Having long ago dabbled in the area of experimental psychology (and specifically concepts of brain interfaces) then I'm impressed by 1024 channels of #Neuralink, the use of industrialised components, the durability, the size, the signal analysis ... but ...
... even at mass produced scales, at a cost of a few thousand $ then this opens up a whole new world of inequality. Some tough questions for society going forward.
X : You seem negative?
Me : The opposite. I just want us to think beyond the benefits to how rewards are distributed. Imagine a world with no books or universities where one could download the knowledge of a lawyer if you could afford it ... what happens if you can't?
X : If you could afford it?
Me : The device might be a few thousands $ (a barrier for many) but the lifetime legal knowledge of an expert must be worth a few million $ (a barrier to most). Cross generational inheritance of knowledge and skills through electronic means ...
... ok, that may be far away (30 to 50 years or so) but eventually we will have to face that question or we could do what we normally do which is discount the future and let them work out the problems we create - see environment etc.
X : No books or universities?
Me : These are not needed for the purposes of training if you can download the experiences of a professional - a lawyer - from a market of content.
X : What if I can't afford the content?
Me : You could buy cheaper content, a cleaner for example.
X : Embedding social inequality?
Me : Permanently. These are amazing advances in technology but we have to think beyond the benefit to an individual and look at how the rewards are shared within society. We need to have that "We" vs "Me" conversation that the pandemic points to.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Our strategy doesn't align with our business.
Me : How do you mean?
X : We create these strategy documents but they never really get implemented as the day to day business takes over.
Me : That's common. Can I ask a question?
X : Sure
Me : ...
Me : Do you map?
X : I've heard of your technique but we don't use it.
Me : Ok, so your business operations is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : And your strategy is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : What made you think they would align?
X : They are supposed to align and we wrote our strategy on our understanding of the business.
Me : Your wrote your strategy based upon stories. There's no means to create a consensus of your landscape, to challenge what your are doing. There is no mechanism for alignment.
X : Why do you continue to use twitter / X?
Me : Because I like the tool and the crowd.
X : Do you support @elonmusk
Me : No. I disagree on many of his views.
X : He is far right.
Me : Perspective matters. US is generally more right wing & Silicon Valley especially so.
X : What do you mean by "Perspective matters"?
Me : Elon's views are not that unusual for Silicon Valley - . There's a lot of support based upon a different view of economics and government.
X : Different?
Me : Different from Europe. cbsnews.com/news/trump-jd-…
X : People should just accept it?
Me : No. They should argue against it. The "left" did itself no favours by diluting its voice across multiple platforms.
X : Are you left?
Me : I view the market as tool to be used in the common interest of society. I'm a socialist.
X : What do you need to do in order to map a business?
Me : Ask ... 1) "Who are the users?" (at the least, include consumers and the business) 2) "What are their needs?" 3) "What is the chain of components required to meet those needs?" 4) "How evolved are those components?"
...
Me : Once you have done that, allow others to challenge it. Even better, build the map with others. It really is that simple.
X : But creating a map is difficult.
Me : Only to those used to making decisions without understanding users, needs, the supply chain etc.
X : How common is that?
Me : In business? The majority of decisions tend to be made with no understanding of users, needs, supply chain and how evolved those components are. We tend to rely on gut feel and stories with little to no effective challenge.
dX: How do you deal with strategy?
Me: First, we need to answer the Where question, which depends a lot on the what and why.
dX: And?
Me: Ok, some very simple steps ...
Step 1: Visualise your environment. That means getting people to discuss, collaborate & challenge in order to create a "good enough" map of your environment. Should be a couple of hours.
Step 2: Look at what's changing which is competitor moves, your moves & economic patterns.
Step 3: Using the map, determine where you could invest/focus on. You're not making a decision yet, you just want the options. By now, you could have spent four hours on the exercise.
Step 4: Decide where you should invest i.e. look at the options using why & what
Those born in the 1890s experienced electrification, telephone, radio, television, nuclear age, penicillin, two world wars, commercial flight, computer age and a moon landing. By the 60s we had AI, VR and 3D printing.
Today, we have the internet / www and have improved stuff.
Is it me, or is human progress slowing down? Great breakthroughs, moments of change, and radical transformations seem like a thing of the past. What we call "revolutions" in industry today seems mostly a marketing slogan.
If you think back to 1957 and the Mark I Perceptron machine that was built at Cornell, then consider the changes in the previous 60 years ... you can't help but think they would be bitterly disappointed with how slow we have progressed in the following 60 years.
We will be entering a phase in which the US high-tech industry (including the military complex) is highly dependent upon China, whilst China is not dependent upon the US.
For those who doubt how clear the intentions were ... go read Made in China, 2025.
China's government made its intentions evident in 2015. The US sabre rattling of sanctions reinforced that purpose whilst the US essentially continued with a misguided "market knows best" policy.