So here's the claim: "When it comes to talent mobility, a real-life 'talent concierge' can beat out any algorithm." Well, maybe, but how does he know? I don't see anything in previous human performance that suggests that machines couldn't perform as well or better. Matthew Daniel writes, "trying to solve the problem of building internal talent and getting such talent to the right roles has largely been relegated to software, algorithms and other forms of technology." Why is that? Because humans are doing such a good job already? He argues we should have a new position, "consider them 'upskilling coaches' or 'talent concierges' or what have you." Or as I call it, "the function formerly known as HR." I think that in learning and development any predictions of the form "only humans can do x" are short-term predictions at best.
Today: 0 Total: 14 [Direct link] [Share]
