude could swiftly and reliably edit the code. I plan to Identify other boring-but-necessary aspects of my work and see if AI might lend a hand. AI is not better than I am at the parts of my job that I love. Every so often, I satisfy my own curiosity by telling ChatGPT or Claude the topic of a Plugged In newsletter Ive already finished writing. Then I ask it to generate its own version, at the same length. Once in a while, Im startled by how close these LLMs come to producing something in the same zip code as my effort, at least in terms of overarching approach and takeaway. Ultimately, though, they always read like they were written on autopilotwhich they were!and are often rendered worthless due to all the stuff the AI doesnt know it doesnt know. I practically got into a verbal fistfight with ChatGPT after it churned out a newsletter on the U.S. governments deal to take equity in Intel that read like the improvisations of a kid whod failed to do his homework. It even got the companys current CEO wrong. In an odd way, my failed experiments with handing off the core of my work to AI are reassuring. I have no interest in avoiding the labor this newsletter represents. Having an LLM write drafts of my articles for publication sounds about as appealing as going to Disneyland and then paying someone else to ride Space Mountain on my behalf. Thats a bonus lesson: Seeking out ways AI can make my life easier has been a worthwhile exercise. But its left me even more appreciative of the work I have no interest in automatingand grateful that theres still so much of it. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback ad ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company Why so many people still feel stuck in the COVID pauseYears after lockdowns ended, TikTok and Reddit users say the pandemic warped their sense of time. Read More Zoom is betting big on agentic AI with its new AI Companion 3.0On September 17, the company unveiled an AI upgrade designed to move beyond video calls. Read More Etsy witches are having a momentSpellcastingfor everything from baseball streaks to wedding-day sunshine to political hexesis moving from fringe to mainstream. Read More Why MrBeast would be making a huge mistake launching his own mobile phone serviceWireless is not the new tequila for celebrities looking for a payday, and Beast is definitely not Ryan Reynolds. Read More This camera bag charm may become the biggest gadget of the yearIts a disposable camera. Its a bag charm. Its completely out of stock. Read More OpenAI wants to transform business. Many of its users just want life hacksFresh data highlights the gap between OpenAIs enterprise ambitions and how people actually use its models. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
Ive done everything I can here, Alex told me. But every time I think about leaving, I feel a massive sense of guilt, like Id be abandoning my team. Alex is an executive vice president at a technology and manufacturing company, and she leads one of the highest-performing divisions in the company. But Alex is stuck. The founder is also the CEO, so theres no clear path upward. Shes a respected and results-driven leader, and because she has a protective nature, she worries that leaving might mean that the business hands her team off to someone less impactful. A Gartner survey shows that over half of C-suite leaders are likely to leave over the next two years and an LLH report found that burnout rose to 56% among leaders in 2024. As executive tenure shortens and burnout rises among senior leaders, many leaders want the answer to Whats next for me? But too few leaders examine how emotional loyalty, especially to teams they built, may be clouding their judgment and keeping them trapped. Heres how to move forward, even when it feels emotionally complicated. ASK WHETHER YOUR LOYALTY IS STRATEGIC OR SENTIMENTAL Loyalty is one of the most valued traits in leadership, but when it overrides objectivity, it becomes a liability. A respected senior leader who stays too long out of loyalty can stall succession planning, miss the opportunity for creative new approaches, and risk eroding their edge and engagement. They also often experience burnout and resentment from doing work that theyve outgrown. A study on entrepreneurial leaders found that when their cognitive style did not fit the structure or demands of their work, they reported significantly higher burnout, reduced job satisfaction, and stronger intentions to leave. It is worth considering whether your current role still aligns with your growth, or if you are staying to avoid letting someone down. Loyalty exists on a spectrum. On one end, there is no loyalty. This looks like low commitment, few team relationships, and constant churn. On the other end, there is excessive loyalty. This can look like staying in roles too long (sometimes at extreme costs). Where do you sit on the spectrum? BE WARY OF COMMITMENT BIAS One of my clients regularly evaluated whether her commitment to her organization was still valuable. She did this by assessing whether she was actively growing, if the work still reflected her values, and whether her efforts were creating the kind of impact she wanted to have. When those benchmarks no longer align, consider whether staying is truly helping your team or simply keeping you both stuck. Loyalty, unchecked, becomes commitment bias: the tendency to stay committed or remain in place out of obligation, even if this behavior isnt producing the results we want. Behavioral science shows this bias often keeps talented leaders in roles theyve outgrown to avoid the discomfort of change, because leaving feels like discomfort and disloyalty. Deepening the trap, organizations hang on to long-term leaders in the name of loyalty and exploit it to place increased demands on them, resulting in extra hours or more unpaid work. SHIFT FROM A NARRATIVE OF ABANDONMENT TO ONE OF LEGACY Staying too long in a misaligned role isnt service-minded; in the long run, it can undercut both you and your company. A corporate example of this is Steve Ballmer. He took over from Bill Gates during Microsofts peak, following two decades of working closely to build Microsoft. In the early years of his leadership, Microsoft saw significant revenue increase, built a powerful sales and operations system, and launched the Xbox. However, during the later years of his 13-year tenure, critics argue that he was too focused on protecting Windows and Office revenue, rather than embracing disruptive innovation. As a result, Ballmer missed the mobile revolution and was overcommitted to legacy products. Critics also claim that he created a rigid culture that killed collaboration, and his emotional blind spots clouded his objectivity. Staying too long in a misaligned leadership role can undermine the example you set as a leader and shift your legacy from one of impact to one overshadowed by burnout, resentment, or even failure. You might ot need to leave immediately, but you do need to initiate a plan for succession, delegation, or redesigning the role in a way that reinvigorates your leadership and supports your teams sustainability. DISTINGUISH LOYALTY FROM OBJECTIVITY Consider that the opposite of loyalty isnt disloyalty or being a traitor, it is objectivity. The ability to be objective about the right decision for your career and the organization starts with taking your ego out of the game. As you reach the highest levels of leadership, it becomes harder to get direct and honest feedback. Your team may withhold honest feedback, creating an echo chamber of overly positive data. A sense of healthy loyalty includes the ability to objectively evaluate your performance against business results, future business goals, and honest employee feedback. Consider how often you invite uncomfortable feedback or alternative viewpoints on your perspectives or performance. What critical evaluation do you invite on a regular basis? The leaders who leave the strongest legacies are not the ones who stayed the longest; they are the ones who know when their continued presence limits what is possible next.
Category:
E-Commerce
When answering the phone, do you lead with a hello or [insert name] speaking? Or do you simply pick up, breathe into the receiver, and hope the other person says something? Well, the latter might be common among the workforces youngest members, as a number of recruiters have been pointing out a generational gap in phone etiquette. I just found out that Gen Z don’t answer the phone when they answer the phone, one recruiter explained in a recent TikTok post, now with more than 1 million views. I think its so weird, its so awkward. She is not the first to make this observation. Back in July, an X users post on the topic went viral. Im a recruiter, so I do a TON of phone interviews and something Ive noticed about Gen Z specifically is that a lot of them answer the phone and dont say anything, they posted. I can hear their breathing and the background noise, but they wait for you to say hello first. Of course, there are many things that Gen Zers do that older generations cant wrap their heads around: The Gen Z starethe vacant expression a Gen Zer supposedly gives in response to a questionwas one much-discussed example earlier this year. Now it seems the silent treatment extends to Gen Zs phone use. While as a generation they average more than six hours a day on their phone, Gen Zers are typically averse to actually picking it up when it rings. In fact, a 2024 study showed nearly a quarter of the generation doesnt even bother to answer. The most common reason? Scammers. As one commenter on the viral TikTok explained, they refuse to say anything right off the bat, as bots automatically hang up if they dont hear hello within the first three seconds of the call. Another added: there have been cases where just saying hello or your name can lead to AI copying your voice for hackers, its not because we are inept in how to answer a phone.” Turns out its not just a Gen Z thing; in the comments, millennials and Gen Xers also admitted to doing this. But thats not the only reason given. Others in the comments shared their belief that the responsibility to start the conversation lies with the person doing the calling. Isn’t it a universal law that the person who’s doing the calling should be the one to say hello? one person asked. Another wrote: You called me? Say what you want and Ill answer. Or, do as I do: Simply watch the phone ring before returning to whatever you were doing.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||