another new feature of ChatGPT was the fact that you can now engage the system in dialogue. So I can complain about the last line (“But ‘tried’ doesn’t rhyme with ‘high’), and it will correct it. My apologies! Here’s a revised limerick:

Then there are Automated Tasks, ones you leave completely to the AI and don’t even check on. Perhaps there is a category of email that you just let AI deal with, for example. This is likely to be a very small category … for now.

Where previous technological revolutions often targeted more mechanical and repetitive work, AI works, in many ways, as a co-intelligence. It augments, or potentially replaces, human thinking to dramatic results.

many of these biases come from our being stuck in our own minds. Now we have another (strange, artificial) co-intelligence we can turn to for help. AI can assist us as a thinking companion to improve our own decision-making, helping us reflect on our own choices (rather than simply relying on the AI to make choices for us). We are in a world where

If you want to do something with AI, just ask it to help you do the thing. “I want to write a novel; what do you need to know to help me?” will get you surprisingly far.

Principle 2: Be the human in the loop.

A recent paper by Jennifer Haase and Paul Hanel did just that, having humans blindly judge the creativity of AIs compared to humans in the AUT. After testing AI and 100 people on various objects, ranging from balls to pants, they found the GPT-4 model outperformed5 all but 9.4 percent of humans tested in generating creative ideas, as judged by othe

we need to be conscious about the tasks we are giving AI, so as to take advantage of its strengths and our weaknesses. We want to be more efficient while doing less boring work, and to remain the human in the loop while also addressing the value of AI. To do this well, we need a framework, where we divide our tasks into categories that are more or

Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist, published a paper in 1984 called “The 2 Sigma Problem.”1 In this paper, Bloom reported that the average student tutored one-to-one performed two standard deviations better than students educated in a conventional classroom environment. This means that the average tutored student scored higher than 98 per