They are probably talking about the machine learning model, like GPT-3.
This fallacy is known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc and is indeed a mistake that is often made. However, there are some situations in which we can infer causation from correlation, and where the arrow of time is very useful. These methods are mostly known as Granger causality methods of which the basic premise is: X has a Granger causal influence on Y if the prediction of Y from its own past, and the past of all other variables, is improved by additionally accounting for X. In practice, Granger causality relies on some heavy assumptions, such as that there are no unobserved confounders.
I do it first thing every morning, Monday-Friday. This is of course a personal preference, but generally I have trouble with establishing habits in evenings, due to reduced executive function. I like to immediately tick a task as completed when done (small dopamine boost), but check when setting new goals, whether there are any unresolved goals from other days.The main change I have made is separating goals into different time categories. before that, missing a daily goal had as much impact as quarterly goals. Other than that, I haven't changed much to the whole routine.
Interesting! Did they just use it for aggregate business results or was it encouraged for personal goals as well?
I have been using it for about 4 months now myself now. I have not shared this technique with anyone else yet, so I don't know whether it works for other people. This is one of the reasons why I made this post, to hopefully inspire some other people to use it and see whether it works for them.
No, because I try to align my goals with my general well-being, and not just with raw work output. It's really more about intentional living than working hard. A goal might also be: "Take at least four 20-minute breaks from work today".