High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / belief

Published · transcript-backed

Rebecca Hinds: belief

10 Jun 2026 The Cognitive Revolution Babysitting the Machine: Glean's Rebecca Hinds on the Hidden Human Labor of AI at Work

“The problem is we don't have, most organizations in part because of the context problem, don't understand where the time savings is going and how to extract meaning from it at the team and organizational level. And that's the problem because we start to see, you know, that's I think feeding a lot of this more is more pressure.”

— Rebecca Hinds

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Rebecca Hinds
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
belief
Recorded
10 Jun 2026
Publisher
The Cognitive Revolution

Transcript context

…Part of me feels like that might be healthy. It could be more healthy perhaps, but a four day work week would be a nice stepping stone perhaps on the road to the AI future. I don't want to present the perception that I think in many ways we should be giving time savings back to the employee to be innovative, to be creative, to have better work-life balance. The problem is we don't have, most organizations in part because of the context problem, don't understand where the time savings is going and how to extract meaning from it at the team and organizational level. And that's the problem because we start to see, you know, that's I think feeding a lot of this more is more pressure. You don't know how X translates to Y, Y being business outcomes, KPIs. the knee-jerk reaction is the only thing I can associate is more tokens, more clicks in the tool is more output is a proxy for productivity, and that becomes very dangerous. Do we see harm? It's one thing to say people are saving 13 hours a week. They have to give half of those back to these sort of somewhat annoying tasks. Maybe they save a bunch of time, they get more leisure, they, I don't know, do more social media at work or whatever. at least as long as nobody's asking too many questions. Only 13% though say their organization is doing much better, but is there a sort of corresponding stat for, are some people saying their organization is doing much worse? Because I think one, the sort of optimistic read of the results so far would be like, as people often say, it's still the worst it'll ever be. A survey was done at a point in time which was coinciding with a by many anecdotal accounts, at least another step change advance in models' ability to do search and assemble their own context on the fly, effectively, at least if given access programmatically to do it. And if you were to say, hey, only 13% are doing notably better, but like we're not really seeing anybody doing like terribly worse, then I'd say, hey, that's like a, we're off to a pretty good start. But you might say, actually, no, there's like a bunch of people who are saying the organization is like outright suffering as a result of this. So what do we see on that side of the ledger?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence