【24h】

Highly recommended

机译:强烈推荐

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Michael schrage: The CAO is sort of a tongue-in-cheek neologism, but I think it underscores the larger point, which is, increasingly, the currency by which things get done and how people really decide what makes sense is through the medium of advice, not the medium of information. We can play all kinds of semantic games, but the reality is, we go to an encyclopedia or a: almanac or Google for information, but, if I have an issue with an algorithm, or if I have a concern about some individual I'm working with (or not working with), I want advice! Obviously, we need to consider the source of the advice, but at the same time, there is a difference between a recommendation for action versus information. And the idea that you can design an information system the way you can design an advisory system is just nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. It's like the notion that you can teach somebody by giving them lots of multiple choice questions. Maybe that's a way to assess what they've learned, but that ain't the way you're going to teach them.
机译:迈克尔·施拉奇(Michael schrage):CAO有点像-不休的新词,但我认为它凸显了更大的意义,即越来越多的事情是人们通过事情来完成事情的方式,以及人们如何真正决定什么才是有意义的。建议,而不是信息媒介。我们可以玩各种语义游戏,但实际情况是,我们去百科全书或a:年历或Google获取信息,但是,如果我对算法有疑问,或者如果我担心某个人,我会我与(或不与)合作,我需要建议!显然,我们需要考虑建议的来源,但同时,行动建议与信息建议之间存在差异。可以像设计咨询系统一样设计信息系统的想法是胡说八道。这绝对是胡说八道。这就像您可以通过给他们很多选择题来教别人的想法。也许这是一种评估他们学到的东西的方法,但是那不是您要教他们的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号