Don’t forget about us.

A core component in the Singularity-conversation is the topic of the evolving humanization of computers. But how come we don’t speak much of the reciprocal mechanization of man? It’s a two-way street, but most of us don’t consider this in the big picture. Our natural processes are constantly influenced (for better and worse) by the machines in our lives.

I suppose we’re victims of our own subjectivity and don’t quite consider it, or maybe we’re in a collective subconscious state of denial. Whatever the reason, it’s happening, and we ought to start paying more attention because we just might lost the very thing that makes us human, the je ne sais quoi that computers don’t have but we’re trying to provide them with.

They learn from us.

In his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil discusses the future course of humanity, particularly relating to the development of artificial intelligence and its impact on human consciousness. The book predicts that machines with human-like intelligence will surface and be readily available, revolutionizing most aspects of life, and that eventually humanity and its machinery will become one and the same.

As we journey toward the realization of his prophesy (*crosses fingers*), we will continue to encounter the progressive humanization of technology all around us. Today, this idea is fairly well known due to the exponential progress rippling through our world. More and more, we are redesigning our technology to merge into our lives as opposed to the inferior method of attaching to our lives. The merge-factor provides a more physical (sometime human-like) vibe.

Example: Instead of scanning headlines from site to site while scrolling your mousewheel (think: attached), throw them away along with your newspaper and pick up an iPad and flip away with the more natural behavior (think: merged).  This is pseudo-empathetic technology that feels more like Mom than it does Microsoft. The iPad promises a more physically intuitive interface that sympathizes with our workflows and playflows.

And the idea of intuition is key, as it’s a core differentiated human capability. Consider that your word processor has never corrected you by articulating “ummmm… I think you really meant to say it this way.”  Aside from spelling and grammar correction, MS Word can’t do that (yet), because it’s stuck with the intuitive abilities of a plastic bag. However, progress is indeed happening.

Example: New, intuitive features in Gmail Labs. Google presents us with some cool tricks, such as the “forgotten attachment reminder” that knows if you meant to include a file with your message. Also, there’s the clever “do you also want to send this to these people”, the feature that learns your patterns of group addressing so no body gets left out. Wonderful examples of progress in this space surface all the time, you just need to learn how to recognize them. Keep watch.

We learn from them. (Sometimes not in a positive way.)

So the code is getting smarter, more human-like, more intuitive. Intuition and intelligent choice-making are key elements of humanized computers. Intuition is understanding intention, and that’s something people do very well compared to machines today. Intention is often removed from our overt behavior, and is something interpretive, fueled by creativity, pattern recognition and emotion. Computers can’t really see something if it’s not in front of them, if it’s not overt or somehow defined. To date, most technological intuition is merely faked. It’s nothing but a sham, incapable of trusting it’s gut and relying on immense computation procedures (think of Chess applications that use brute force calculation instead of creative approaches).

But here’s the thing. As machines learn from us, we learn from them. The relationship is remarkable, and we best not lose the plot, because we’ll need the things that differentiate us as humans to get to the Singularity. We must not lose ourselves to the seduction of passive, predictable calculating behaviors of Turing machines.

Are our intuitive abilities degrading with each Google search? Are we sacrificing the capabilities of deductive logic reasoning with each query or Excel calculation? I think we are, to a certain extent (although not quite with the drama of recent headlines: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”).

What about the sense of exploration? The hunger to discover wanes in some way with every “recommended” book, song or blog post. Sure, we’re still discovering, but we’re not being psychologically gratified the way we used to be when we figuratively hunted for our dinner. This must have an effect on the thread or our psychological evolution. For example, I used to enjoy the magic of discovering a new album. It was like winning the lottery. Today, Pandora, Last FM and the like have contributed to the demise of such experiences. Instead of feeling the awesome sensation linked to the victorious discovery of something great, I find myself more often disappointed with the less-than-accurate suggestions of the recommendation engines of the web.

The fundamental approach that we take to problem solving today must be taking it’s toll on our thinking patterns as well. We used to think differently. Maybe not more (we’ve never enjoyed more access to more information), but definitely differently. We are being rewired to operate in ways that are aligned to the mechanical behaviors that we increasingly depend on to get us through the day.

What have we become?

Why develop a sense of direction when your car’s GPS system can lead the way? Why hone mathematical estimation skills when your spreadsheet’s got them covered? Is the art of  creative writing hindered by the guidance of Microsoft language tools? Vonnegut’s texts would undoubtedly be underlined green throughout. With Guitar Hero at their fingertips, will the musically-inclined youth realize potential skills and contribute to the creative catalogue, or will they be satisfied with the gratification of 87,000 points and an unlocked song?

The use of computers has clearly altered the human way. And maybe that’s okay. But at what cost?

My favorite example is Chess. In his excellent review of the book “The Chess Master and the Computer”, god-like Garry Kasparov explains:

The heavy use of computer analysis [by professional chess players] has pushed the game itself in new directions. The machine doesn’t care about style or patterns or hundreds of years of established theory. It counts up the values of the chess pieces, analyzes a few billion moves, and counts them up again. (A computer translates each piece and each positional factor into a value in order to reduce the game to numbers it can crunch.) It is entirely free of prejudice and doctrine and this has contributed to the development of players who are almost as free of dogma as the machines with which they train. Increasingly, a move isn’t good or bad because it looks that way or because it hasn’t been done that way before. It’s simply good if it works and bad if it doesn’t. Although we still require a strong measure of intuition and logic to play well, humans today are starting to play more like computers.

