“Studies frequently rate
Scotland as one of the happiest places in the world … largely due to
researchers’ inability to detect sarcasm” – Frankie Boyle
There’s a big slice of truth in that gag. That’s exactly the
kind of subtlety any researcher always needs to be on their guard for.
Exemplum: Today, I gave a focus group a choice of three
names for a new project. While I got an answer, I wasn’t convinced by it. So, I
pressed, and they admitted that they didn’t really “get” any of them. That’s
the answer I needed, that’s the real insight.
I also think that’s why humans have an advantage over tech
and AI. It’s the same reason that astronomers trust humans to spot anomalies
better than computers. Humans see more clearly what doesn’t feel right. They
get nuance. They can spot a lacklustre answer. And they (should) feel sarcasm.
A human researcher won’t accept the first, or second, answer
if it doesn’t convince, explain, make sense, or if it isn’t delivered credibly.
That enables them to understand more, to dig deeper, to get to the reason
behind the answer.
AI can do some of the grunt work now, especially for the large
data sets. And I long for the day when they understand us as well as we do –
but I’m not yet holding my breath…
No comments:
Post a Comment