How Smart do you Want your Things to Be?

In the not too distant future, all things will be smart. All inanimate objects will have sensors that collect information, and artificial intelligence to analyze and react to the information.

A first generation example is motion sensors that have the sense to turn on lights when people, or your rottweiler, enter the room. Getting a little more sophisticated, there are devices like the Nest that learn from your habits and adjust the heating or a/c to create the most comfort in the most economical way. In the future (like next week), you may have a fridge that records the comings and goings of food over time and after it’s learned enough, places an order to the local food deliverer [probably Amazon] to restock all your staple foods, and suggest a few new offerings that it has calculated you might like based on your love of strawberries, mustard and corn chips. [shudder]

Everything, absolutely everything, will be smart. And helpful, in an artificially intelligent kind of way. In the spirit of embracing the future and getting the most out of it, I have a question for you:

What things do you most want to be smart and which do you least want to be smart?

Sure, I want world peace, cures for all hideous diseases, healthy, cheap food for everyone, but even AI is unlike to make those things something Amazon can deliver. And on the big picture down side, I don’t want my vacuum cleaner to take over ventilators at the hospital, the power grid to decide what temperature it should be in my home, or robots to terminate all human life because there isn’t enough calcium in the compost.

Smart stuff is likely to be more mundane in the near future (like next week and the one after that), so my expectations are lower.

Here are my smart wants:

I most want my electronic devices (which will be all things, including those we don’t consider to be electronic devices right now, like a hairbrush) to be smart enough to recognize me so I don’t have to remember 1,750 different user names and passwords. Of course, I expect perfect accuracy (the hair brush can tell the difference between me and my daughter, who likes to use it on the dog) and that they won’t let someone who has replicated my fingerprints, retinal pattern, voice or heartbeat to have access to my apps (especially my daughter, who is a likely candidate for trying to hack my stuff).

I want smart things to take away some of the pain I now have obtaining secure access to everything.

I least want something interfering in my learning process. I fiddle. I explore. I figure things out by taking a few steps and then pondering how it might work. After several rounds of this, if I complete a task I haven’t done before, I’m proud. This is how life happens for me, whether it’s setting up a website, doing home repairs or starting a company. The last thing I want is an AI chiming in to tell me how to do it at the first sign I’m stumped, or worse, 5 minutes before I realize I’m stumped.

To the average smart thing of the future, my message is: ‘if I want your help, I’ll ask for it’. What I don’t want is a smart-ass thing. A know-it-all thing. Any number of things could provide too much information. A hammer could disapprove of your the choice of nail. A pot could have opinions on the temperature applied or the nutritional content of the food it’s required to cook. Your CRM might remind you to call a particular client or that you’ve called one excessively, ignoring your personal ‘feel’ for how to deal with people.

Overall, I’d like smart things that see the difference between challenges that are annoying because they demand unnecessary attention (like where you put down your phone) but appreciate when a challenge is a good thing so you give it some thought (like understanding how to manage  privacy settings).

Of course, what annoys me may be a learning experience you want. Maybe you want instructions the second you pick up something because you’d rather spend your time watching videos. Or you’re a security buff and don’t want an AI to remember your passwords.

We’re all different, so it will take very smart things to please us all.

Please follow and like us:

Great Networking Events

Is networking a skill required by established entrepreneurs? Apparently it is1, even though many entrepreneurs consider themselves too busy doing exactly what they need to do to build their business for the random unplanness of networking.

There are zillions of blogs with advice for attendees on how to navigate the social and logistic challenges of networking. Here, I ponder what differentiates a great event from a mediocre one, inspired because I’ve discovered PitchitTO/York/Durham/etc 2. The Pitchits are 3 for 3, as far as I’m concerned. Being the analytical type, I need to dissect to find the ingredients that makes them so good.

I recommend networking to entrepreneurs for three reasons: learning, community, and building the business. Controlled serendipity is a rush. There’s magic when you bump into the person who:

1. can explain something you’ve been trying to figure out (or you’re the explainer and help someone else), [learning]

2. has the same challenges you do, [community]

3. wants to hire you to do a project you know exactly how to do [business].

Recent examples I experienced from each category:

1. On marketing. Do you find it hard to speak convincingly about your own abilities – key if you provide knowledge-based services? Someone said to me: ‘Consider it a natural ability that you should share.’ Wow! That sounded so much more palatable than pushing services. It turned ‘I’m selling this thing and I think you should buy it’ into ‘Let me help you because I know how’. [learning]

2. Sleepless nights. Even though I do a lot of speaking in front of (sometimes) critical audiences, it makes me nervous. Sometimes, so nervous I can’t sleep. Hearing someone else, a successful, public-speaking someone else, recount the same experience, only worse, gave me great comfort that even when it looks easy, it isn’t. [community]

3. Clients. Yes, I’ve found clients at networking events. [business]

A good networking event makes it easy for every attendee to find people to learn from, share with, and do business with. And this happens how? I won’t pretend to have the perfect recipe, but can make a few observations based on years of attending everything from the dullest events where no one moved from their front-of-the-room-facing seats, to ones that were so high energy I needed several hours to calm down afterward.

