GAICD - Advisory in digital transformation, government services and social security
There's a lot of places you could go with this and there is plenty of commentary on the use of AI which I will leave alone. What is most astonishing is that when you are caught with your hands in the "AI cookiejar" instead of saying sorry and admitting a mistake, an error of judgement, a rogue employee or whatever, you still take 3/4 of the cookie. A 440K assignment - give the cookie back in full and quickly move on. No, let's create a PR disaster by defending the report and giving back a 1/4 of the cookie. It may have been a beautiful cookie to start with - but who would want to eat or touch it now. Deloitte to pay money back to Albanese government after using AI in $440,000 report | Australian politics | The Guardian https://lnkd.in/gSDaGsjE
I’m just wondering how many other consulting report writers are suddenly wondering who wrote what parts with AI.
Brian Lee-Archer, it's crucial to own up when mistakes happen. Transparency builds trust in the long run. 🍪 #Accountability
Learner and Contributor
1wThe problem isn't that they used AI to help write the report - that should now be the best practice. The problem is they didn't apply the people insights to pick up mistakes nor have the quality assurance in place to identify problems before sending. This is not an AI problem but plain incompetence. I agree then with the sentiment that they should do more - there may be some nuggets of wisdom that make it valuable but reputation matters more - particularly in the current environment of consulting.