Serendipity and Learning

Up until now, I was of the firm belief that AI wont be able to beat human creativity soon (or never). But seeing results of AI based Chatgpt scores in TTCT makes me rethink.  The Torrance test measures, in its own words, fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration.  Fluency stands for number of relevant responses. Flexibility is number of categories of shifts or ideas.  Originality is number of unusual ideas determined by statistical infrequency Elaboration is ideas beyond the usual necessary for the responses Yes, on the face of it, seems like a brute force AI will work well. Plus we may be tempted to question the test itself which was developed in the 50s.  But to me this is a first breach in the wall that is humans versus artificial intel in a manner of speaking. \ PS: I still feel an AI is no match for a creative human, but who knows

 This is the first generation AI (ok, maybe more, but leave the technicalities aside for the moment). As on date, you can create perfect emails, documents, powerpoint slides and do a lot of things with basic AI. It will only get better as time progresses.  Now for the moment, it is argued that AI will improve productivity - which it might, if you see the copious new emails that will be created and exchanged with attachment runnings into reams.  One person makes the email with AI, another replies, so the human sitting there is just pushing buttons. I am almost reminded of the 90s Ramayana television where the battle between Rama and Ravana was depicted as an "arrow vs arrow" battle. It is hard to explain it - but IYKYK.  So, point being (and this is the continuation of the earlier post in a different manner) - we can create great emails, but we need to learn basic human etiquette. And we are great with words, but miss the comprehension and originality of thought.  We live in i

 Recently, I was in the unenvious position of having to ferry around a few kids to and from classes. And these are very articulate kids. They can all talk very well - like digital natives, these people are almost - English natives. That means, English is their primary language of communication - perhaps at home, surely at school and with friends.  Now this set of kids can talk very well and it sometimes gets mistaken for knowledge. Articulation is not knowledge - not by a long margin.  A little about a similar experience from a few years back .  We often miss this in the fog of communication. Recently, I interviewed someone who was extremely articulate - but that just translated as words and more words. I missed this persons ability to abstract, condense and summarise. 

Visited a friends home recently. Among other things, the door had a video cam that shows who is standing outside the door, so that you can check and open the door.  Only problem - the video camera does not have a fish eye lens, so unless the person stands smack in front of the camera, nothing can be seen. The peep hole with its fish eye lens had solved this problem without technology already.  And then there were the movement sensing light in the washroom. So, when you walk in the lights turn on. So far so good. And then you stay immobile for a few seconds thinking of something deep (yes, exact situation that is coming to your mind) - lights out.  All you need are switches right inside or just outside near the door. And the fans now have a remote control - the switches for the fans are inoperative or something like that. And the remote being those tiny remotes, they disappear exactly when you want them. Switches at the right place solve for most fan needs.  Three instances where techno

A few years back, I had two reportees working with me in a team. Both were hi-potential and had reached this level with good feedback. This was the time they could both have scaled to head the team - because the team was under me for a short duration - almost as a transition, until one of them could take over. But the catch was that only one could lead the team. It was difficult. A was very good with data, made zero mistakes at work and was very reliable. B was equally good with data, very diligent and reliable. On the face of it very little to choose from.  But over a few interactions, I realised one big difference.  Whenever I went to A with a situation and a possible solution - A only saw constraints. Why something cannot be done, why something had to be done only in one particular way or why this was something we had to live it. All in all a pretty draining conversation - filled with "no, but".  Whenever I went to B with a situation and a possible solution - B saw possibi