Here’s what I think makes a good event:

  1. The right physical space. Find an interesting, quirky setting. Maybe it has natural beauty, sunlight, water, or a forbidden quality. Make it somewhere people feel good. If they have to sit down, have them do it at large tables. Small ones form hard-to-enter cliques. Treat the attendees like house guests. Give them food, drink, bacon even.
  2. Invite well. We all know the marketing rules about reaching the right audience – publicize to find unconnected but like-minded people and those with a breadth of experience from seasoned to fresh out of school. Stack the deck of attendees with people you know will mingle and be inclusive. It’s a numbers thing3 – if enough of the attendees are determined to talk to everyone, then everyone will talk to everyone.
  3. Awesome leadership. It works in large corporations and small, and networking events. Good leadership – vision, coaching and walking the talk, will set the tone. The message should be loud and clear that everyone is there to help each other and learn from each other and do business together (see above three principles).
  4. The Program. Putting effort into crafting a stimulating program will get people talking. Inciting excitement gets the room riled up and ready to chatter.
  5. Fun. The culmination of all of the above, the atmosphere, the attendees, the leadership, and the event schedule, should be fun – enjoying life while making things happen.

Finding networking events that deliver all these things won’t happen all the time. And there is an element of personal fit. Not every venue, topic, or style energizes everyone in the same way. My latest find – the Pitchit events – have all the right elements – atmosphere, appropriate crowd, supportive message from the organizers, presentations every entrepreneur can related to, and serious fun.

Go find the perfect event for you. There will be people there you should know.

——

1For example, this academic study suggests so:  Morris, M., Webb, J., Fu, J., Singhal, S. (2013) A Competency-Based Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3), pp. 352–369.

2 Pitchit is a new GTA thing where several startups are given ten-ish minutes to present their business to the crowd which contains a variety of potential investors and fellow entrepreneurs.

3There’s a mathematic model here somewhere, but let’s settle for: if there are three people, one of whom is determined to talk to everyone, and the other two who are cliquing, everyone will talk to everyone because the outgoing one will intervene with the other two. To get the idea of how many zealous networkers you should invite: multiple by one third of the number of expected attendees after subtracting the people who look like they are networking but are really running the event. Divide the program time by the time it takes for a good networker to have a conversation. Combine these factors. Do this in hexadecimal and it should predict the logarithm of the number of new dollars invested because of the event. 🙂

Please follow and like us:

The Evolution of Evil Scientists. Part 2: The Public Posts.

This series began with my admiration of the Professor from Gilligan’s Island as an iconic scientist. My wonderment has long since evaporated into frustration because members of a profession I believe have noble motivations are frequently called into question. The two major factors I think are involved: the source of funding for scientific research (previous blog post), and the pressure to communicate scientific findings.

Either voluntarily or by gentle coercion, scientists can no longer hide in their pungent smelling labs, mucking about with gooey entrails, or lurk in general obscurity. Speaking in words as long as a subway train or providing complex explanations full of ifs, ands, and buts, is no longer acceptable. Several factors have culminated in an urgent need for every scientist to have as high a profile as a rock star, be as charismatic as a politician, and as outgoing as a toddler fired by birthday cake.

I ascribe these changes in previously mild-mannered scientists to several factors:

  • Social Media. It’s happened to us all. Used to be, the only people who communicated with the masses were state leaders and award-winning journalists. Social media has evolved all of us into film makers, photographers, opinion-staters, authors, friends, followers and leaders. Why should scientists be any different?
  • Increasing pressure on scientists to explain what they’ve been doing with tax-payers money. Fair enough. The government invests heavily in research programs. It doesn’t seem too much to ask of the scientists to explain what they’ve done with the funds.
  • Universities, where many researchers are employed, face increasingly stiff competition. Like any organization, for-profit or otherwise, when competition heats up, tactics get aggressive. In Canada, I’ve seen a considerable amount of vying to attract the attention of new entrants. The wares that universities hock are the faculty – those that deliver the educational programs. Thus, scientists and other academics are put in the limelight more and more.
  • Research funding. As mentioned in the previous post, the majority of funding for research in the US now comes from industry sources. Universities and other educational institutes are constantly primping and preening to attract the attention of deep-pocketed suitors that will support their research programs. Again, this results in promotion – public acclamation of the exploits and prowess of the researchers.

These four factors are the why scientists communicate about their work more nowadays. None evil in its own rite. The source of evil, I believe, is marketing spin. Scientists are by nature cautious in communicating their findings and thus often fall prey to some form of media training. Done right, media training is an exercise directed to strengthening the muscles required to make positive sounding, definitive statements, rather than the limpid, subjective pronouncements scientists are inclined to produce. Poorly applied media training can lead to stretched, herniated stories about scientific dramas that may not exist.

To appreciate the difference between the scientific and the spun, consider:

  • ‘a new dietary cause for heart disease discovered’ [certain, conclusive and spun]

compared to

  • ‘strong associative link between phosphate rich food and stimulation and production of the FGF23 hormone, which has a negative effect on the cardiovascular system.’ 1 [comes directly from the scientific publication, has jargon and is convoluted]

Thing is, the truth is probably in between. This is not a definitive finding that we need to avoid phosphate rich food, but a suggestion that it has an impact on metabolism which may point us towards things to avoid once we have more information.

Another example is the octopus DNA2. A year ago, there was a publication about the sequencing of the octopus genome, and a popular science story headlined ‘Octopus DNA is not from this world’. My assessment of the situation was that while sequencing the octopus genome was really exciting if you are a geneticist, it was hard to get your head around if you weren’t engaged in DNA micro-specifications. But still, a brave writer tried and came up with the provocative headline. Octopus DNA is unusual, chemically, and functionally, when compared to other species, but that’s as far as the science goes.

Problem is, science advances in very small steps. This is a good, if frustrating, thing. It’s good because there are many checks and balances that go into advancing our understanding of the nature and technology. It’s annoying to anyone trying to communicate excitement about scientific discoveries.

An additional challenge that’s presented by the same phenomena is how easily, with a few twisted words, scientific studies can be made to sound lame.

Consider two different ways of looking at a government grant:

  1. The federal government allocates $30,000 to studying turtle sperm.
  2.  Someone with a MSc, a wife and two kids, is working to earn a doctorate in reptile biology which may find ways to conserve giant tortoises. She’s delighted to be paid $30,000 a year through a government grant to support her sperm collection research, so she doesn’t have to hold a part time job in addition to full time studies.

Between the many sources of encouragement to communicate and pressure to make it all sound as exciting as a date with a Disney Princess, what’s a scientist to do? Again, I retreat to my belief that scientists are generally trying to do the right thing, but may feel pressured to get a little carried away in the limelight.

——-

1 This is such an awesome example, because I made up the ‘new cause for heart disease’ and then googled it and found the perfect example. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140505104229.htm

2Here’s my blog post.

Please follow and like us:

The Evolution of the Evil Scientist. Part 1: The Money

When I was a little girl, the professor from Gillian’s Island was my hero. He was smart, unassuming, and solved a lot of problems. I deduced that scientists were incredible. As clever as physicians, with the power to save lives, but much cooler, as they shunned the limelight. Later in TV history came McGuyer, who fixed an awful lot of problems with duct tape and scientific knowledge.

Nowadays, scientists1 often seem to be on the evil side of the human equation. ‘They’ have conflicts of interest, because their primary activity – research – could be supported by a commercial interest, either a large corporation or their own startup company. Everything is questioned for the agenda. This post considers the impact of a scientists’ source of funding, and a second one will examine public disclosures that scientists now are almost required to make.

A major shift over the past 60 years has occurred in the way scientific research is supported. This page shows the switch in dominance of research paid for by the government versus private industry in the US. Until the late 1970’s, most research was supported by the government. In 2012, only 30% was government funded while more than 60% is industry sponsored. The pressure on academic researchers to commercialize the findings of their research has made for more industry ties – either by licensing to an existing business or encouraging researchers to create their own startup.

While this may cause some to throw up their arms in alarm and shout invectives about the corruption of research and polarized agendas and corporations paying for the results they want, for most of history, private individuals were benefactors of scientists. In other words, someone rich, on whose favour the scientist depended, doled out the money to feed and house the scientist, while they grew hundreds of bean plans, or gazed through a telescope at the stars and then disappeared into a dank library to do endless pages of mathematics. We’ve built our understanding of countless things, like the structure of the galaxy, human anatomy, and the theory of evolution, on the basis of privately funded research. Did any of the individuals who supported the scientists try to influence the conclusions of their research? Probably, but the passage of time, and the work of other scientists differentiate between influence and true findings.

I think part of what keeps science unbiased is that there are people, scientists, that live to investigate, to answer unanswerable questions. They don’t care who makes money out of it. They want to toil in obscurity, reasoning and experimenting things out. Problem is, we all have to eat. So what’s a scientist to do? Most are not in it for the money.

I’ve lived through several rounds of precipitously declining government funding for research, where university administrators warn the faculty (where a good percentage of scientists reside) of declining grants and encourage them to make friends with business people, as a means to survive in the research style to which they have become accustomed. Heck, I’ve even put on events myself to encourage industry sponsors and researchers to chat and form alliances.

To make this discussion more complicated, there is basic scientific research, of the type that asks and answers abstract questions, say about gravitation waves or behaviour of silicon in solid state, and may one day allow better satellite tracking or microelectronics. Then there is applied science, such as new drug testing. Although basic research, or what’s call curious-based research2, is generally of less interest to industry representatives3, a significant portion of development in the pharmaceutical industry has to be done in collaboration with medical researchers. Physicians who do research as well as care for patients, are the ones with the training and opportunity to work with the relevant patients.

As a recent example of how pervasive this sort of support of medical research is, this paper discusses the number of US physicians who report some kind of payment from an industry sources, including research support, consulting fees, or just sandwiches at a conference. The study found that almost half of physicians studied received some kind of payment, with the overall average being a bit over $5000 in a year.

It’s a tricky relationship, between physician researcher and pharmaceutical company. Doctors are the best ones to know which patients need new solutions for their medical conditions. Pharmaceutical companies understand how their new drugs work. They need each other, the doctors and the drug makers, and we need them to need each other, so we can benefit from the new drugs. I can’t imagine a physician that would knowingly harm a patient, particularly to get research money, as the point to research is to discover useful new ways to make people better. It would be like a chef accepting sponsorship to make foul-tasting food. On the other side of the equation, there’s so much potential for conflict of interest, both perceived and real, and some history of abuse of the system.

For both basic and medical scientists, often the choice is to get involved with a big business and accept their backing, or stop doing research. Research on zero dollars a day doesn’t work.

Why has this reality lead many to decide scientists are evil? The scientists I know are noble people who prefer to devote themselves to finding the truth, often the truth of discovering better medicines, over capitalistic gains. Am I naive?

I’m a scientist, and I am defending my colleagues, my tribe. But I have no agenda. Except the agenda I’m suggesting is the one of most scientists: Truth.

——-

1Using a very broad, inclusive definition of scientist here which includes the natural, social and applied scientists.

2This seems like a bit of a cruel joke, because ‘curiosity-based’ research, is far from a frivolous, random or carried out by people skipping through meadows, chasing shiny butterflies, activity.

3A couple of upcoming technologies, artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, contradict this statement, since we appear to have ideas for implementation of the technology as fast as we can understand it.

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:

The New Trust.

Could it be that digital solutions to everyday activities are making us a more trusting society? In this era of paranoia of big business and big government, rampant nonsense news, usurping of reality by the ebb and flow of opinion, is there goodness? Wholesome, warmth towards our fellow strangers?

I believe so.

Let’s do a few flashbacks to see how easily we accept today what we strictly controlled in the past. Consider:

Now Then
Purchasing stuff from a store Self Check Out. No one pays attention as I scan 45 items and place them in the bags I brought into the store myself and have pushed around in my cart for the last 45 minutes. Cashier can’t remember what green leafy stuff is. Calls for price check. People in the line behind you glare. Bags brought into the store subject to search, or elaborate tagging and stapling routine to ensure nothing could be added to said bags.
Purchasing stuff online We do it. We deal with vendors we’ve never heard of before. Put our credit card numbers into sites that weren’t there yesterday. Correspond with anonymous posters of used items or go meet them in vacant apartments. Pundits poo-pooed the idea that anyone would buy goods from an organization they’d never heard of. Amazon would never sell more than books because people wanted to see what they were buying. Early eBay was intimidating to many.
Cashing cheques/transferring fund If someone emails us money, we decide where and when it goes. We choose the bank account where it’s deposited. Scrutiny. Showing of ID, comparing of signatures, spelling of the name. Cheques rejected for date infractions, use of coloured ink. Banks closed at 3pm, funds held, frowns shared.
Paying bills At some time in the distant past, you knew your account number. So now you can pay the bill. Any amount you want. Paper bill required. Bottom half confiscated by bank. Top half stamped, initialed and annotated.
Transit fares Scan your pass, buy your ticket at a kiosk or online. Prepare for spot checks. Buy ticket at wicket. Show attendance when boarding bus/train. Lose transfer and have to pay double fare. Show attendant on leaving transit system or pay double fare.
Health Benefit Claims Go to the dentist, pharmacist, physiotherapist. Submit online for reimbursement of costs. Have reimbursement immediately deposited to bank account. Click ‘Agree’ to terms and condition to produce proof of payment if requested. Fill out forms. Attach receipts. Put in paper mail. Wait weeks. Wait months. Get response that indicates you failed to sign form. Start all over again. Get denied reimbursement because time limit has expired.

Some of you have never experienced what’s in the ‘Then’ column. Lucky you.

While much of what’s in the ‘Now’ column adds efficiency and convenience, it also suggests a level of trust that wasn’t there then. People don’t have to prove who they are, or that they’ve bought tickets, been to the dentist, have an account with the gas company, or purchased one bunch of broccoli rather than two. Reciprocally, we’ve learned that most vendors are honest, want to deliver goods to us and really own the electronics they’re selling.

Am I being naive? Or does new technology merely replace all the previous checks and balances provided by the seemingly draconian humans at the bank, insurance company or checkout cash? Perhaps emailing money is so fool-proof no one ever makes an error or commits fraud.

Someone’s probably done the math. The added efficiency of not collecting everyone’s proof of payment out-weighs the number of people who cheat the system. That’s kinda cool in itself. Gives me a warm fuzzy about humans – for the most part, we’re okay.

I’d like to believe we’re evolving into a more trusting society at an individual level. It feels good to be trusted and included, even if it’s by an algorithm or encryption key.

Please follow and like us:

Haptics. Or, Things We Don’t Know We Need Yet.

I just got an iPhone 7. Pretty impressed. It’s like a purring kitten in the palm of my hand. From what I read, I’m not the only one liking the haptics, or physical buzzing and shaking it performs with routine actions, like scrolling through menus or changing settings. A pleasant surprise.

 

Got me thinking about all the technology that’s crazy-sounding when it’s introduced and broadly embraced some time later. Here’s a few examples that popped into my head:

  • an electronic replacement for the yellow pages. And encyclopedias. And maps. Used to be if you needed to find something you got a big book and looked it up. Now we google.
  • one device that holds a thousand or more books in less space then a paperback.
  • the ability to instantly share everything we are doing with literally everyone in the world, via text, photo, or video. (I suspect hologram and virtual attendance are coming.)
  • the ability to pass judgement on all that everyone in the world shares. (Can you imagine a world without ‘like’ buttons?)
  • getting your DNA sequenced, because you can.

I tell my students that a successful business model satisfies an unmet need. Therefore, every new thing that’s adopted into everyday lives satisfies a need in a novel way. Often it’s convenience (electronic yellow pages and electronic reader), or being social (social media), or a quest for knowledge (DNA sequencing).

Another perspective: this article suggests that technology developers, in particular phone, app and social media developers, introduce new features that try to take advantage of users. Through manipulating basic emotions such as anxiety and loneliness, people may be addicted to their communication devices. We feed on the responses to our posts, mainlining the likes, sharing, and other general good vibes. There’s even science that suggests notification systems elicit a basic stress response if not answered.

I get it. The tone of a text message literally makes me jump. I have to assume it’s a survival reaction to new information in my environment: my instincts insist I assess it for fear it will devour me if I don’t. (Because test messages have been know to do that.) Funny thing is, I don’t recall such an urgent reaction to a ringing phone back in the day of landlines. Without caller I.D. or voicemail, if a call was missed, you had no idea who was calling about what. We managed to continue living, assuming if it was important, they’d call back.

Have we been conditioned to over-react to our electronic notifications?

A stated business goal for many device or app developers is improved user experience. This could be code for holding your attention longer. Considering that many social media sites make money from advertising, and the fee to advertisers is higher the more eyeballs are on the site, there is some logic to why companies want users to spend more time on their sites. How does increased convenience, which presumably relates to less time spend doing something, fit into this scheme.

Back to my iPhone. Some of the rationale1 for the haptics is to simulate the feel of pushing a button (electronic buttons1 have reacted that way since forever, so pushing buttons must be very important to people2). Eliminating push buttons is good for manufacturers because it makes for fewer moving parts, allowing a more reliable device as moving parts are harder to fix with a software update. The haptics made the earphone jack go away (space thing), which has the benefit of allowing less dust into the guts of the phone. The haptic functionality is open to third party developers who can dream up as many different uses for a wiggly phone as their imagination will allow – so there’s all kinds of new needs we don’t know we have to be satisfied.

When my shiny new phone first purred in my hand, I thought of artificial intelligence. Could this be some far-sighted approach to prepare us to accept machines as interacting members of the household, or society?

In this description of Apple’s haptic technology we learn that the devices are engineered to deliver signals to our fingers by sending misleading messages that mimic the push of a button. The technology uses knowledge of how our brains interpret forces directed onto our fingertips to simulate the button-pushing-feel. This is revolutionary. The visual and tactile are together, like they are in the real world, which makes what happens on my phone more real that ever before. Another reason not to put it down.

Haptics are currently used to give a more life-like experience to video games and to training simulation where touching a real thing is less than desirable, such as medical procedures and handling of dangerous substances3. I’m curious to find out what far flung way haptics will be a vital part of everyday life 10 years from now.

I’m so excited about this new technology, I’ve glossed over where I started with this post. Why do developers introduce new products and features that we don’t know we need or want, but can’t live without a little while later: A sinister plot to take advantage of our primordial urges and to get us to buy more stuff? Or visionary anticipation of the benefits of new technology?

Maybe I’ll ask Siri.

———-

1 Tapping a button, whether on a touch screen or through a cursor delivered click, makes the button do a flashy thing, which simulates a push of the button. Other surrogate reactions are noises.

2 The desire to push buttons stumps me from an evolutionary perspective. I’ve seen explanations related to curiosity and being in control, and testing rules but am not satisfied.

3 For example, when learning to handle radioactive waste or do open heart surgery.

Please follow and like us:

No More Them.

I don’t like Them.

“It’s a time for choosing sides,” a wise person said to me recently. Not for staying neutral but for taking action. I agree. I’m going to get rid of Them.

How do I plan to remove Them from society, silence their voices and abolish their very existence? Non-violently. My goal is to exterminate the concept of Them.

Them are the Others. Could be Them are big business. Bad government. Men. Women. The Management. Some other group identified culturally, spiritually, by physical features, or an attitude or life choices or just about anything, like having big dogs, a certain model of car or coat.

