I see two places you can strengthen your position.
First, I’m not sure your example prompts are giving the right insights on capabilities. Ongoing tasks using pre-existing excels, more like data entry and data analysis, outnumber and outweigh creation of new excels. A company’s profit and loss statement exists, it needs updating accurately and confirming that all relevant data made it in. But no one is re-inventing p&l statements monthly. Same with many other jobs. So I propose that an iterative prompt gives a stronger view of model capabilities against job duties than a novel prompt.
Second,
managers may want to protect their kingdoms / headcount
Using the phrasing of “protect their kingdoms” makes this inaccurately negative/hostile. There are incentives that make this not a selfish act of power hoarding. For example, no one promotes a person who has only ever managed two people to a job managing 15,000. Intermediate steps are needed. Remove the scaffolding and you remove the ability to train new leadership. That’s suicidal for a company. Just as one example why headcount can be valued, and useful not just hoarded and wasteful. And this can point to the idea of perverse incentives rather than bad people. A much stronger argument.
I see two places you can strengthen your position.
First, I’m not sure your example prompts are giving the right insights on capabilities. Ongoing tasks using pre-existing excels, more like data entry and data analysis, outnumber and outweigh creation of new excels. A company’s profit and loss statement exists, it needs updating accurately and confirming that all relevant data made it in. But no one is re-inventing p&l statements monthly. Same with many other jobs. So I propose that an iterative prompt gives a stronger view of model capabilities against job duties than a novel prompt.
Second,
Using the phrasing of “protect their kingdoms” makes this inaccurately negative/hostile. There are incentives that make this not a selfish act of power hoarding. For example, no one promotes a person who has only ever managed two people to a job managing 15,000. Intermediate steps are needed. Remove the scaffolding and you remove the ability to train new leadership. That’s suicidal for a company. Just as one example why headcount can be valued, and useful not just hoarded and wasteful. And this can point to the idea of perverse incentives rather than bad people. A much stronger argument.
Love both these points. Argument can also be made for training new talent (managers / ICs will eventually retire as well)
Yes that’s also a solid point I hadn’t considered.