Extremely interesting topic! Thank you for posting, really enjoyed the way you laid out the situation!
We have debated this some in class and I see some other comments picked up on this, but the question of AI / machine learning processes being creative as the future is an interesting concept and a great question. I think your opinion is spot on with iterations of content being done by machines with human oversight. I might start having machines suggest original content and have humans develop the concept as well.
In terms of the investment I think BuzzFeed should be making in machine learning programs, I believe the company needs to invest as many dollars as possible into this. As you mentioned in your post, the company currently has a huge data advantage over the competition and they need to take advantage of this as quickly as possible.
The machine learning tools that BuzzFeed has already developed seem to already be paying dividends. The feedback loop the company has developed is an extremely valuable tool that can help the company optimize both timing and channel. Given the competition for attention on these channels (other media content, pictures of family and friends, etc.), the company must invest in machine learning to gain as much insight into their end consumers as possible!
I think your first question hits the issue right on the head! Defining success is incredibly hard within a romantic / dating context. In my opinion, trying to have a machine learning algorithm or process find you “the one” is a losing battle. As you stated, our preferences are heavily shaped by our interactions with each other. In a dating setting, those first few interactions are so important in shaping our opinion of another person and I don’t think an algorithm can be expected to predict how they will proceed. There are too many factors at play out of either persons’ control. For example, two people grabbing a drink on a first date might encounter bad service at the bar or it might be a rainy day outside making it so the first interaction is not ideal. The algorithm might have connected two people that could have found a connection had they gotten good service at the bar or it was a sunny day but did not have a spark due to outside factors.
This is why I believe that machine learning can be extremely useful in helping increase personal connections so that if external circumstances facilitate an initial positive interaction, two people can have a great chance at starting a relationship. Even with exceptional service and the sun out, two people need to be compatible and that is where I believe machine learning can be so valuable!
Thank you so much for posting, very interesting subject!
Wow! What an incredible topic and fascinating use of 3D printing! The opportunity Contour Crafting faces is so monumental, I almost get nervous about their focus. To answer your last question, I very strongly feel that the company should focus on housing on Earth before dedicating resources to building on other planets. Not only is the housing opportunity on Earth massive (and as you mentioned, in dire need in some countries), the infrastructure opportunity on this planet could be even larger . In order for Contour Crafting to take advantage of these opportunities though, quality assurance needs to be in the forefront of the company’s mind. Before reading your post, I had no idea that 3D printing had already gotten to the point in which stable structures can be produced (and from looking at the company website and online I am only seeing animations of the process, which leads me to think the trust element of these structures is still a ways away). Do you think that Contour Crafting will face an uphill battle from end consumers about the safety and reliability of 3D printed homes or do you think the timing and cost benefits will ease the acceptance? Do you think Contour Crafting should try and sell to individuals that can afford these homes or to governments providing these homes for people in dire circumstances?
Thank you so much for posting, this was extremely thought provoking!
Awesome topic, thank you for posting! Your question about Adidas’ potential competitive advantage from being the first mover has me very conflicted. On the one hand, the end product remains substantially similar to what is currently on the market, but at a much higher price. You very clearly lay out how the unit cost could and should come down over time, but currently at $333 a pair, Adidas still sells these shoes at a loss. This to me indicates there will be a huge time lag to profitability and scale for Adidas in which Nike, Under Armour and the whole gang of show manufacturers can wait and see how this plays out while still offering shoes of the same quality as Adidas. During this period, Adidas’ competitors can also begin relationships with 3D manufacturers, similar to the relationship between Carbon and Adidas.
On the other hand, the idea of offering fully customizable shoes could be a game changer in the athletic shoe industry in my mind. I understand that Adidas has only used 3D manufacturing for one part of the Futurecraft 4D (the midsole), but if the entire shoe can be customized to an individual’s foot, Adidas would have a huge leg up on its competition.
In an industry with so many dollars already being spent for endorsements and partnerships with athletes and influencers, I wonder if the footwear industry has the capital needed to invest in such a revolutionary new manufacturing method. If capital is tight, would Adidas be willing to sponsor less people and shift funds toward 3D printing applications? I am very excited to see how this will play out!
Thank you again for posting!
Extremely interesting topic, thank you for posting! I think the question that you pose in the beginning of the last paragraph is extremely important and, unfortunately for the US
Government / DoD, I don’t think they have much of a choice… ethical hackers will absolutely have to play a role to improve national security. Given the extremely sensitive nature of what the DoD is trying to protect, I very much understand the desire to try and fix these issues internally. The reality of the situation is that the skill set needed to find bugs exposing cybersecurity issues is one of the most monetizable talents currently in the private sector. I personally do not believe there is much the DoD can do to try and convince these people to work for them unfortunately. To address the follow up question you asked, I think all ethical hackers should have to register as such before they begin just to ensure criminals do not use the program as protection if they are caught trying to hack into DoD websites. After registering, the scope and boundaries should be fairly broad in my opinion. The reason I would remain broad is that it is absolutely critical to beat criminals to the punch with all cybersecurity bugs. If the DoD is narrow in its scope of what the ethical hackers can do, they can easily overlook things the community of ethical hackers could have found.
Fostering this community of ethical hackers can end up being the most cost-efficient way to properly deal with these cybersecurity threats. Linking up ethical hackers that have proven to discover bugs could be hugely beneficial to have them share ideas and work to together to try and find the next bug. Ultimately, creating a community of ethical hackers that act almost like an outside cybersecurity consultant would be the best possible outcome.
Very cool topic and very well written! I absolutely love this use of open innovation by LEGO. Not only does it help the company generate new ideas, but it also creates an initial customer set to ensure the product will be commercially feasible. I see the major issue with this program as the administrative burdens (the long list of quality standards) and timing delays in hearing back, as you have mentioned. Personally, I think it would be best if LEGO actually let the voting happen before the company made sure all the rules were followed in the submitted design. I think this for two major reason: 1) As you mentioned, immediate rejection (i.e. poor photo quality, incorrect description, etc.) can lead to great ideas never getting a chance when certain issues can be fixed, and 2) even if certain ideas are not feasible for LEGO to produce, it is still tremendously helpful for the company and the LEGO Ideas community to see what people are drawn too (and potentially use certain aspects of the design in more feasible ways). To more directly answer your question, yes, I do think the LEGO Ideas is sufficient to stay ahead of competitors, but I think you have to keep that community happy! I believe immediate voting would help energize the community and continue the flow of great ideas!