I think you're absolutely right saying that everyone has the seed of change within them, and change workers of any colour - human or "AI" - are only ever facilitators. The one thing AI (at least text-based AI) is not able to do is calibrate. Sure, there are hints and probably directions in the words a person uses, revealing patterns that can be algorithmically evaluated and used for "advice."
But a lot happens on a pre-verbal level, things that are in the voice, in the tone, expressed by body language and facial expression. AI doesn't see or recognise that. Words that can be used as such for pattern recognition are meaningless when the person's body and face tell a totally different story.
I've worked with quite a few people who used AI "coaches" before they came to me. Some of them showed me transcripts. Much of it was utter garbage to be honest, based on outdated theories and models, asking all the wrong questions and often giving outrageous advice. It might be ok for surface-level change or when the person is basically there already and just needs a nudge or two, but for complex issues it's more than lacking.
As it stands, I think the "recognition" AI facilitates is incidental, a human sees what leads there, even without using any words.
Which in turn means that human coaches who don’t or can’t calibrate will be out of work pretty soon.
Let me start by saying I totally agree that most AI coaches are bad out of the box. Let’s even say they are horrible.
That’s why I have trained my own RealityOS agent on my own work (+ several coaches that I admire), and it’s been a game-changer. He is exactly doing what you describe — calibrating the user’s experience (taking the probe, pacing) and pointing them back to their own innate intelligence and health.
It’s still in beta, but the results and feedback have been amazing. It’s not only way better than any standard AI coach, but it’s also way better than most human coaches.
And I agree that it’s not a replacement for a human coach, when the client needs human connection and non-verbal matching/mirroring of their emotions. But here’s the thing: RealityOS is also better in many ways than a human coach, when it comes to listening and seeing patterns. Also it’s available 24/7.
I think human coaches will still be needed, but they’ll be needed for something (and someone) different. More on the emotional side. And there are also different kind of clients with different needs. Some don’t need or even want human connection and want to discover their own solutions from within.
Curious to see how this develops, sounds very interesting. I'm sure AI is better at textual pacing and pattern recognition, and really good for standard problems and those that can be dealt with based on average presentation.
But all this still happens at the language level, more specifically the explicit textual level. The kind of calibration I mean makes use of sub-language cues more than anything. Tone, body language, micro expressions etc. They tell me more than words, spoken or written, ever could. Often they even invalidate or re-contextualise the words and explanations used by the client.
I guess once we have true quantum computing, AI might be able to calibrate on this level, probably way after my time. And I probably approach this more from the perspective of a clinical hypnotist, my coaching is almost always about integration, the last step.
And so far AI is technically incapable of evaluation external trance indicators, for example, which is a major aspect of calibration in my field. The only hypnotists who may have a problem are the ones relying on scripts (I never use scripts). The scripts AI comes up with are still sub-par but it might get better at those as well eventually.
I think you're absolutely right saying that everyone has the seed of change within them, and change workers of any colour - human or "AI" - are only ever facilitators. The one thing AI (at least text-based AI) is not able to do is calibrate. Sure, there are hints and probably directions in the words a person uses, revealing patterns that can be algorithmically evaluated and used for "advice."
But a lot happens on a pre-verbal level, things that are in the voice, in the tone, expressed by body language and facial expression. AI doesn't see or recognise that. Words that can be used as such for pattern recognition are meaningless when the person's body and face tell a totally different story.
I've worked with quite a few people who used AI "coaches" before they came to me. Some of them showed me transcripts. Much of it was utter garbage to be honest, based on outdated theories and models, asking all the wrong questions and often giving outrageous advice. It might be ok for surface-level change or when the person is basically there already and just needs a nudge or two, but for complex issues it's more than lacking.
As it stands, I think the "recognition" AI facilitates is incidental, a human sees what leads there, even without using any words.
Which in turn means that human coaches who don’t or can’t calibrate will be out of work pretty soon.
Let me start by saying I totally agree that most AI coaches are bad out of the box. Let’s even say they are horrible.
That’s why I have trained my own RealityOS agent on my own work (+ several coaches that I admire), and it’s been a game-changer. He is exactly doing what you describe — calibrating the user’s experience (taking the probe, pacing) and pointing them back to their own innate intelligence and health.
It’s still in beta, but the results and feedback have been amazing. It’s not only way better than any standard AI coach, but it’s also way better than most human coaches.
And I agree that it’s not a replacement for a human coach, when the client needs human connection and non-verbal matching/mirroring of their emotions. But here’s the thing: RealityOS is also better in many ways than a human coach, when it comes to listening and seeing patterns. Also it’s available 24/7.
I think human coaches will still be needed, but they’ll be needed for something (and someone) different. More on the emotional side. And there are also different kind of clients with different needs. Some don’t need or even want human connection and want to discover their own solutions from within.
Curious to see how this develops, sounds very interesting. I'm sure AI is better at textual pacing and pattern recognition, and really good for standard problems and those that can be dealt with based on average presentation.
But all this still happens at the language level, more specifically the explicit textual level. The kind of calibration I mean makes use of sub-language cues more than anything. Tone, body language, micro expressions etc. They tell me more than words, spoken or written, ever could. Often they even invalidate or re-contextualise the words and explanations used by the client.
I guess once we have true quantum computing, AI might be able to calibrate on this level, probably way after my time. And I probably approach this more from the perspective of a clinical hypnotist, my coaching is almost always about integration, the last step.
And so far AI is technically incapable of evaluation external trance indicators, for example, which is a major aspect of calibration in my field. The only hypnotists who may have a problem are the ones relying on scripts (I never use scripts). The scripts AI comes up with are still sub-par but it might get better at those as well eventually.