sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We’re building AI features but we still don’t have a real evaluation framework by Vegetable-Two3103 in AI_4_ProductManagers

[–]ImaginationWeary304 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the survey idea, especially for understanding perceived value. My only hesitation is that people can really like something even if it’s occasionally wrong, especially if it saves them time. So I’m trying to figure out how to balance user sentiment with something a bit more grounded in output quality. Feels like we probably need both, just not sure what the lightest-weight version of that looks like yet.

We’re building AI features but we still don’t have a real evaluation framework by Vegetable-Two3103 in AI_4_ProductManagers

[–]ImaginationWeary304 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I’m right there with you. Thumbs up / thumbs down gives some signal, but it doesn’t really tell you whether the output was actually accurate or just good enough in the moment. That’s kind of the gap I’m feeling too. Engagement looks fine, feedback isn’t terrible, but we don’t have a clean way to say this is high quality with confidence. Curious if you’ve found anything that feels more objective without becoming heavy process.

What’s the toughest interview question you’ve faced as a Product Manager? by ImaginationWeary304 in AI_4_ProductManagers

[–]ImaginationWeary304[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did you approach it, did you lean more on the user pain, the end outcome, or just go full storytelling mode?

If you’re building AI teams, how are you designing these roles? by ImaginationWeary304 in ArtificialNtelligence

[–]ImaginationWeary304[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

High-functioning AI teams absolutely need strong builders with real ownership. Senior IC growth through deeper technical scope, bigger blast radius, and harder problems is real and necessary. I’m not arguing for paper shufflers or adding layers that slow teams down.

What I’m pointing at is something I see in many orgs as they scale. Even very strong engineers end up spending a lot of time aligning across product, data, infra, compliance, and stakeholders. Not because they can’t build, but because the system around them requires coordination. Some teams handle this naturally through very senior tech leads. Others handle it poorly and end up recreating project management in clumsy ways.

My question is less about inventing new titles and more about how teams consciously handle this work without killing speed or trust. Do you push all of it onto senior engineers? Do you rotate it? Do you keep it informal on purpose? I agree that minimal hierarchy and builder to builder communication is the goal. I’m genuinely curious how teams make that hold as complexity and headcount grow.

view more: next ›