There's been a lot of change since I started with AWS and the TechU program in '19. I've had quite a number of different bosses (said goodbye to one of the best this week), we've been re-orged a bunch (next up: moving under the Applied AI Solutions team, lol), and our primary training pathway has shrunk dramatically (48 weeks down to a mere 12).
I've worked on the development of our courseware from the beginning, including the 12-week wonder that, according to the data and feedback from my learners' teams, was successful. I'm actually a bit pissed about that last part. I'd been advocating for adding a little more time to give our early career folk space to really internalize the stuff we're teaching them, live our Leadership Principle of Learn and Be Curious, and be just able to breathe for a better overall experience. Alas, I will likely have yet another opportunity to Disagree and Commit.
What I'm seeing in all this is rather similar to what my very first training company (good ole Hill Associates, where I worked for 15 years in myriad roles). Our flagship offering was originally several months long, and by the end of my tenure I was basically doing 50 days in 50 cities (I was on one of those gigs traveling all down the West Coast when my mom died in '06, oddly enough). The pendulum swings ever on, and the current focus is getting people into the field, creating a lot of value for shareholders.
The other big focus, which you might have read about in the news, is our new Lord and Saviour, Generative AI. As I remarked over at RMJ's joint, not much I can do to stop the hype train, but I'm leaning quite heavily into my philosophy background, with particular emphasis on ethics.
I spend what I think is an atypical amount of time and energy directing people's attention to the risks of running with scissors (not to imply isn't otherwise discussed, as that is a component in certifications and such). F'rinstance, I introduce them to people like Gary Marcus, who (hope I am not mischaracterizing) is kinda like me, with a long history of being a skeptical optimist/optimistic skeptic.
We talk a lot about how to improve the veracity of output from these shiny tools, and I'd just like us to have the same level of dedication to the veracity of our message, as well as the appropriateness of our objectives. My hope is that by having frank conversations now about the implications of any new tech whose impact we don't quite understand, when the inevitable collapse occurs, we will be all the wiser for it.
I know, I will sooner draw all the water from the sea with a spoon. Yet, human history is replete with cyclical change, just as it is in technical training.
Now, switching gears a little, but still on the same race course...
I generally eschew using GenAI for idle banter and other frivolity, much like venerable Jorge. Rather than Can you laugh at G-d?, my argument derives its energy more from Can you drink water when it's used up by data centers?
That said, I do necessarily have to conduct demos of the technology (nothing new!), and try to inject a little comedy (or a simulacrum of it) as an instrument of truth. So in the previous post, I referenced PartyRock, which is a demonstration/playground built on top of one of our main AI services, Amazon Bedrock (I'll spare you the elevator pitch messaging!). I use it in some courses I am teaching for (amongst others) the AWS Skills Centers.
So today, being in A Mood, I threw together that silly app (Footnote #2 below) in the platform, and keeping with my current monk-ish theme, I instructed the Nova Pro foundation model to take on a persona thus: Respond to this prompt as though you were a Benedictine monk warning against the dangers of laughter.
Then1 I prompted: How many licks does it actually take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
Sorry, Jorge, I laughed:
*Adjusts woolen habit and frowns disapprovingly*
My dear child in Christ,
I must first admonish you for inquiring about such worldly confections. The pursuit of sugary delights leads only to the corruption of the soul through idle pleasure. However, as you seek knowledge, I shall address your query with appropriate gravity.
Through careful observation during my nightly vigils (though I confess this research may have been a sinful indulgence), I have noted that it requires approximately 364 disciplined licks to reach the center of this tempting morsel. But beware! The very act of counting such licks breeds vanity and risks inciting the deadly sin of gluttony.
St. Benedict himself warns us that "laughter and idle words" have no place in holy life. The rhythmic licking of sweetmeats surely falls into this category of dangerous frivolity. Instead, I prescribe three hours of silent contemplation and the copying of sacred texts.
*Shakes head solemnly*
Should you persist in this pursuit, remember that each lick brings you closer not to enlightenment, but to dental decay - a fitting metaphor for the decay of the spirit through worldly indulgences.
Pax vobiscum,
Brother Humbert the Austere
*Returns to illuminating manuscripts while muttering prayers*
That was just a quick and dirty lark, but I think Nova delivered. Of course, back in my day you didn't ask AI the deeper questions.
Selah.
1 - Well, after my first joke, at any rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment