Thursday, January 12, 2017

Who Really Knows?

Twelve years ago, Thomas Friedman, in The World is Flat (2005), warned that it was impossible to keep up with the pace at which the world was moving. In 2017 many people have accepted that any notion of “keeping up” is illusory.  Our only hope to stay afloat in the churning sea of knowledge overload is to religiously curate and prioritize. However, being able to sort and focus only helps us survive. To thrive and excel Friedman emphasizes the need for us to stay curious and innovative.  Friedman’s premise was that equal access to knowledge was causing the flattening of the world. He saw terrorists as a major disrupting factor to the natural collaboration and sharing that was possible in a flat world.  Today terrorists continue to disrupt – but so do web based elements like “fake news” – which can disrupt civil dialogue.  This inundation of content, which we cannot even begin to evaluate or sort effectively, can leave us less able to collaborate and potentially more ignorant than ever before. 

Although Friedman saw the intellectually elevating opportunity in full access to sharing and collaboration, it seems that many social collaboration tools are vastly underutilized.  At work we regularly connect via Slack or Yammer but it’s more about quick answers to technical questions. People seeking counsel on how to be better leaders is extremely rare. However, because people have broad access to information subordinates can research and identify problems with both their leaders and their organization leaving them potentially disaffected.

Friedman also discussed the importance of learning what he calls right brain skills – those which cannot be duplicated by a computer - and explores various ways to get the brain engaged in this higher order learning. So much has happened in the AI space in subsequent years that Bostrom (2015) indicated that we on the verge of something major.  Rather than reinforcing Friedman’s assumption that our right brain skills cannot be duplicated, Bostrom recognized the speed at which AI machine learning is progressing.  He pointed out that algorithms can learn cross domain and speculated that a human level of intellectual processing may be reached and surpassed in 40 years.  Bostrom calls this superintelligence and it would seem to contradict Friedman’s assumption that human creativity is not replicable by AI.

What does this mean for creativity and innovation? Speaking about just those topics, Richard Florida argued that the world is spiky rather than flat in his 2005 article from the Atlantic.  His research suggests that population concentration tends to lead to greater wealth and innovation.   Because the web connects people, ideas and finance, I wonder if it might minimize the impact of physical proximity.  Could access to a free and open internet possibly become even more important to generating innovation than concentration of wealth and people?  Florida argued that most success comes from generating innovation and pointed out the power of innovation to attract talent and create new products and industries.  Departments within my company who are innovation powerhouses do attract many people.  However, their connection is often entirely virtual, as it is with many of my partners.  Given the current approach, could access to the internet become the key differentiator rather than location and locus of wealth and population? It seems that innovative people will not need to leave their locale to go to another city/place because they can collaborate effectively from anywhere. 


And possibly your collaborator is not even human.  To this end Bostrom pointed out that the optimization process demands we use every available means to efficiently pursue a goal.  Individual humans are connecting and optimizing as never before through the web.  This connectivity represents an intelligence external to our own; one which represents one form of AI.  Bostrom believes we are on the precipice of a rapidly changing, different world; one where we are regularly surrounded by non-human intelligence, AI.  He warns that we are fooling ourselves to think we could simply turn off this switch.  Sharing Bostrom’s sense of urgency not only in recognizing the change is happening but also in ensuring society is doing all it can to ensure AI development is factoring in ethical elements a group of tech billionaire’s including Reid Hoffman and Elon Musk are establishing funds focused on overseeing value-centric AI development .

This change is happening and it alters many aspects of how we approach work; consider the 34 Japanese employees in who have just been replaced by Watson style AI.  From Friedman’s liberating view of shared information, to Florida’s contention that opportunities for innovation are lopsided to Bostrom’s assertion that AI may be calling more of the shots in our lifetimes ... it is clear that the terrain is evolving.  There is still relevancy in parts and pieces of Friedman and Florida.  However, there is less relevancy in their holistic arguments because as Bostrom points out the inadequacy of trying to understand or explain today’s world through our understanding of the world we knew even five years ago is a futile proposition.  We simply cannot perceive the world today through the filters we have used in the past.
  

20 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tricia,

    Your thoughts regarding the use of the internet to open opportunities for people throughout the world lead me to wonder, is the online world flat or spiky? Are there specific websites, blogs, apps, etc. that lead to the greatest inventions and discussions? Does everyone have access to these places or is the online world similar to what Florida described in The World is Spiky (2005)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jason,
      Great question and I would counter that the world is "spotty". Neither as flat as Friedman would indicate, nor as spiky as Florida would indicate. And the access changes every day. Internet coverage and access is extremely thorough in some areas and non-existent in others. But today that access isn't limited to urban centers at all. There are entire countries which have more thorough or more limited access. As for specific sites ... I believe that would depend largely on the ultimate goal of the collaborators. I would need a great deal more research to be able to answer that question with any authority. The access and connectivity was more what I was addressing in terms of fostering greater diversity in discussions and I do feel confident that that level of increased connectivity will continue to drive innovation... unless the AI decide to ultimately limit our access :-)
      Tricia

      Delete
  3. Tricia:
    I really enjoyed your post and thought it was very insightful that you mentioned that the authors who created their works more than a decade ago could not accurately describe the shape of the world since the clearly "didn't know what they didn't know." I do want to probe a little more in regards to your statement that people are not seeking information to become better leaders. Is this a general statement or is it in regards to seeking the content online and in social communities? My experience is completely opposite as I have been a part of very active leadership forums and chats online.
    I look forward to your thoughts-Krista

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Krista,

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my statement regarding online chats regarding leadership. I was specifically referencing our primary work social media sites, Yammer and Slack. We also have a fully internal Backlot which has large numbers of interest groups both open and closed groups. On these sites there is plenty of traffic but the tactical, technical and funny by far dominate the conversation. So yes - I do agree that there are many forums to gather with like minded people (for example those interested in leadership development, like us!!) and dialogue. What I feel is missing in the workplace is broad based connection and dialogue about the same. I am curious to know if you have found the work situation any different.
      Thanks for your thoughts - Tricia

      Delete
    2. Tricia:

      Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't agree with you more. I used Slack at my former job (advertising agency) and it seemed like the purpose of cutting down emails was replaced with planning happy hours and lunches. As I leader I do try and provide learning opportunities for my direct reports. Although I have not done this much with technology, I always try to have team meetings that are run by collaborative agendas. My team doesn't need me "yammering" for an hour. I'd rather have them share key learnings, wins, or helpful tips with one another. This not only provides an opportunity for peer review, but also for the development of presentation skills. We cannot solely rely on our online personas. :-)
      -Krista

      Delete
    3. Krista - so are on the same page! I love your use of collaborative agendas and the mix of face to face and on-line interaction. One of the teams I am currently on is trying to master some new interactive webinar technology and presentations. What would seem as if it would be simple is having its challenges for both our team and even more so for the participants. We are focusing on leadership topics but if everyone is getting jammed up connecting, etc the lesson goes out the window. Will keep you apprised as we venture along this path. Nice chatting.
      -Tricia

      Delete
    4. Krista, I have yet to use Slack, though I am considering it for another class. Your comments about how it is being used were interesting!

      Delete
  4. You bring up an interesting point: there is more technology around than what is simply viral. Florida and Friedman are examining the technology that primarily is promoted virally – that is, without much artificial effort to promote it. You mention Yammer and Slack as underutilized collaboration tools. These are actually tools that often need to be promoted actively in order for them to deliver the collaboration value they promise. But most companies leave this task to the IT department that deploys them. Their value is realized only when end users adopt their usage, but managing users’ adoption is not the typical wheelhouse for traditional IT. The expectation is that either the end users will magically see the value of these tools, or that they are stuck using them anyway – so no adoption efforts are needed. This is actually an old problem and one highlighted by the seminal work of Everett Rogers. He notes an adoption curve that represents groups that need little or no effort (i.e., innovators and early adopters), and the rest that typically need some attention (early majority, late majority, laggards) (Rogers, 2003).
    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th Editio). New York: Free Press.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments. I feel your position is well taken and supported and any fan of Rogers is a friend to me :-) Great point about diffusion of an idea or innovation not being in the wheelhouse of IT. As it happens, over the last year or so our IT department has not only become far larger, it has also become much more prominent in a marketing sense. They have created many short informative videos showing us many interesting ways technology is enhancing our business and work world. This seems to be making a positive impact on awareness and usage. So beyond simply adopting the innovation I wonder how we might begin to use it to focus more on developing our soft skills and foster deeper and more developmental human interactions. Thanks for encouraging me to reconsider Rogers. There may be some insight there to apply to the dilemma I am assessing. Thanks - Tricia

      Delete
  5. Nice post, Tricia. I liked the optimistic tone that the change is not only here but leading us to connect and innovate in new ways. Good point also by Anonymous about Rogers diffusion theory and that simply adding technology does not necessarily lead to change. On the other hand, one might cite Marshal McLuhan and his proposition that "the medium is the message." If leaders model and adopt technology, that carries a powerful message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Dr. Watwood. I do see all kinds of opportunities for collaboration and connection opening up. Now the question does remain as to whether we can be wise enough to use them in the most productive ways. Per my response above regarding adoption of innovations, it seems that the technology is being adopted more and more rapidly but our use of it does not consistently indicate we are ready to adopt it. A simple example being texting while driving. It is clearly an idiotic thing to do but so many people seem unable to actually stop themselves from doing it. So maybe we are at a point where adoption is gaining traction but our ability to use it wisely (like AI) may actually be the laggard. Not as optimistic as my post - but I do have hope that our wisdom may catch up to our use of technology. Either it will or our AI bots will be sending us to "time out." Thanks - Tricia

      Delete
  6. Tricia,

    I really enjoyed your post – it brings to light many important topics. The one I am going to focus on appears in a few of our colleagues’ posts as well. You mentioned that a Watson system is replacing 34 workers at Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance. These 34 Japanese employees are just the tip of the iceberg. In the article “Robots expected to run half of Japan by 2035”, Andres Tarantola (2015) pointed out that, hypothetically, robots could perform 49% of the jobs in Japan, 47% of the jobs in the US, and 35% of the jobs in the UK by 2035. Gartner predicts that one third of jobs will be handled by software, robots, and smart machines by 2025 (Barajas, 2014).

    Job loss is a real concern — how will this impact our lives? Livingthedream530 talks about job loss, and links to an NBC article about nine jobs that could go to robots. rd2chazen also brought up job replacement, noting that Watson is working with doctors to diagnose medical conditions. At the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty talked about Watson’s diagnostic work and shared a story of a medical condition that confounded top specialists for months, only to be solved by Watson in ten minutes. While there is concern for job loss, the patient was probably grateful for Watson.

    This change is happening and it alters many aspects of how we approach work. In the The World is Flat (Friedman, 2005), Friedman talks of jobs that will never go away, which includes (besides plumbers) synthesizers, explainers, leveragers, versatilists, and more. Do you think these are the skill sets we will be teaching the next generation of students?

    Mary

    References

    Barajas, J. (2014, October 7, 2014). Smart robots will take over a third of jobs by 2025. PBS Newshour. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/smart-robots-will-take-third-jobs-2025-gartner-says/

    Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Rodriguez, S. (2016, October 19). IBM's Ginni Rometty: Work on something bigger than yourself. inc.com. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/salvador-rodriguez/ginni-rometty-ibm-ghc.html

    Tarantola, A. (2015, December 4). Robots expected to run half of Japan by 2035. engadget.com. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/04/robots-expected-to-run-half-of-japan-by-2035/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mary!
      As always a great response! Reading through the amazing diagnostic work by Watson is incredible. And Watson and other current examples of AI all post date Friedman's work. And I believe that Watson is proof that Friedman's premise, regarding the impossibility of job loss due to humans being the only sentient ones, is now outdated. So I think at this moment we really have no idea what skill sets will be needed 25 years from now. I say this begrudgingly because I have firmly believed we need to be teaching 21st century skills of agility, creativity, collaboration, critical thinking ... But I am really beginning to wonder if we are capable of understanding where we are really evolving. So at the moment I am thinking along these lines: metacognition is critical. We need to understand far more about our thinking period. Second, it may be that intuition and emotion will prove to be more and more important as AI outpace us on the intellectual front. However, that may come across as pretty dire so let me share the following link to a very upbeat graphic which highlights Job Skills for the future

      http://qaspire.com/2015/08/31/skills-for-future-success-in-a-disruptive-world-of-work/

      Enjoy,
      Tricia

      Delete
    2. Tricia,

      Thank you for sharing the upbeat graphic about Job Skills for the future. My dad was a library science professional for IBM, so the first sentence caught my attention. Love the graphic – I plan to share it with my colleagues. Your firm belief about teaching 21st century skills of agility, creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking is shared by my university. A significant endeavor currently underway is to integrate exactly those skills across all of our academic programs. No doubt it is a worthwhile project, but our discussion has me wondering what more needs to be done. I am going to take that as another positive!

      Mary

      Delete
    3. We may need to start this class backwards, as I have this graphic in Week 8 as well! :-)

      As to your worry about loss of jobs, one could point to the industrial revolution which eliminated many jobs in the agricultural world...but created new jobs in industry. I optimistically believe we are at the edge of a new shift, where robots and AI will take some jobs, but that will free us for more satisfying work with our minds. In 1995, Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book called THE END OF WORK, suggesting that the information age would displace most of humanity, and that we would need to replace jobs with leisure activities. In the 20 years since, that has not come to pass...yet some aspects of his idea may still evolve.

      Delete
    4. Well - clearly we are headed in the right direction ... and maybe this too is an indication of the continuing exponential speed at which everything is accelerating. I sure am excited about week 8! :-) And every week in between.

      Delete
  7. Hello,
    Great blog this week. I found that many of your points resonated with me especially as you discussed Bostrom’s video. Watching Bostrom made me think of Ray Kurzeil, an individual who discusses the merging of humans with technology. I was first introduced to Kurzeil as an undergraduate student. Kurzeil (2001) argues that Moore’s Law, or the rapid development of technology will grow so fast that it is only a matter of time before artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence. Kurzeil has books and various other publications that discuss what the future will be like. I recognize that I went off on a tangent, but it is quite interesting the world we live within and our reliance on technology.
    Thank you for your post.
    Keshia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keshia,
      Glad you enjoyed the post. Cool that you mentioned Moore's law. I had come across an intriguing article which I mentioned in another response which suggests Moore’s Law is dead after 50 years of predicting the expansion of computing power and the shrinking of the resister https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601441/ moores-law-is-dead-now-what/ . Thought you might enjoy given your reference. As for going off on a tangent - I enjoyed your tangent and I think being able to shift mental gears is definitely going to be one of the talents we will need to survive the coming years.
      Regards,
      Tricia

      Delete