I'm the co-CEO of a completely remote company.
Sam and I have never shared an office, and most of the time we're not even on the same continent; our team works across more time zones than I can reliably hold in my head.
I’m curious to hear how other people us AI within their orgs, or Discourse sites. Are you experiencing internal friction with individuals having varying appetites?
That’s an interesting way of putting it, and a very interesting question for leadership. Many of the views I’m seeing - by way of the fediverse for example - support a narrative where leadership is not only positive about AI, but also forcing it on the, shall we say, workers. And a worker who is not positive - indeed, might be angry or upset about AI - is not able to express their position or act accordingly, because ‘leadership’ sometimes means something rather authoritarian.
So, in the case where the leaders wish to be humane, and support a humane culture, how do they do that? Especially remote? I’d be very interested to hear! (And how can a leader be truly responsive and compassionate about these feelings from those ‘below’ them?)
One of the perspectives is rather interesting to me: that the benefits of AI use are falling in one part of an organisation, and the costs are falling in another part. Both views could be correct, but not the whole picture.
Some readings:
Yeah, I’m interested to hear perspectives on this. Our approach to date has been to acknowledge the friction and try and make it as safe as possible for people to express specific concerns about how it is used in our work. We have open discussions about how we feel about AI being used in different contexts (taxing PRs, unverified answers, walls of text etc) and I wouldn’t say we have it close to nailed, but out of those discussions we have made two rules explicit: