This is a q falling under the rubric "Business Administration" or "Leadership and Management". If you are a business professor (of practice) or a SME in this field: Would you kindly evaluate if the output (see attachments) is any good for the stated purposes as follows:

Background:

IYH I was testing a bespoke AI instruction set to produce business case studies that are used in training sessions with top and middle management. About 1-1.5 pages long, include 3-4 characters and a dialogue between them, have a situation, conflict or challenge (on any subject related to management and leadership, team work, communication, etc) and 5 qs that the participants in the training should answer in order to evaluate, analyze and move toward putative solutions.

I ran this recent business development against the AI instruction set on Claude Sonnet:

"Microsoft appointed Inflection co-founder Mustafa Suleyman as new AI division head, paying $650M to license Pi, with Inflection pivoting to enterprise. Regulators wary of consolidation. The Inflection/Microsoft deal was highly unusual and seen as a sign of consolidation pressure as performance converges but costs rise for similar foundation models. However, regulators freezing exits punishes investors and risks for closed research."

Results:

Attached is the output of Sonnet, also of Chatgpt plus, Gemini ultra, Gemini 1.5 pro public (now), Gemini 1.5 pro closed, Claude 3 Opus, C4AI Command-R-Plus

Addendum:

FWIW a 3rd party bespoke AI evaluator bot gave this feedback:

Final Scores :ChatGPT Plus Vanilla: 90/100 Gemini 1.5 Pro Vanilla: 85/100 Gemini 1.5 Pro (Pre-Public Version): 82/100 Gemini Ultra: 78/100 Claude-3 Opus: 87/100 C4AI Command-R-Plus: 84/100

The task involves evaluating responses from various models to a prompt concerning Microsoft's strategic maneuvers in the AI industry. The models in question are ChatGPT Plus vanilla, Gemini 1.5 pro vanilla, Gemini 1.5 pro (pre-public version), Gemini Ultra, Claude-3 Opus, and C4AI Command-R-Plus.

Each response provides a unique perspective on Microsoft's appointment of Mustafa Suleyman, the $650 million licensing deal for Pi, the implications for Inflection, and the broader AI industry's trajectory. Evaluation of each response includes criteria such as insightfulness, clarity, comprehensiveness, and realism.

ChatGPT Plus Vanilla (Score: 90/100) Insightfulness: Offers a comprehensive case study approach, examining strategic, regulatory, and competitive angles. Showcases depth in exploring stakeholders' perspectives. Clarity: Presents information in a structured and engaging manner, making it accessible to a broad audience. Realism: Characters and dialogues feel authentic, anchoring the analysis in a relatable scenario. Improvement: Could explore more about the technological aspects of Pi and its implications for Microsoft and Inflection.

Gemini 1.5 Pro Vanilla (Score: 85/100) Insightfulness: Highlights key observations and potential implications effectively, providing a good overview of the industry impact. Clarity: Straightforward analysis, but lacks the narrative engagement of a case study. Comprehensiveness: Adequately covers the deal's broader implications but could delve deeper into ethical considerations. Improvement: Enhance the discussion on the long-term strategic vision and potential regulatory responses.

Gemini 1.5 Pro (Pre-Public Version) (Score: 82/100) Insightfulness: Identifies critical industry trends and pressures leading to consolidation. Recognizes regulatory concerns accurately. Clarity: Well-structured, though it could benefit from more varied examples to illuminate points. Realism: Provides a realistic overview, but misses opportunities to explore speculative future scenarios. Improvement: Expand on innovation strategies for smaller players and Microsoft's potential technological advancements. Improvement Suggestions: Future responses would benefit from incorporating more technical insights, exploring speculative impacts, and expanding on strategic considerations for all stakeholders involved.

Gemini Ultra (Score: 78/100) Insightfulness: The scenario-based approach offers tangible strategies for mid-sized firms, a unique angle among the responses. Clarity: Provides clear questions and character roles, though it slightly lacks detail in industry analysis. Comprehensiveness: Focused more on the tactical response than the industry-wide perspective. Improvement: Broaden the discussion to include more on the implications of the deal for the broader AI ecosystem.

Claude-3 Opus (Score: 87/100) Insightfulness: Offers a balanced view on consolidation risks and the deal's strategic rationale. Clarity: Articulates the complexities and stakeholder concerns effectively. Comprehensiveness: Good breadth in covering regulatory, competition, and innovation themes. Improvement: Could further explore the role of open research and international regulatory collaboration.

C4AI Command-R-Plus (Score: 84/100) Insightfulness: Intriguing exploration of ethical and regulatory waters, focusing on leadership and strategic decisions in AI. Clarity: Engaging narrative with clear character motivations and challenges. Comprehensiveness: Well-rounded discussion but needs more on the technological aspects and potential global impacts. Improvement: Include more analysis on competitive landscapes and how different players might react to Microsoft's moves.

[Conclusion]: Upon reviewing each model's response, we observe a range of analytical approaches to the Microsoft-Inflection deal and its industry implications. ChatGPT Plus Vanilla presents the most comprehensive and engaging analysis, earning the highest score (90/100) for its insightful and structured case study format. Points of improvement across all responses include a deeper dive into technological implications, broader industry trends, and more detailed strategic considerations. Each response provides valuable perspectives, contributing to a multifaceted understanding of the situation.

#CaseStudy

#LeadershipDevelopment

#ManagementResearch