When the steam engine ventured across the plains with the shell of a train, a significant part of humanity succumbed to the tendency to fear, nothing less, than the apocalypse. The end of the world. Similar events led to the mass suicide of subjects who lived on the numerical hinges of the calendars: the year 1000, to give an example. Those of us who, by the time of the year 2000, already had the use of reason, know the apocalyptic fears that spoke of a digital collapse followed by inexorable blackouts, which would end the lives of millions of electro-dependents and unhinge the world of work on a large scale, among other vast evils.
None of that happened. However, every time progress conquers new horizons, speculations about its destructive power multiply.
Nineteenth-century science fiction proposed, in general, a utopia that conceived of future life on earth as something infinitely better. But already in the end of the century and throughout the twentieth century, the view of the conquests of science and technology became mostly “dystopian”, that is, pessimistic. From there to thinking apocalyptically, just a couple of seasons.
This topic of the horror of progress that literature, cinema and television summon again and again, was baptized by Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, who reserved the subtitle of her work to coin it. He called him “The Modern Prometheus.”
Prometheus was a titan of Greek mythology who stole the seeds of wisdom—or sacred fire—from the gods, to donate them to men. Both in mythical times and in modernity, the human being – scarcely prepared to handle such a weapon – will make the new knowledge its own ruin. That is what the topic consists of.
Today we are challenged by Artificial Intelligence, and with it the ever-living monster of human manufacture is reborn. Frankenstein returns. This is how the classic apocalyptic fear builds its reissue.
No one can affirm, since these beginnings, that these fears are not right. However, as has happened so many other times, the eve may turn out to be more somber than it will be. And how much light will be shed, in the meantime, is the question that arises.
PEP, the coach
A beam of light: “PEP”, the recent AI creation designed by the leading company in software for banks and insurance companies, called N5, is an inspiring example. Especially since it is an innovation that is already used by the five largest banks in Latin America.
In a conversation with the CEO and Founder of N5, Julián Colombo, we have accessed auspicious information about the functions of AI, when they are applied with rationality and humanism.
“PEP” is a system created by AI that seeks to solve, among other things, a labor problem caused by the pandemic. It is about the extinction, for years, of the master-apprentice interaction on which the world of work had been built since antediluvian times.
A master accompanied the learning process that the neophyte did and polished his techniques, underpinning, correcting and guiding the work of the apprentice.
But, during the pandemic years and with the subsequent adaptation of the market to the trend of remote work, these functions fell into disuse. And with this came the impossibility of learning in the most anthropologically proven way, which is that of mimesis. A child learns to eat, to talk, to walk by observing over and over again others, who have already mastered these disciplines.
Well, “PEP”, inspired by Pep Guardiola, the Barcelona coach who has even been able to enhance the genius of Lionel Messi, bursts in as a system that, far from dehumanizing, enhances the natural abilities of the worker through information, guidance and review of every detail that builds his work.
How does it work?
The new tools allow a data collection that was unthinkable for other times. If applied, it is possible to detect the 1% of the most excellent workers in a function, and through the same information, determine within the group, behaviors and habits that could explain their willingness to succeed. The identification and certain detailed analysis of their behaviors yields, consequently, the possibility of guiding, correcting and training effectively.
Let’s take for example a salesperson who has a “PEP”:
You’ll start your day by turning on your computer and open the app. There you will find the tasks to be solved and their scale of urgency. You will have a list of clients you should contact in the following hours, but you will also be able to review the actions of the last day and a series of tips that Pep offers you to optimize your execution, including objections, more convenient approaches, more accurate expressions, etc. “Pep” maestro.
Every teacher also promotes sustained practice. To do this, it has a simulator. Just as pilots complete flight hours in a simulator, here the application makes it possible for the seller to simulate a chat with a customer. But not as a standard conversation, but with a particular customer, reproducing concerns and even arguments that, according to the data obtained, could be used by that customer X.
To further strengthen the training, like a teacher, he evaluates and grades with a score that allows him to know the degree of mastery of the knowledge at all times.
Thus, the AI is ordered to capture all the behaviors, habits, attitudes and discourses of that 1%, conceptualizes them and teaches them to those who receive the training.
This allows those who have the tool to achieve the professional objectives embraced. The result for each worker becomes, then, the best version of himself.
Therefore, far from “dehumanizing” or uniformizing without spirit, change comes to profoundly “humanize” the task. “Pep” is the ideal coach so that each person can bring out, in their work, the Messi they have inside.
Observed from this perspective, perhaps the future horizon will begin to look brighter.
