{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/6a081667efd1f558b0dd5c52/6ac4bc6ae5a4bb3faec21e52?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"AI-Augmented Forecasting","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/6a081667efd1f558b0dd5c52/1791277632627-28bc94cd-3399-43c4-8459-86747ba3bf7f.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p><strong>Show Notes</strong></p><p><br></p><p>Most executive decisions are forecasts in disguise. &#39;Will this market grow?&#39; &#39;Will this AI initiative deliver ROI?&#39; &#39;Will this acquisition integrate well?&#39; These are all probability estimates — and most leadership teams make them without any structured method, relying instead on experience, intuition, and the confidence of whoever speaks loudest in the room.</p><p><br></p><p>In this episode, Kenza and Pascal explore two landmark studies on AI-augmented forecasting and what they mean for executive decision-making. The first, by Halawi et al. (NeurIPS 2024), shows that a retrieval-augmented AI system can approach the forecasting accuracy of competitive human forecasters — and that combining AI and human judgment always outperforms either alone. The second, by Schoenegger et al. (2025, co-authored with Philip Tetlock, the world&#39;s leading expert on forecasting), shows that AI assistance improves human forecasting accuracy by 24–28% — even when the AI assistant is deliberately biased and overconfident.</p><p><br></p><p>The key insight: the benefit is not just informational. It is cognitive. Engaging with an AI perspective — even an imperfect one — forces assumption-surfacing, reduces overconfidence, and makes human judgment measurably more accurate. The Brier Score — a rigorous calibration metric that measures how well-calibrated probability estimates are, not just whether someone was right or wrong — confirms the improvement is real and quantifiable.</p><p><br></p><p>For boards making high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, this is not a hypothetical. It is a demonstrated, quantifiable capability that most executive teams are not yet using systematically.</p><p><br></p><p><strong>Key Takeaways</strong></p><p><br></p><ul><li>Combining AI forecasts with human judgment always produces better outcomes than either alone — confirmed across thousands of forecasting questions.</li><li>AI assistance improves human forecasting accuracy by 24–28%, measured by the Brier Score — the gold standard for calibration.</li><li>The benefit is cognitive, not just informational: AI forces you to surface assumptions you didn&#39;t know you were making and reduces overconfidence even in experienced forecasters.</li><li>AI performs best exactly where boards struggle most — in the 30–70% uncertainty range where nobody is sure and overconfidence is highest.</li><li>Most executive teams use AI to summarize and report. The studies suggest they should be using it to challenge assumptions before the decision is made.</li><li>The practical starting point: pick one recurring decision type, introduce probability language, track outcomes, and score calibration over time.</li></ul>","author_name":"Kenza Ait Si Abbou"}