Will innovative chess die with the dependency on computer analysis and training? Perhaps.

The message that I want to leave you with is this:  don’t enslave yourself completely to whatever digital tools you’ve got in your life. Keep an eye out for areas/skills in which you particularly rely on technological support. In a simple application of this, don’t be afraid to rely on your own brain to remember a phone number or address, and don’t shy away from performing calculations in your head when performing quick estimations.

Use it, or lose it.

So, Facebook is evolving.

With emphasis on at least 3 core web services – search, chat and the upcoming email – Facebook is getting more serious about functions that Google, among others, are doing well at providing. It makes sense. So here are some quick thoughts on what 400 million users are experiencing on Facebook these days:

A bigger search bar, center stage.

Why it’s good for Facebook:

Keeps users in the site; search is clearly important, if it’s done well people may use it. Facebook controls not all but a lot of social capital on the web. Social search has obvious value for them (and us), but will it be enough? Not quite. Then… wait for it…. Bing! At least it’s trying now. With a lot of help from Microsoft meaningful search results can surface from within the Facebook wall.

Why it’s lame:

Integrated search is not executed well at all. Maybe I just don’t know about the secret and strategic plan to roll out reasonable usability at a snail’s pace? The search results don’t integrate with the Bing-driven web results that remain a click away from the sidebar. Google is always atop my browser, one click or keystroke away (F6 for those who don’t know). Why would I switch? Un. Bloody. Likely. Here’s a free tip for you, Facebook: if you can’t solve the true integration challenge, simply try placing Bing results right next to social results. Make that more visible right off the bat and some of us might actually intend on typing something into your search box rather than doing so accidentally. (But as of course that’s unlikely to happen, because we’ve got F6.)

Slightly more accessible chat.

Why it’s good:

Keeps users in the site; chatter is constant. Lots of people sign into this feature already. Maybe now the rest of us who don’t use it a lot will think of turning it on now and again. You know, because your chat box isn’t only available from the bottom-right anymore (a location also known as “the last place a person in the western world naturally directs their eyes towards”)

What’s missing:

3rd party email service integration, Facebook content integration, voice and video chat. Lots of work to do here, but doable, and potentially very useful. What else is missing? My objectivity. At some point in this post I began addressing Facebook as “you”. Ha.

Upcoming email service.

Why it’s good:

While they won’t likely get my business in this area, if rolled out properly they could get a lot of newcomers rockin’ the …@fbmail.com or ….@fb.com – if they could somehow pry that domain from the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Why you’ll wait for version 2:

Facebook will probably push social context down our throats, ignoring that email experience that do not need to evolve into a frenzy of likes and threaded rambling. After all, Google provides Wave for that. If my email procedures get just 5% less efficient, a huge time-suck will ensue. I can’t risk that. This’ll be a tough one for Facebook to generate conversion from, but new adoption is another story.

Ready? Set? Now race to the middle!

In a way, as Google gets more serious about the social game and Facebook moves towards the domains of the Mountain View Machine, we’re looking at a race to the middle that will have some very interesting outcomes, and perhaps some friendly ones as well. Clever mashups are already around; check out Threadsy. Some cool integration there. Now if only it was executed by the data sources themselves, in collaboration with each other. Imagine if Google and Facebook innovated together? Unlikely, I know. But the economies of scale could be there for their servers appetites. Lotta pictures on that site. And growing. Okay okay, enough economic rationale. It’s complex and they are fighting for glory. One is focused on implicit results and the other, explicit. And yes, the fight is too good for now. Like most of us, I enjoy watching it. I also find value in multiple services. I enjoy many benefits from several cloud services, and as for the drawbacks, I try to minimize my encounters with them. I like that the industry is busy and competitive because it’ll make result in better products, ones of better value. Mistakes along then way, for sure. But reasonable competition for the masses. I like that they’re trying.

Trying… and killing it out there… here are some recent stats… go to Facebook the source.

More than 400 million active users

50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day

More than 35 million users update their status each day

More than 60 million status updates posted each day

More than 3 billion photos uploaded to the site each month

More than 5 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each week

More than 3.5 million events created each month

More than 3 million active Pages on Facebook

More than 1.5 million local businesses have active Pages on Facebook

More than 20 million people become fans of Pages each day

Pages have created more than 5.3 billion fans

When was the last time we saw an innovation in the “fan” product category? This guy gives a quick demo.

I love love this product. http://www.dyson.com/fans/

The Dyson Air Multiplier™ fan works very differently to conventional fans. It uses Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it 15 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grill, it’s safe, easy to clean and doesn’t cause unpleasant buffeting.

Handy links: Brands in Public, Zeo Sleep Coach

Brands in Public is a collection of interesting, accessible, public-facing dashboards for your favorite brands – from Zappos to Virgin America to In-n-Out Burger. Each dashboard organizes a hot list of what’s being said about the brand around the web, via Twitter and blogs and YouTube and Google Trends and more. As well as polls and debates and commenting for people who want to do more than just watch. – Bands in Public

Developed with leading sleep scientists, Zeo is a new kind of educational tool and motivational program that helps you understand how you are sleeping, reveals habits and behaviors that may be helping or hindering your sleep, and teaches new ways that may help you get a better night’s rest. -Zeo

Note: These podcast were recorded last week, so you might hear some less-than-timely mentions. Now that the Noodleplayer is up and running, this won’t happen again. Thanks.

The ultimate innovation challenge comes to America’s doorstep. It’s knocking, banging, kicking and screaming. Someone give that kid a lollipop and get to work.

But there’s so much to do!

Hmmmm…

• the economic crisis has destroyed banks, jobs, academic endowments, homes and more;
• there’s massive (and growing) federal debt;
• the education system is painfully failing (19th in the UN’s 2008 Education Index just below Lithuania);
• military spending is outrageous (more than $700 billion annually, about 50% of worldwide expenditure);
• the Social Security program is massively criticized (currently the most expensive government program in the entire world);
• the penal system puts 1 in every 18 men in the US behind bars or under surveillance (the highest incarceration rate in the world, about 1 in 30 or ~7.3 million adults are in prison, on parole or on probation);
• and let’s not forget about the impending doom of climate change that is inevitable at the current rate (or lack) of attention.

Wow. Just writing all that was seriously depressing. There’s a lot more of course, such as privacy, significant issues at the Pentagon, corruption in agriculture and gay rights, but I’ll stop here because it’s almost impossible to be exhaustive and frankly it’s a lot to stomach, even for a Canadian. What’s worse is that I haven’t even gotten to healthcare yet. While all of the problems noted above are big (astronomical?) challenges, healthcare is everything.

Last week, Obama held a “town hall-style” event to discuss and address critical healthcare issues. While I’m not a big fan of such functions, I know that they can serve important purposes. I usually object to the ruse, assuming that nearly every detail was planned and designed only to simulate the appearance of impromptu discourse. But it did not bother me this time. The reasons are two-fold: first, healthcare is such a serious topic right now for the US (and a growing fascination of mine), that I’ll accept anything to help the medicine go down (pun intended). Second, I agreed with a lot (not all) of what Obama had to say. Much of it was aligned with progressive thinking on the issues, borrowing ideas from many leading thinkers, both foreign and domestic. A lot of things were said, and overall his perspectives amounted to value-based improvements in healthcare through strategic reinvestment and innovative restructuring. Will it work? Time will tell. It’s massively complicated. But I liked that he is asking new questions and approaching the problems with innovative and integrative solutions. I like that Obama is making healthcare the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. Mr. Change needs to sprinkle some change-dust over the country right now as it braces for impact. Long overdue, “healthcare reform” ought to be relabeled nationwide healthcare rethink.

Without your health, everything fades and becomes somewhat insignificant. Just think of one of the issues noted above, and then consider it in light of a cancerous tumor, heart or Alzheimer’s disease. Sorry to be crude, but it would be tough to buy stocks online, play with your children, grill a hamburger or steer a Ford F250 pickup truck if you can’t lift your arms.

Take care, healthcare!

US healthcare is in shambles. About 50 million people don’t have insurance, which is an embarrassing statistic for such a wealthy country. Unless you’re helpless, a child, or above 65, there’s really nothing you can do but get insurance at an average of 18% of your income. And if you think that’s bad now, just wait a bit. Some estimates predict that 1 in 3 of the next generation of Americans will develop early onset diabetes. That’s 1 in 3. And don’t forget about the baby boom generation of 76 million people born between 1946 and 1964. They are quickly approaching their golden age and will make current socio-economic difficulties seem relatively trivial. The scale of operations that will be required to accommodate their healthcare needs is nothing like what the US has now, and the boomers have just begun retiring. We’ll see how things result thirty years from now. Be sure to read (or upload to your brain) my thoughts on this issue then!

The problems with healthcare are multi-dimensional. Costs are rising, everywhere; files are often poorly maintained; preventative behaviors are barely supported and often countered by adjacent industries; many reports show that pharmaceutical companies spend far more on marketing than they do on research and development; physicians endure malpractice lawsuits at a troubling rate; patients hesitate to get checkups and depend more on the advice of friends than their doctors. These are just brief examples of many pains in the industry. Serious action needs to be taken within all divisions of the US healthcare ecosystem to not only remedy today’s troubles but to properly anticipate what lies ahead. Practitioners, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, public health bodies, patients and the FDA all have work to do. It’s time to step up.

Culture correction: a return to value-based investment

We’re not doing anyone a favor by mincing words. Without clear and accurate language, we will have trouble making progress at our true potential rate (whatever that is). What I’m driving at, is that real healthcare is everyone’s business and is integrated into every aspect of life. The US needs to deploy multifaceted resources to support the rethinking of healthcare. It’s not just something for the politicians to talk about, or insurance companies to sell. healthcare is something to be discussed with children and the elderly alike. It’s something to teach in school, where the insights of prevention and early detection – the golden bullets of treatment – can be instilled in young Americans. Healthcare requires sensitivity training for all, not just industry-related practitioners. It is complex and involves a diverse cast of characters that serve critical roles in an evolving ecosystem.

