We’re coming across more and more artifacts created with the help of AI. In every field. Whether in our personal lives, at work, or—as in my/our case—as a professional or expert…
And in doing so, we’ve noticed that the skill set required to inspect such artifacts has shifted significantly. The inspection process has become much more time-consuming because you can no longer tell anything about these items just by looking at them “at first glance.” Everything looks great—it’s all shiny and flashy. And to find any potential problem areas, you have to look very closely and dig very deep.
It’s helpful to know the associated prompts—that is, to understand how AI was used to generate specific artifacts. This makes it clear where things might have been omitted (because they weren’t included in the prompt to begin with) or, conversely, in what context and with what input data the artifacts were generated.
Without the corresponding prompts, conducting a high-quality review is very tedious, difficult, and time-consuming, because errors and problems can, in principle, be hidden behind every single phrase. (Yes, I know that was the case in the past as well, but back then, the effort required to generate such artifacts was much greater.)
Today, for example, I can say, “Write a 50-page bachelor’s thesis on the topic of XY according to Mr. Wagenpfeil’s guidelines.” Right away. Boom. Done. Takes 15 minutes.
As a professor, though, I still have to take a deep dive into this topic. The problem is—the paper is probably really good, or at least pretty solid. But the knowledge contained in it has nothing to do with the student’s own knowledge. Therefore—an oral exam, and have the student defend the topic. It works reasonably well at the university, especially since we still require AI-generated papers.
But in a project context? Or perhaps even when it comes to disputes?
In that case, too, I can say, “Write a 500-page operational concept for Project XYZ that sounds just right.” Right away. In a flash. Done. It only takes 15 minutes.
As an expert, though, you still have to read through all that nonsense and review it. And even if, after 10 pages, you strongly suspect that the document doesn’t quite fit the topic, you have to back that up. But unlike at the university, I often don’t have anyone here to ask. That means analyzing cross-references in detail, comparing them with reality, conducting tests, and much more.
In a way, this is the perfect guide to keeping people “busy.” And we must not let that happen. We therefore need a new skills profile that clearly defines what AI can (and cannot) do, how AI is typically used, what we need to look for, and at what point we need to break out of this employment cycle.
In AI-powered software processes, for example, I would always look at the prompts first and only then check the artifacts…