你擅长人工智能,还是仅仅在使用它?
6 分•作者: ppezaris•大约 1 个月前
我们正在制定一个关于个人人工智能熟练度的等级体系,并希望就各级别及其定义征求反馈。
L0 新手:刚接触人工智能,或尚未开始使用。
L1 对话:简单的提示-响应式使用。工作是串行的:提问,等待回答,然后再次提问。
L2 情境化工作:为人工智能提供相关的文档、数据或工作空间情境,使其能够在实际的工件中工作并产生更有用的结果。
L3 协调:跨独立工作流协调多个代理或人工智能角色,工作可能涉及审查、质疑、比较或基于其他工作进行构建。这不仅限于工程领域。
L4 自动化:创建由业务事件触发的工作流,无需有人坐在笔记本电脑前指导每一步即可运行。
L5 循环:将这些工作流的输出反馈到共享知识库或公司知识库中,以便未来的工作流能够随着时间的推移而改进。
有几点我希望您能提供宝贵的看法:
这些级别是否恰当?
是否有任何名称不清晰或存在重叠?
您会用哪些可观察的行为来区分相邻的级别?
“循环”作为一个个人熟练度级别是否合适,还是它本质上是一种团队或公司能力?
是否存在 L6 级别,如果有,您将如何定义它?
我们之所以试图定义这些,是因为在与客户的交流中,我们发现人们并不擅长自我评估他们的人工智能熟练度。频繁使用常常被误认为是熟练。处于这样一个等级体系的较低层级,可能会让人感觉承认自己落后了,不合群,或者工作不保,尤其是对于那些被期望引领潮流的领导者而言。我们希望找到一种更客观、基于行为的方式来区分这两者。
查看原文
We’re working on a ladder for individual AI proficiency and would love feedback on both the levels and the definitions.<p>L0 New: brand new to AI, or has not yet used it.<p>L1 Chat: simple prompt-and-response use. Work is serial: ask, wait for an answer, then ask again.<p>L2 Contextual Work: gives AI relevant documents, data, or workspace context so it can work within the actual artifact and produce a more useful result.<p>L3 Orchestrate: coordinates multiple agents or AI roles across independent workstreams, with work that may review, challenge, compare, or build on other work. This is not just for engineering.<p>L4 Automate: creates workflows that are triggered by business events and run without someone sitting at a laptop directing each step.<p>L5 Loop: feeds the output of those workflows back into shared knowledge or a company brain, so future workflows improve over time.<p>A few things I’d love your perspective on:<p>Are these the right levels?
Are any of the names unclear or overlapping?
What observable behaviors would you use to distinguish one level from the next?
Does “loop” make sense as an individual proficiency level, or is it inherently a team or company capability?
Is there a L6 and if so how would you define it?
We’re trying to define these because, in customer conversations, we’ve found that people are not very good at self-evaluating their own AI proficiency. Frequent use often gets mistaken for proficiency. And being low on a ladder like this can feel like admitting you are falling behind, do not fit in, or are less secure in your job, especially for leaders expected to set the pace. We want a more objective, behavior-based way to distinguish the two.