Some people say that creating real change requires a paradigm shift within a generation of conscious, aware and determined individuals. By facilitating positive and productive discussions of healthcare throughout society, people will be better equipped with the energy and resources required to make the impacts that are so badly needed. Innovation will be required around products, services, business models and organizational structures, and someone’s got to do it.

So Adam, a lot of stuff on this topic is being spoken about, what’s wrong with that? Well dear reader, we often forget the real end-game, so to speak, of healthcare: patient outcomes. This isn’t spoken of enough. This is the notion of real value, as Obama correctly alluded to in his event last week. He spoke of many modern ideas that I heard Michael Porter describe last June at Rotman (the University of Toronto’s MBA school).

For those who don’t know, Porter is a famous business strategist who co-founded Monitor Group, teaches at Harvard Business School and contributed the significant “five forces” model used by academic (and professional) institutions all over the world, among many other notable insights. In his talk, he explained that there is not enough focus on real value when it comes to healthcare. There’s a lot of talk about lowering costs, central patient indices, and universal coverage. However, it is rare that the question is framed properly, taking aim at what the true goal ought to be: improving patient outcomes per dollars spent. This is real value. This is a real goal to strive for. Would we permit (even welcome) higher costs if cures were reliably effective and lasting? Probably. To be distracted by other issues and not focus on illness prevention, reduction, treatment effectiveness and quality is to make a huge mistake for everyone. Twenty-first century thinking about healthcare in the America ought to begin with asking the right questions.

Is that your final question?

Here are a few very wrong questions, in my opinion, as put forth by Karen Tumulty for Time magazine in her article “The Five Health-Care Dilemmas”. (I picked three.) These questions illustrate the misplaced attention that exists on this topic in the US today. (And I’m not going to say anything about her misuse of the word “dilemma”, because life is short and I have to pick my battles.)

“Will there be a big, new government system?”

Oh no! Run for your lives! It’s the big bad government wanting to give you an affordable alternative to private insurance coverage! Ruuuuun! Just the way her question is phrased makes me cringe. This is a great example of a wrong question. It focuses on partisan nonsense that does not address or call attention to the real issues. Here’s my version: Can government-run systems improve the value of healthcare for Americans? Again, value being patient outcomes per dollars spent. Now that’s a real question. I’d like to see that kind of question be asked in Time magazine instead of one that instantly evokes chatter of socialist motives and such.

“How can a nation already deeply in debt afford healthcare reform too?”

Here’s my revised question: How can a nation already deeply in debt not afford healthcare reform? A 2006 article in the Health Affairs journal reports that from 2007 to 2017, total annual US spending on healthcare will grow an average of 6.7%, insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States cited medical causes in 2001. Healthcare reform ought to lead to lower costs in the long run. The goal is to invest more soundly, more thoughtfully, into better technologies and better structured systems. Rethink the question.

“How will we bring down costs?”

Ouch. I knew this one was coming. There’s no point trying to lower the cost of healthcare that isn’t effective in the first place. I don’t have just one way of rethinking this question, I have several other questions: Do the experts even know which costs to bring down? Why are the costs so high in the first place, and are the reasons valid? Are public expectations of real costs skewed by lack of correct information? Is the current system designed to best meet actual contemporary needs? If a bit more was spent to create more positive patient outcomes, would that lower costs in the long term? Similarly, would benefits be earned in the long run by compensating practitioners based on actual outcomes instead of the quantity of prescriptions filled or patients seen in a week? Why are the administrative costs of private insurance companies so much higher than those of Medicare as a percentage of expenditure if government is so inefficient? Any one of these questions would do. I could go on for hours, but you’ve come far enough. And I thank you for that.

If there’s one thing that I know for certain, it’s that I don’t have all the answers, nor all the questions on this topic. If there are two things for certain, it’s that change is possible, necessary and inevitable, all at the same time. Innovation will erupt of this mess, although it may require considerable investment, deep risk and many mistakes along the way. Obama and the rest of the system won’t be perfect, but I like that they are asking new questions.

Why not see this issue for what it really is? Why delay in making healthcare the defining triumph of the early 21st century? The US has incredible capacity to achieve successful value-adding healthcare reform, but before that can happen, the nature of how it is thought of and discussed needs to be refined and retooled. Healthcare is a complicated issue and ought to be respected as such. Nobody in the world does it really well, but some do it better than others. Americans love competition, and I believe that with some solid rethinking, frank discussions and deliberate investment, they’ll meet and exceed the challenge.

I can’t sleep.

At moments like this, I find myself reminiscing about how we used to live; sleep, wake, sleep, wake. I’ve always been nostalgic, but I guess I’m still having a hard time adjusting even though I have implanted and installed a solid understanding of the change. Despite the inefficiencies that we resolved, a hint of conflict lingers inside me.

It’s amazing that it’s been almost 3 years since the UN-owned organization, formerly known as Google, achieved a global mandate to cross-compute the human genome with the archives of Wikipedia, TwitterBook, and other vast data sets. That’s nearly 40 years of details from more than 17 billion people and at least 2 billion animals, plants and other organic entities. We finally had the power at our fingertips, after years of intellectual prophesy. What would result from flipping the switch? Nobody knew. But we were open, and we were eager.

Our thoughts and actions were absorbed, scanned, processed and spat out. Every sentiment. Every inclination. Even the unconscious motivation behind each Tweet was deduced, exposed and analyzed. Pictures were scanned and facial expressions were recognized, judged, compared and contrasted. Most of human knowledge, behavior and emotion were digested into a digital process destined to produce unprecedented ramifications.

The result was shocking at first. Religious entities were unable to reconcile but their numbers were insignificant. It sounded, at first, like a joke. But the math added up.

Logic prevailed. It was not a question of “if” but rather “when”. It took a mere 3 days for the grid of Antarctic server farms to inform us of the recommendation, and only 6 more before it was implemented by the heads of states across the world. There was no sense in waiting. The result was indisputable despite natural reactionary protest. The leaders got together and quickly signed a document (as per the instruction of the machine).

With the exception of various health-related issues (mitigated by RNA interference and other related techniques), the transition occurred without significant social disruption. For more than a decade, cultures across the globe have grown accustomed to abiding by data-driven ideas and direction, and so there were few incidents of dissent. The promise of the changewas immense and irrefutable. Who were we to question the data?

There were, however, tremendous adjustments made in all economic markets. They were favourable, as predicted, but they were time-consuming and temporarily stressful nonetheless. Resources were reconfigured, re-optimized and redeployed. Agriculture was definitely hit the hardest, mainly in terms of logistical costs and re-planning. Overall, the computation ensured a relatively smooth conversion, equipped with instructions and support for all. It was quite an adjustment, but well worth it. That’s undeniable. It has been calculated. It has been done.

I can’t believe that it’s been 3 years. They have gone by well and fast for me, but I’m still experiencing occasional sleep issues. I know that this new system is right – because the data says so. It’s more efficient and beneficial for both the individual and the collective. General health-related issues have been contained and we’re adjusting well as a whole.

But alas, I lay here awake, in the 32nd hour of the day, 4 away from Newmidnight, in doubt.

Excerpt from AMR’s Journal,
Montreal, United Townships of Quebec,
Solember 12, 2038 – 32:14 SM.

Nota bene: This post is a follow-up to this post.

Progressive Change.

In a discussion about improvisational jazz, a teacher of mine once expressed, “the only constant thing in life is change,” paraphrasing the greek philosopher Heraclitus. That phrase remains meaningful to me fifteen years later, complementing my general fascination with progress.

I deeply enjoy progress. That may sound very vague, but it’s true. I enjoy learning and gaining new skills, whether it’s a new instrument or a programming language. I love progressive music (Tool, Yes, Dream Theater, etc.) and I pay for Progressive car insurance (just kidding – I’m with Belair Direct). I enjoy working towards Checkmate as much as I enjoy working through a Rubik’s Cube. I get excited by Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Bill Hicks’ rambling of “how we’re going to get to Mars.” I just love progress.

There is nobody more excited by progressive change as Ray Kurzweil. Like many others, when I first read Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near in 2006, I felt a real exhilaration as if I had just cracked open the coolest fortune cookie of all time. Unite my consciousness with a supercomputer so I can exist throughout all eternity?? Sure, sign me up!

For those who are unfamiliar with Kurzweil’s Singularity, I strongly recommend delving into it. It’s worth checking out. Info on Ray can be found here, his book here, the upcoming movie here, and the supporting organization here. You may also be interested in TED videos here and here.

Exponential Growth.

Kurzweil observes that change is abound, and moving quickly in a particular direction. Vast and diverse occurrences of exponential growth transcend technological paradigms, perpetually driving us forward. Just in case you’re skeptical of such claims, here’s an excerpt from the book’s Wikipedia article, citing just some of the exponentially growing technologies:

• Dynamic RAM size (smallest feature sizes decreasing exponentially)
• Dynamic RAM price performance (improving exponentially)
• Average Transistor price (decreasing exponentially)
• Transistor Manufacturing costs (decreasing exponentially)
• Microprocessor clock speeds (increasing exponentially)
• Microprocessor costs (decreasing exponentially)
• Transistors per microprocessor (increasing exponentially)
• Processor performance (increasing exponentially)
• DNA sequencing costs per base pair (decreasing exponentially)
• Random Access Memory bits per dollar (increasing exponentially)
• Magnetic data storage bits per dollar (increasing exponentially)
• Wireless Internet and phone services price performance (increasing exponentially)
• Number of Internet hosts (increasing exponentially)
• Bytes of Internet traffic (increasing exponentially)
• Internet backbone bandwidth (increasing in a very terraced, quasi-exponential manner)
• Mechanical device sizes (decreasing exponentially)
• Number of scientific citations for nanotechnology research (increasing exponentially)
• Number of U.S. nanotech patents (increasing exponentially)

Growth, growth, growth. Now add a little more growth for good measure. Pun intended.