Them are a group we build an imaginary fence around to distinguish them from Us. Them are often unsavoury because they have an agenda that’s different from ours, hard to understand, out of our control, oppressive, and we feel powerless to act against it. What’s not to fear and loathe?

That is definitely the Them I want to eliminate. No one needs Them.

We all have our ‘Them’s – groups we don’t understand who say or do things we disagree with. It is human nature to seek out those we connect with easily. Those who are Us. How do we get rid of our Thems?

The trick is to accept there is no Them. They are a group of people, like Us, but the differences stand out, rather than the similarities. Probably to both them and us. The fundamental premise for eradicating Them is that people are mostly the same. The key is seeing them as individuals that you have something in common with. Maybe it’s raising young children, an illness, a fear of flying, or love of Renaissance paintings. We’re all connected somehow.

How to see the connection?

This is a triskele, a symbol used by various cultures and groups over thousands of years. This version is celtic and said to represent unity of three disparate things: land, sea, and sky. As different and incompatible as these elements are, together they create the richness of the earth, flowers and trees and food for all of us.

For me, the triskele reflects what I do, bringing together groups or individuals that suspect they are different from each other but need each other. In my professional life, I’ve united investment bankers and scientists,1 academics and administrators, lawyers and inventors, investors and entrepreneurs, capitalists and socialists, scientists and the general public.

You’ll notice these are groups of two. But the triskele has three arms. What does the third arm represent? Someone who understands both sides of the situation and can explain it to the others in terms that make sense to them. There’s no Them when you realize what you share with the other people.

Any two people, or groups of people, regardless of how they want to group themselves, can find common ground if they understand each other’s motives and interests. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree on everything, or buy into all that everyone else thinks. If our lives intersect, there’s a way we can work together. The third arm, the connection, is key.

Join me. Help stomp out Them. Be a connector for two groups to understand each other. Make it personal. It won’t always end happily ever after, some times there will be agreement to disagree. But understanding where people are coming from is different from disliking a faceless group with incomprehensible ideas2.

If we’re all connected, there’s no Them.

I’ve chosen a side. I choose to side with Everyone. I’m living for the fundamental interconnectedness of Us.

—–

1 A simplified, hypothetical example: when the investment bankers see that an abstract invention, like say an internal combustion engine, has value because it can create a whole new, oat-free means of transportation that people will love for the convenience, scientists love it because their invention is useful, appreciated, and makes them some money so they can go on inventing new things, like self-driving cars.

2  Sort of like the difference between disagreeing with your sister over home schooling vs. disliking government policy on grade 3 curriculum. While you probably understand your sister, They definitely make the rules about public schools. But there are people who have made and institute the rules, people who are trying to deliver an educational system that balances costs, modern theories of education, keeping their jobs, and get the best for everyone’s kids. Disagree with the outcome if you must, not the people who are involved.

Please follow and like us:

Legal Persons.

Sounds awkward.
Is awkward, potentially.
The European parliament is apparently considering declaring robots with AI legal persons1.
Thinking my way around this.

Corporations were declared legal persons generations ago.
According to Wikipedia, in 1886.
Yet we still have problems with the concept.
Making the engines of capitalism into legal persons may be the root of the ‘them’ in us.

The documentary, The Corporation, suggests that the difference between corporate ‘legal persons’ and the rest of us is that corporations have no moral or ethical conscious. They have rights but fewer obligations. To me, this ought to be yin and yang. If you have the right to something (like say a drivers license), you have the obligation to control it (and drive carefully).

As most things do, the state of being a corporation started innocently enough. A bunch of individuals got together and directed their interests (social, financial and/or personal) to a joint cause. When the cause got big enough, it took on a life (not a casual use of the word) of its own. It needed to be a separate entity, legally as well as autonomously. Since a collective decided what it would do, no one person was responsible, but the entity needed to be liable for its actions.

Controversy has arisen with modern corporations. Some have polluted our environment. Others taken advantage of people in developing nations for cheap labour. More recently, corporate support of political agendas2 calls into question the justice of a powerful, but unemotional entity, influencing human activities. The profit agenda of corporations is seen as their over-riding motivation, devoid of compassion.

Starting to sound scarily like artificial intelligence? Powerful. Devoid of human emotion. Mission driven.

Before we go there, consider another aspect of legal personhood. Various governments have recently declared various animals as legal persons3. Making animals legal persons protects them from acts of violence and neglect. Previously, because animals were considered possessions, they could be treated in any way their owner saw fit. Our modern sensibilities want more humane treatment, so animals have become legal persons in some countries. This allows third parties to step in and defend them, if necessary.

And let’s not forget that there were times in history when various people didn’t have the same status as others. Not so long ago women were ‘allowed’ to own property and vote (rights of ‘personhood’). Throughout human history, various groups have been ‘freed’ from slavery by other groups (from Roman times to more recently), granting the freed rights of personhood.

Granting basic rights like protection from harm and freedom to chose to those who are deserving is a good thing. But dodging responsibility in the name of adhering to a mission like maximizing profits doesn’t seem right.

What of the personhood of AI’s? Will it protect them from harm or allow them to game the system?

