What struck me here, Norm, is the loss of specificity. A claim can arrive with a mechanism, a timeline and evidence behind it, and still end up being answered as though it were mainly about the person making it. That’s a useful way of thinking about where scrutiny can fail.
Thanks, Julie. Specificity goes first because it's the hardest part to argue with. A timeline demands a response. A person only invites a reaction. I'd be curious whether you see the same thing in your own work, where the more precise the claim, the faster the conversation turns to who made it.
Yes, I have. I think specificity can make a claim feel less like information and more like a challenge, particularly when it narrows someone’s room to manoeuvre. That’s often when the attention shifts to who said it.
Julie, I’ve been busy on a management operating system project, finally getting to responses.
My thoughts, when a claim leaves no room to move, and the person feels boxed in, people go after the only thing left and that’s the person who said it. That's usually a sign the claim landed.
Good morning Adneen, I try to avoid politics, but its easy for today's current business structure and decisions to fall into that realm.
If the guardrail is a person, you don't have a guardrail. You have a judgment call.
On September 14, Trump wrote that the only AI “guardrails” needed are a “STRONG AND SMART” president. He also argued that the federal government already has enough criminal and regulatory authority to police AI companies.( Source Reuters).
From an MOS perspective, the important question is not whether Trump is right or wrong. It is where the control mechanism resides.
A strong operating system normally does not depend on one person being the guardrail. It puts the guardrail into the system: defined limits, measurable triggers, independent verification, escalation rules, decision rights, and corrective action.
What struck me here, Norm, is the loss of specificity. A claim can arrive with a mechanism, a timeline and evidence behind it, and still end up being answered as though it were mainly about the person making it. That’s a useful way of thinking about where scrutiny can fail.
Thanks, Julie. Specificity goes first because it's the hardest part to argue with. A timeline demands a response. A person only invites a reaction. I'd be curious whether you see the same thing in your own work, where the more precise the claim, the faster the conversation turns to who made it.
Thank you for the question
Norm
Yes, I have. I think specificity can make a claim feel less like information and more like a challenge, particularly when it narrows someone’s room to manoeuvre. That’s often when the attention shifts to who said it.
Julie, I’ve been busy on a management operating system project, finally getting to responses.
My thoughts, when a claim leaves no room to move, and the person feels boxed in, people go after the only thing left and that’s the person who said it. That's usually a sign the claim landed.
Good morning Adneen, I try to avoid politics, but its easy for today's current business structure and decisions to fall into that realm.
If the guardrail is a person, you don't have a guardrail. You have a judgment call.
On September 14, Trump wrote that the only AI “guardrails” needed are a “STRONG AND SMART” president. He also argued that the federal government already has enough criminal and regulatory authority to police AI companies.( Source Reuters).
From an MOS perspective, the important question is not whether Trump is right or wrong. It is where the control mechanism resides.
A strong operating system normally does not depend on one person being the guardrail. It puts the guardrail into the system: defined limits, measurable triggers, independent verification, escalation rules, decision rights, and corrective action.
Thank you Adneen, for your thoughts....Norm
Someone really needs to speak about that!