Our data pools are growing rapidly as well. I remember the excitement years ago when I upgraded my 386 laptop with 80 megabytes of disk space. Well, last night I caught myself cursing at my home computer for its pathetic 2.4 terabytes of space. (Note to self: buy more space.) Things have changed, clearly. We have oceans of digital assets at our fingertips and we constantly apply a myriad of operations upon them.

What really interests me, however, is not the fact that we have more of anything (or everything), but the idea that we can potentially do more with what we have. As any good statistician will tell you: more data is not better data. But more data when intelligently analyzed, probed, manipulated and mastered can be extraordinary data.

This brings me to the promise of the Petabyte Age. The petabyte is a unit of information or computer storage equal to one quadrillion bytes, or 1000 terabytes:

1 PB = 1,000,000,000,000,000 or 10¹⁵ bytes.

Translation: A lot of data. That’s about 250 trillion MP3 downloads from iTunes, 1.5 billion DivX Movies, or 100 billion 20 megapixel superfine photographs.

One year ago, Chris Anderson – the editor of Wired Magazine who is often (understandably) mistaken for the curator of the beloved TED conference – wrote an article called “The End of Theory” in his widely cherished magazine. He wrote of emerging opportunities and trends that will result from immense data compilations and subsequent manipulations. Here is a short excerpt from the article, where Anderson explains some fundamentals of this upcoming “Petabyte Age”:

The Petabyte Age is different because more is different. Kilobytes were stored on floppy disks. Megabytes were stored on hard disks. Terabytes were stored in disk arrays. Petabytes are stored in the cloud. As we moved along that progression, we went from the folder analogy to the file cabinet analogy to the library analogy to — well, at petabytes we ran out of organizational analogies.

At the petabyte scale, information is not a matter of simple three- and four-dimensional taxonomy and order but of dimensionally agnostic statistics. It calls for an entirely different approach, one that requires us to lose the tether of data as something that can be visualized in its totality. It forces us to view data mathematically first and establish a context for it later. For instance, Google conquered the advertising world with nothing more than applied mathematics. It didn’t pretend to know anything about the culture and conventions of advertising — it just assumed that better data, with better analytical tools, would win the day. And Google was right.

Google operates with a particular philosophy that it applies to virtually all of its activities: spare humans from the burden of tasks that machines are simply better equipped to accomplish. For example, it does not make sense for humans to maintain a dictionary for Google’s seemingly flawless “did you mean _____?” corrective search feature. Google uses pattern recognition to identify (with remarkable accuracy) typographical errors and likely intentions of users. Data knows best. Numbers don’t lie. This is a great example of how data – and intelligent manipulation of data – can drive useful solutions.

Lest we forget, questions precede answers.

Depending on data for answers makes an awful lot of sense when [a] there’s enough of it and [b] we’re equipped to extract meaning from it. Anderson suggests that we should also depend on data to derive the questions. This intrigues me deeply. As a business strategist, technologist and experience designer, I have tremendous respect for the process of asking the right questions. Idris is an exemplary role model of this practice. He often reminds me to not only leave the assumed answers at the door, but the questions as well. While fundamental, it is often overlooked and deserves to be emphasized.

Rather than trying to figure out how to sell more product, let’s re-examine if this product is really what people want. More interestingly, is it what people need? Rather than innovating upon an existing service, let’s make sure that the goals provide meaning and utility.

Pehaps the data-driven insights of the Petabyte Age will teach us that we are moving in the wrong direction on several fronts that we assume to be natural, safe and promising. Perhaps data-driven questions will produce answers that will provide real and lasting enlightenment.

Get ready for the revolution with an open mind.

There are a lot of ideas in this post (hence “Part I”). The topics mentioned are broad and complex, and there’s no way I can do justice to them through a series of blog posts. The links and notions presented here provide a decent starting point for those interested in pursuing these topics further. There’s no right way to end this post but to express the intrinsic purpose behind its composition.

My goal is to stimulate mere awareness and support for any enthusiasm surrounding these important ideas. As a champion of progress and someone who longs to witness the materialization of the petabyte-promised innovations of the future, I feel a duty to tickle the collective interest and generate some excitement for the opportunities on the not-so-distant horizon.

You can be sure that future posts will be more focused on specific implications of the Petabyte Age, tackling a broad spectrum of fields that include education, healthcare, art, consumerism and culture.

For now, enjoy some of the links provided above and keep an open mind for the progressive future that awaits us all.

As always, thanks for reading.

AMR

Continue here…

Anything Is Possible: Embracing the Petabyte Age, Part II

]]> http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/06/23/the-only-constant-thing-in-life-is-change-embracing-the-petabyte-age-part-i/feed/ 1 http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/06/03/riding-the-google-wave/ http://www.ideacouture.com/blog/2009/06/03/riding-the-google-wave/#comments Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:05:18 +0000 Adam Rubin http://ideacouture.com/blog/?p=947

Twitter exploded with tinyurls and retweets, as every geek with a pulse forwarded and OMG’ed the 80 minute preview (embedded below). The excitement was profound and immediate. I made some time to watch the video so I could meaningfully participate in the discussion, and lo and behold, I was excited too.

You see, a little while ago, Google set out to answer a few tough questions, as it explained on its blog:

• Why do we have to live with divides between different types of communication — email versus chat, or conversations versus documents?
• Could a single communications model span all or most of the systems in use on the web today, in one smooth continuum? How simple could we make it?
• What if we tried designing a communications system that took advantage of computers’ current abilities, rather than imitating non-electronic forms?

These are great questions. The summary answer is Wave.

There are 5 core themes that specifically interest me at this stage:

1. Redesigning the nature of our digital interactions
2. Open source solutions
3. Opportunities with the API
4. Opportunities with pattern recognition
5. Integrative features

1. Redesigning the nature of our digital interactions

When Gmail first came on the scene with its threaded conversation system, everyone who tried it immediately knew that it just felt right. It was a vast improvement on the original Outlook-style stack of messages that most of us were forced to adopt. Over the years, Gmail has lured millions of users from other email services due to its speed, generosity, intuitive interface and supporting features. It was a step in the right direction; still email, just an vastly improved experience.

Gmail gave us greater context and control in our digital conversations. Facebook helped us orientate and network smoothly within our evolving social spheres. And, Twitter nurtured our desires to broadcast while helping us tap into the hive mind of the techno savvy et al. It appears that Google Wave is taking several steps further down the path, disrupting our current conceptions of what our digital interactions ought to be.

Wave is emphasizing several critical virtues: personalization, real-time interactions, open access to data, and integration of multiple forms of media from multiple sources. These virtues are central to the new emerging standard of meaningful online interactivity. Due to its robust and flexible style of communication, I can easily see Wave attracting many early adopters in academia, creative industries and other collaboration-intensive environments. It will likely spread naturally from there.

2. Open source solutions

The virtues of open source ought to be well understood – if you’re unclear, do your homework and come back.

I’m glad to see that Google continues to develop strong experience  in the realm of open source . Currently, there are over 260 open source projects (including the Chrome browser and Android operating system) listed in Google Code (the company’s haven for code-hungry developers). Its blog on open source activities may only be read by techies, but the fruits of the philosophy are enjoyed by all. As an open project, Google is hoping that Wave will become a reflection of our best ideas and aspirations.

I am not going to write more on this topic at the moment – postponing further discussion for a dedicated post sometime in the future. If you have anything to add regarding open source and Wave, please comment below.

3. Opportunities with API

Excerpt from the Wave site:

What is the Google Wave API?

The Google Wave API allows developers to use and enhance Google Wave through two primary types of development:

• Extensions: Build robot extensions to automate common tasks or build gadget extensions to provide a new way for users to interact
• Embed: Make your site more collaborative by dropping in a Wave

Google Wave is currently available in a developer preview as the APIs and product continue to evolve. Accounts on the developer sandbox will be given out to people intending to build with the Google Wave APIs prior to the public release.

The best and most frequently-used Twitter apps run via the service’s API. Why is that? Well, perhaps the reason is best explained by Rich Friedrich’s famous quote:  ”All Of The Innovative People Don’t Work For Your Company.” With Google Wave, we’ll undoubtedly encounter significant innovation powered by the API. Both freeform experimental applications and professionally designed interfaces will emerge, perhaps leading to a revolution in how digital conversations take place.

I’m particularly excited to see how academia will leverage it, enabling search around the conversations typically restricted to classrooms and lecture halls. How do you think it might be used?

4. Opportunities with pattern recognition

Sergey Brin once rhetorically asked (paraphrasing): Why ask humans to do what computers can do much better?

One of my favorite examples of how Google leverages pattern recognition to provide users with a powerful and valuable service is its “did you mean?…” feature. Whenever you type something incorrectly into Google’s search engine, it will almost always correct your spelling. Not only that, but sometimes it’ll recognize common phrases or articulations that appear to have been generated through some type of futuristic mind-reading capability. How does it do this? Is there a gigantic dictionary? No. Each time a user executes a search and then immediately corrects the term and searches again, Google considers this a typographical correction. There’s no handmade dictionary in the Google brain, but rather a clever pattern recognition system that detects common misspellings or lazy keystrokes.

We can expect Wave to feature some powerful pattern recognition services as it accumulates users and data. By analyzing how people use it, Google can hone Wave into a hyper intelligent facilitator of communication. It’ll predict our need for media assets as we engage in discussion; it’ll recommended resources for knowledge enhancements; it’ll tap into the social sphere and introduce you to others of like-minds. Of course, privacy options will exist to protect those who fear the over lookers, but for those who embrace digital openness, the possibilities are astounding.

5. Integrative Features

The last theme that interests me is a speculative one of hope and desire. I work with a lot of different software and media formats. My job requires me to regularly integrate multiple forms of media from multiple applications into a synthesized experience. To anyone else with this work-style, you know how time consuming and frustrating the little tasks can be. The preview of Wave demonstrated some handy manipulation of images with some neat drag and drop features, among others. I am an advanced user, who can assemble almost anything I encounter. But for others, it’s a burden that hinders the quality of their output and is demotivating right from the start.

My hope is that Wave will be a leader in the race to truly integrate most formats into a collaborative sandbox. File management, video playback, voice conferencing, asynchronous access to PDF, etc. I want it all. And like Freddy Mercury said, “I want it now”. Not just for me, but mostly for others who are less savvy. It’s time that we simplify the process of integrating typically incompatible features. Hopefully, Wave will do that by heightening the average user’s willingness and effectiveness of working with data forms more sophisticated than text.