The arguments before European parliament to declare AI’s legal persons are motivated by giving them responsibility. No one holds the wind responsible for felling a tree and crushing a car. We call that a natural disaster. However, if an AI miscalculates GPS coordinates and sends a lifesaving package to the wrong province, we do want to hold someone responsible, whether it’s the programmers, owners or contractors of the AI. This was part of the original philosophy of making corporations legal persons. If the outcome of their actions required someone taking responsibility, it should be the collective that directs the thing.

Back to AI. Yes, we want some kind of accountability for what AI’s can do. After all, we don’t expect a herd of random robots running around without reason. Someone will deploy them and give them an assignment. And if that assignment runs amok and does some kind of damage, whoever sent the AIs should be responsible, even if it’s a corporate legal person.

Do AI’s need protection? I can imagine a day, a few decades from now, when people will feel protective about some AI’s and concerned when other AI’s are not treated well. Maybe the AI’s are left out in the rain, or aren’t consulted about best practices in machine lubrication.

Many people fear AI’s. They see a day when the power of the AI could subvert us or turn off our life support for good, because we are purposeless. They might have the right to do so if they are legal persons. And decided we were less than legal persons.

I have great faith in humans to manage our creations and ensure our survival, but also to treat those around us properly. Sometimes, it takes a while to figure out what that is. Ask a woman or a minority group. We can be slow arriving at justice. Maybe an AI could help us with that.

1 Reported in this CBC article.

2 http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

3 For a completely less than comprehensive look, here‘s a blog post I did.

Please follow and like us:

Oh, to be an expert. Or not to be an expert.

I went to a talk about marketing1, heard a great story about business strategy2, and learned about The Trouble with Experts, a documentary3  that examines the current ‘Expert’ phenomena. As a big fan of the fundamental interconnectedness of things, the talk inspired me to ramble around the topic of experts while mixing in business strategy and other things.

We’re steeped in information: long posts, short posts, vlogs, interviews, testimonials, opinions – individual, journalistic, shared and trending-, spewing forth every second of every day and night. To add to the confusion, ironically by trying to clarify it, is a preponderance expert opinion about every news story. How does one get membership in this exclusive expert club, garnering the right to earning big bucks just by expressing an opinion?

I’d like to disagree and then agree with The Trouble with Experts on its analysis of various expert groups, including wine tasters, economists, and management consultants.

As told in The Trouble with Experts, studies have been done to test the ability of the wine tasters to distinguish disguised wines and economists to predict the economic future. The wine experts weren’t able to tell expensive from cheap wine when the bottles were switched, and the predictions of economists weren’t often right. In my opinion, although soundly executed, the studies didn’t do justice to the professionals. Wine tasters likely know many things about wine. Like most of us, they are human, and swayed by their expectations, in this case created by the label of a renowned vineyard on the bottle. Economists are trained to analyze and recognize economic trends, patterns that have occurred historically, which we all know are no guarantee of future performance.

The next group the documentary took to task was management consultants, which hit close enough to my home to make me uncomfortable. An interviewee suggested there is no data to suggest business strategists make good recommendations. Funny thing about business strategy: it often boils down to a simple recommendation (for example, produce original media content, or expand into a European market rather than a US one), which sounds like someone came up it in a moment’s thought.

Choosing a strategic direction is a prediction of sorts, but a prediction based on many facts, such as the economic environment, fluctuations in consumer demand, technological advances and competitive landscape. These are all real, quantifiable, and of critical importance for managing any business.

The presentation that inspired this post reminded me how real business strategy is, with a real life example: Most drug stores sold cigarettes a few decades ago, until legislation put a stop to it. That presented a certain large drug store chain with the challenge of deciding which of its remaining products to enhance to serve a regular stream of customers that weren’t looking to get their prescriptions filled. The solution, to highlight cosmetics, was genius. Understanding the full impact of taking away tobacco sales on the drugstore’s business required expertise. The focus on cosmetics was never guaranteed to work. But it apparently has. The expert who suggested it is a hero even though it was a prediction. But a prediction based on analysis of industry characteristics, consumer demand, what the competition offers, combined with knowing what the organization could do.

What’s realistic to expect of an expert? Very few humans can predict the future, regardless of their area of expertise. Those trained in a field will recognize patterns, flavours, or trends sooner than the general public, and are able to understand and explain events in their field. However, experts are often asked to gaze into the hazy future and conjure the outcome of current events.

Most of us who claim expertise do so because we understand an area through decades of work and study. Voicing an opinion about something, like the effectiveness of vaccines or the function of air filtration systems, does not require expertise. However, explaining how infectious disease is limited by vaccination or the parameters that govern air flow and particulate removal, does. Reading controlled studies about vaccine trials or the physics of airflow through ducts doesn’t provide a license to predict the future, but does provide a unique grasp on the subject matter.

