Having spent a good chunk of my career working for a company quite similar to Deloitte, reading this story made me think about the story behind the story.
In this instance the company's report on automating welfare penalties has raised eyebrows among academics, who suspect that AI may have been used in its creation. The report, intended to inform policy discussions, has been criticized for numerous citation errors and a lack of transparency regarding its authorship.
The report's methodology and conclusions have been called into question, with experts expressing concern over the potential implications of relying on AI-generated content in policy-making. The situation underscores the need for rigorous standards and accountability in the use of AI in professional services.
The story behind the story is about the fate of professional services as category of work. Deloitte and others like them (big and small) were largely sleeping at the wheel and the technology powering the AI revolution grew and evolved at a pace they were never built to keep up with. The "insight" from these companies comes from their consultants having access to market intelligence from a variety of sources of which the most significant one is leadership in the client organizations they serve.
These are the folks who are entrenched in the field and have true subject matter expertise. The pool of information is shrinking and drying up for one. There is also the lack of diversity of thought thanks to AI so the likes of Deloitte have very little of value to bring to the table, there is not much tor rehash and regurgitate from. Yet not adopting AI is a death sentence for them. So here we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment