[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]

@mattbeane "@gadievron @emollick Yes and Ethan's asking for specificity. Imo the biggest failure mode is to ask which nouns need enrichment/emphasis. That drives training which doesn't build skill. The correct mode is which work processes need enrichment/emphasis. Skill comes from task performance"
X Link @mattbeane 2025-10-15T20:41Z 3724 followers, XXX engagements

"@gadievron @emollick Right - you have a work environment with many problems to tackle and a culture that encourages experimentation and sharing I'd bet. So path to skill is healthier. Research is clear that we should invest in understanding/improving those processes - not reified skills to teach"
X Link @mattbeane 2025-10-15T20:59Z 3720 followers, XX engagements

"The big failure mode here is to ask which nouns need investment. That drives training which doesn't build much skill. The correct mode is asking which work processes need investment. Skill comes from task performance and we can design for both productivity and skill gains"
X Link @mattbeane 2025-10-15T20:47Z 3724 followers, XXX engagements

"@emollick Yes. Not to do so much with LLM capacity as implementation realities/possibilities that I hadn't foreseen. A key problem imo is that we treat skills as nouns. The failed ROI in talent mobility platforms for enterprise is proof that noun-matching is a failed strat"
X Link @mattbeane 2025-10-15T20:24Z 3724 followers, XXX engagements

"@brandonwilson We use nouns for skills. Have for decades. We therefore primarily invest in understanding and cultivating those nouns. But the ROI of this shows nouns are figments. Matching a worker and a job's nouns doesn't improve hire quality. Work process design is far more promising"
X Link @mattbeane 2025-10-16T00:25Z 3722 followers, XX engagements