Stuff like "mutual learning" is annoyingly general. I feel it's like the kind of business speak that's so high in the upper atmosphere as to be barely applicabl

Stuff like "mutual learning" is annoyingly general. I feel it's like the kind of business speak that's so high in the upper atmosphere as to be barely applicable on the ground. I don't have the patience to suss out whether they're talking about a deep broad concept or just being too vague. For instance: > Organizational learning with AI is demanding. It requires humans and machines to not only work together but also learn from each other — over time, in the right way, and in the appropriate contexts. This cycle of mutual learning makes humans and machines smarter, more relevant, and more effective. Mutual learning between human and machine is essential to success with AI. But it’s difficult to achieve at scale. I feel this is talking about a problem at my company -- I had a lot of stumbling blocks implementing AI predictions because the size of packages are stored as strings, weight information is inconsistent, etc. etc. so it's very hard to categorize things based on what's in the database. Perhaps that's what they mean from "humans learning from machines and machines learning from humans" -- actually following decent data standards because you have to if you want to do anything with it -- but damn, just say that. I feel this is a silly way of saying "maybe we should have actually listened to the programmers from the very beginning when they were talking about doing things the right way."