Summary

This will definitely be an app to keep an eye on. Wave bears a lot of promise. I have a feeling that, like other Google apps, it’ll improve smoothly and naturally as more and more users adopt it. It’ll likely find a few core user groups at the beginning and then spread like wildfire among the increasingly vibrant community of web-service-early-adopters. Perhaps it’ll leverage the Twitter, Flickr, Youtube and Facebook APIs along with a native connection to Gmail, creating a single environment for one’s web needs. The permutations are scary-huge, as is my appreciation for the Google crew who push forward and break standards in the hopes of developing something more efficient and effective.

For those who want to watch the preview video, all 80 minutes can be enjoyed here.  Cheers, AMR.

Chess is epic. Initial iterations date back to the sixth century and it just won’t die. It is a universally-appreciated pastime with a certain magic that touches people of all ages, races and religions. It transcends our differences and is concerned about only one thing: checkmate.

Newbies to the game typically generate immediate curiosity, while casual players value its complexity and competitive spirit. Serious enthusiasts know it as something more, something mystical and artistic, something to be humbled by.

Chess combines strategic thinking with creative flexibility. Documented game openings are appreciated by many as innovative wonders that have stirred both inspiration and controversy through the years. It is a game that synthesizes the virtues of the left and right brain, the heart and the mind. I suppose it is this that initially lured me to chess.

I’ve been interested in chess since I was a kid, although it has only been 6 years that I have been a real “student”. I’ve played in tournaments, dabbled in speed chess, blitz chess, I’ve played in Washington Square Park and I’ve even managed to squeeze in a couple of wins from the local pros. Over the years it has become clear to me that there is an ocean of valuable insights to be extracted from the game that are applicable to real life.

Bruce Pandolfini, one of my favorite authors and educators on the subject, wrote an excellent book called Treasure Chess (Random House, 2007). You can buy it here. This is a great book for both casual and more serious fans, exploring fascinating anecdotes, trivia and lore from this beloved game.

Pandolfini makes it clear that once you get inside, you’ll quickly observe that chess involves ideas – both general and specific – that are remarkably applicable to our lives outside the game. The winning heuristics, best practices and related concepts can be applied to processes that include creativity, competition, tactics and innovation, among many others.

Here is an excerpt from the book that I found to be particularly educational and inspiring, appropriate for far more than just chess. It is deeply poetic and reminded me of Sun Tzu’s writings in that it is ripe with timeless wisdom. The following list can support an army of posts, and perhaps one day I’ll get to that. For now, enjoy it as it is, buy the book, and comment below with your favorite items or specific ideas if you’d like me to elaborate on anything. There’s a ton of juicy philosophical nuggets here, so be patient and savor it.

Excerpt:

Tools of the Trade

1. Draw analogies, comparing, contrasting and prospecting for unexpected correlations.

2. Abide by the principles as much as you break them.

3. Seek rules, but search for exceptions even more.

4. Instill organization, classifying, putting in place, and striving for logical sequence.

5. Establish order from meaningful disorder.

6. Grasp how small differences in the beginning make a huge difference in the end.

7. Reject the immaterial to focus on the relevant.

8. Change perspective, going outside a pattern to see inside it.

9. Look for details in the big picture or ignore details for the big picture.

10. Play for control and avoid committal moves that cede control.

11. Seize the initiative, but wait for your opponents to go wrong.

12. Win hopeful positions incisively and save hopeless situation resourcefully.

13. Multitask, combining defense with counterattack, while fulfilling all needs.

14. Analyze a single move to synthesize the entire position.

15. Mine the tactical to be strategic and the intuitive to be counterintuitive.

16. Respect your opponents, but don’t fear them.

17. Prepare for the unlikely, not the impossible.

18. Develop routines, but never do anything without thinking.

19. Take your time, but do it very quickly.

20. Stay with one thing till you solve it, and solve everything once you get it.

21. Promote being rigorous, not inflexible; determined, not unreasonable.

22. Sense when less is more, further away is closer.

23. Stop an action to continue it on another level.

24. Take either side of the bet, but never gamble without reason.

25. Learn from others but rely on no one.

26. Save time and resources because you may need to sacrifice both.

27. See defeat as a process, with each failure leading to the next success.

28. Thrive on adversity, intending to turn it in to your advantage.

29. Remain patient, yet always stay alert to sudden opportunity.

30. Determine tough moves by asking questions. The right question give the answer.

31. Simplify when winning and complicate when losing.

32. Improve your situations by being as ambitious as you can with minimal risk.

33. Put aside disappointment to continue the quest, accepting life’s changing fortunes by changing them for the better.

34. Apply lessons learned in chess to life lessons learned in life to chess.

35. Recognize that for the imperfect world chess is perfect. But that doesn’t make it less appealing.

Thanks for reading.
AMR

Image credits: http://www.yipperoocompany.com/index.php?cPath=38; http://farm1.static.flickr.com/16/20109566_b0732d6844.jpg?v=0; http://random1881.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wisdom.jpg.