Ideas are sometimes Slippery and Hard to Grasp
I started this blog with the goal of becoming an “idea exchange,” as well as a way to pass along lessons learned to help others. Typical guidance for a blog is to focus on one thing and do it well to develop a following. That is especially important if you want to monetize the blog, but that is not and has not been my goal.
One of the things that has surprised me is how different the comments and likes are for each post. Feedback from the last post was even more diverse and surprising than usual. It ranged from comments about “Siri vs Google” to feedback about Sci-Fi books and movies to Artificial Intelligence.
I asked a few friends for feedback and received something very insightful (Thanks Jim). He stated that he found the blog interesting but wasn’t sure of the objective. He went on to identify several possible goals for the last post. Strangely enough (or maybe not), his comments mirrored the type of feedback that I received. That pointed out an area for improvement, and I appreciated that as well as the wisdom of focusing on one thing. Who knows, maybe in the future…
This also reminded me of a white paper written 12-13 years ago by someone I used to work with. It was about how Bluetooth would be the “next big thing.” He had read an IEEE paper or something and saw potential for this new technology. His paper provided the example of your toaster and coffee maker communicating so that your breakfast would be ready when you walk into the kitchen in the morning.
At that time, I had a couple of thoughts. Who cared about something that only had a 20-30-foot range when WiFi had become popular and had a much greater range? In addition, a couple of years earlier, I had a tour of the Microsoft “House of the Future,” in which everything was automated and key components communicated. But everything in the house was all hardwired or used WiFi – not Bluetooth. It was easy to dismiss his assertion because it seemed to lack pragmatism. The value of the idea was difficult to quantify, given the use case provided.
Looking back now, I view that white paper as having insight. If it was visionary, he would have come out with the first Bluetooth speakers, car interface, or even phone earpiece and gotten rich, but it failed to present practical use cases that were easy enough to understand yet different enough from what was available at the time to demonstrate the real value of the idea. His expression of idea was not tangible enough and, therefore, too slippery to be easily grasped and valued.
I believe that good ideas sometimes originate where you least expect them. Those ideas are often incremental – seemingly simple and sometimes borderline obvious, often building on another idea or concept. An idea does not need to be unique to be important or valuable, but it needs to be presented in a way that makes it easy to understand the benefits, differentiation, and value. That is just good communication.
One of the things I miss most from when my consulting company was active was the interaction between a couple of key people (Jason and Peter) and myself. Those guys were very good at taking an idea and helping build it out. This worked well because we had some overlapping expertise and experiences as well as skills and perspectives that were more complementary. That diversity increased the depth and breadth of our efforts to develop and extend those ideas by asking the tough questions early and ensuring we could convince each other of the value.
Our discussions were creative, highly collaborative, and a lot of fun. We improved from them, and the outcome was usually viable from a commercial perspective. As a growing and profitable small business, you must constantly innovate to differentiate yourself. Our discussions were driven as much by necessity as intellectual curiosity, and I believe this was part of the magic.
So, back to the last post. I view various technologies as building blocks. Some are foundational, and others are complementary. To me, the key is not viewing those various technologies as competing with each other. Instead, I look for potential value created by integrating them with each other. That may not always be possible and does not always lead to something better, but occasionally it does, so to me, it is a worthwhile exercise. With regard to voice technology, I believe we will see more, better, and smarter applications of it – especially as real-time and AI systems become more complex due to the use of an increasing number of specialized chips, component systems, geospatial technology, and sensors.
While today’s smartphone interfaces would not pass the Turing Test or proposed alternatives, they are an improvement over more simplistic voice translation tools available just a few years ago. Advancement requires the tools to understand context in order to make inferences. This brings you closer to machine learning, and big data (when done right) significantly increases that potential.
Ultimately, this all leads back to Artificial Intelligence (at least in my mind). It’s a big leap from a simple voice translation tool to AI, but it is not such a stretch when viewed as building blocks.
Now think about creating an interface (API) that allows one smart device to communicate with another, like the collaborative efforts described above with my old team. It’s not simply having a front-end device exchanging keywords or queries with a back-end device. Instead, it is two or more devices and/or systems having a “discussion” about what is being requested, looking at what each component “knows,” making inferences based on location and speed, asking clarifying questions and making suggestions, and then finally taking that multi-dimensional understanding of the problem to determine what is really needed.
So, possibly not true AI (yet), but a giant leap forward from what we have today. That would help turn the science fiction of the past into science fact in the near future. The better the understanding and inferences by the smart system, the better the results.
I also believe that the unintended consequence of these new smart systems is that they will likely make errors or have biases like a human as they become more human-like in their approach. Hopefully, those smart systems will be able to automatically back-test recommendations to validate and minimize errors. If they are intelligent enough to monitor results and suggest corrective actions when they determine that the recommendation does not have the optimal desired results, they would become even “smarter.” There won’t be an ego creating a distortion filter about the approach or the results. Or maybe there will…
Many of the building blocks required to create these new systems are available today. But it takes vision and insight to see that potential, translate ideas from slippery and abstract to tangible and purposeful, and then start building something cool and useful. As that happens, we will see a paradigm shift in how we interact with computers and how they interact with us. It will become more interactive and intuitive. That will lead us to the systematic integration that I wrote about in a big data / nanotechnology post.
So, what is the real objective of my blog? To get people thinking about things differently, to foster collaboration and partnerships between businesses and educational institutions to push the limits of technology, and to foster discussion about what others believe the future of computing and smart devices will look like. I’m confident that I will see these types of systems in my lifetime, and I believe in the possibility of this occurring within the next decade.
What are your thoughts?
Where Ideas, Experiences, and Lessons Learned Intersect 