Tacit knowledge is the ultimate human superpower, especially in an era dominated by AI. While AI can analyze vast amounts of explicit and emergent knowledge, it cannot replicate the intuition, experience, and context-based insights that make tacit knowledge invaluable. This deeply ingrained understanding, shaped by years of personal experience, empowers individuals to navigate complex, ambiguous situations that AI struggles with. In fields requiring creativity, judgment, and strategic thinking, tacit knowledge remains a competitive differentiator, ensuring that human expertise is irreplaceable in the Cognitive Revolution.
I agree that human insight is distinct and cannot be fully automated, ever. At the same time there is a dance between what the machines and people. People tend to migrate to the next thing machines cannot do on their own. For example, in the credit markets machines have taken over many of the previously "human" decisions and people migrate to the meta level.
I agree entirely, even as machines take over more decision-making roles. The balance you mention—the “dance” between humans and machines—is vital. Keeping humans in the loop with continuous feedback ensures ethical and effective oversight. However, I share your concern that profit-driven automation can jeopardize this balance. When businesses prioritize efficiency over human input, the meta-level insight weakens, risking ethical breaches and undermining the power of tacit knowledge in decision-making.
Tacit knowledge is the ultimate human superpower, especially in an era dominated by AI. While AI can analyze vast amounts of explicit and emergent knowledge, it cannot replicate the intuition, experience, and context-based insights that make tacit knowledge invaluable. This deeply ingrained understanding, shaped by years of personal experience, empowers individuals to navigate complex, ambiguous situations that AI struggles with. In fields requiring creativity, judgment, and strategic thinking, tacit knowledge remains a competitive differentiator, ensuring that human expertise is irreplaceable in the Cognitive Revolution.
I agree that human insight is distinct and cannot be fully automated, ever. At the same time there is a dance between what the machines and people. People tend to migrate to the next thing machines cannot do on their own. For example, in the credit markets machines have taken over many of the previously "human" decisions and people migrate to the meta level.
I agree entirely, even as machines take over more decision-making roles. The balance you mention—the “dance” between humans and machines—is vital. Keeping humans in the loop with continuous feedback ensures ethical and effective oversight. However, I share your concern that profit-driven automation can jeopardize this balance. When businesses prioritize efficiency over human input, the meta-level insight weakens, risking ethical breaches and undermining the power of tacit knowledge in decision-making.
thanks for commenting