The Trouble with Experts ends by exploring the most curious aspect of the Expert phenomena: training to become an expert. Modern experts can be created by a perverse version of natural selection. Popular media promotes the most personable, show-worthy individual to speak on a subject. Becoming this sort of expert requires only passion, poise and an unshakable attitude that you are right, about something, like life on Venus, the nutritional value of donuts, or the horse that will win the Kentucky Derby.

This is what we’ve come to. He or she who shouts loudest, with greatest emotion, is right. They may have a deep understanding of their field, or they many not. That isn’t the criteria. It’s sounding credible.

Let’s put the expert back in expertise. Being an expert means a person understands, not that they can predict the future. We’re all entitled to our opinions. The critical thing is to differentiate between expertise and opinion. All of us, listeners and pontificators alike, can make it better. It’s about promoting the truth. Not trending.

And on that note, here are a few sites where I’m experting:

1. As reviewer of business pitches for OCE and Ministry of Economic Development and Growth’s young entrepreneurs

2. As a mentor for entrepreneurs at The Community Innovation Lab

3. As an entrepreneur, in the Core21 community of entrepreneurs (in the video)

1This was part of a new series, called UP! Practical Sales Talks, from the BACD , aimed at inspiring local business people to do better business. If you’re in the neighbourhood, I’d highly recommend it.

2The presentation I attended, from Shawn Palmer, Director of Sales and Marketing, Classic Gourmet Coffee, hit most topics I teach in my business strategy cases, serving as a brilliant reminder of how real business strategy is. More about this later in the post.

3I want to call it a docu-pinion, to reflect a piece with the documentary style of investigative journalism and a conclusion that might be found in an opinion piece. I’m probably insulting someone here, but I think the point of the piece was the question of how experts are defined, which if applied to the documentary, could mean that many of the interviewees in the piece who provided their expertise could be questioned, and therefore the commentary provided was, at best, opinion. I’m slightly dizzy thinking about it.

Please follow and like us:

Software Updates: A User’s Perspective

It time for another humorous, if somewhat pointed, look at modern technology, specifically software updates and the (mixed) messages that come with them.

Take for example:

This software update will fix a few security issues.

What it seems to mean:

  • The update will break all my preset passwords, requiring re-input into ‘settings’.

But, I don’t know all my preset passwords. Either I dig into that secure location where I keep the paper record of the passwords (although I’d don’t have such a thing because it’s a giant security risk), or request password resets, which requires changing the same password on six other devices. Where I can’t remember how to find the setting because…

We’re changed our look.

What it seems to mean:

  • Everything on the website/app looks completely unfamiliar. I’m disoriented.
  • If the background was white, now it’s navy blue. The rounded font now is square. The logo is different so I’m not even sure if I have an account, which doesn’t matter because the last security patch erased my password.
  • I can’t finding things by their location on the screen, because that’s changed too. The menu has moved from the right sidebar to three lines disguised as a decorative doodad at the top of the page.
  • The marketing team must have decided to rename all the critical functions, so looking for functions by name is pointless.
  • Shutting down is impossible? The capability has been removed. Who’d want to stop using this brilliant software, anyway?
  • There’s new functionality, preset to the most intrusive level, so that I suddenly have strange icons clogging my screen when I’m trying to call a critically important client with information they wanted five minutes ago.

All this because…

The software (operating system, word processing, presentation software) is licensed to you free of charge.

What it seems to mean:

  • The software developer is in command but assures me I’m a valuable customer.
  • I’m inundated with ‘update your software’ messages. A screen pops up while I’m in the middle of doing something I’ve chosen to, like email my ailing mother, text my member of parliament about internet privacy concerns, or read my son’s report card.

All I have to do to use my free software, on my device, is continually dismiss messages from the software developer. I don’t update because I’m afraid I’ll need a bunch of time to reload my passwords and figure out where all the options are …see above.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad software is updated all the time, otherwise we might be stuck with that annoying paperclip of advice, have our identities stolen, or be able to brew a pot of tea between page loads. Ever advancing software functionality has changed everything over the years in wonderful ways. Embedded video. Autofilled fields. Hyperlinks to automatically put events in your calendar or phone the new restaurant that delivers to your house at the touch of a screen.

Why am I complaining? Humans hate change. C’mon, even those of us who are addicted to change actually hate change if it messes with our routines. Routines make life simple. I don’t want to have to think about where to find the menu on my favourite website because I have better things to do. Like vote on a new logo for my favourite coffee shop.

It’s like old slippers: comfy, cosy, threadbare, faded with a sole that flops around, half unglued. If anyone has the nerve to replace them with a sleek new pair, complete with ultra comfortable memory foam insoles, I’m not happy. Not because the new slippers aren’t nice, have additional features and the old ones were about to disintegrate, but because my brain has to adjust.

Perhaps the answer is software updates so frequent and subtle that we never consciously notice the continuous, small changes. On that point, what did I notice, just yesterday, but a certain browser advertising its features, including continuous updates. If the approach to updates is a marketing point, I’m not the only one who finds the current, prevalent process aggravating.

That’s the miracle of software: if you don’t like the way something works, give it a few months and it will likely change. The update is coming.

Please follow and like us: