This is a very interesting topic, especially given the life-or-death implications of the technology. Given the usefulness of the tech, but also keeping in mind the bureaucratic and “siloed” nature of the military/government in general, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the likelihood of your suggested organizational improvements actually being implemented in the ideal timeframes.
To potentially provide some thoughts on your questions, I think the technological advancements will likely be there (perhaps in the longer-term) to allow medical implants and ammunition to be effectively transported to the battlefield. However, there is significant uncertainty in my mind as to what is the limit of reliability and risk commanders are willing to accept. If anything, the willingness to accept will likely lag the technological advancement, but maybe appropriately so given the seriousness of the matter.
I found this very interesting, mostly because 3D printing is not something I would associate with building parts for airplanes, where quality is such a critical factor. It makes sense though that if quality is not a concern, or if the technology of 3D printing has advanced to that level, that there would be HUGE cost savings to this additive manufacturing method. It would also be interesting to know how GE’s competitors or other airplane part manufacturers are using this tech. The speed of innovation that is possible, along with the cost benefits, should certainly exist for even for less specialized products, though likely not to the same degree.
Such a great topic! This really gave me a “big brother” feel to the possibility of having AI/machine learning implemented in game-play. Especially if the characters are able to deliver unscripted comments and responses. However, the idea of adapting to human skill is a great one, as the typical easy/normal/hard method of categorizing game-play is certainly out-dated. I actually thought that the ability for the game to adapt to your level of skill in real time would certainly be additive to the experience, although it would certainly rely on the calibration.
I found the cyberbullying component to be the most impactful use of the machine learning technology in the immediate term. I agree that it is a huge problem, and although the first attempt may not have been as successful as hoped, a “perfect” solution to combat is certainly still something that should be worked on.
To answer your question regarding the role of creatives, their elimination from the process certainly does seem like a possibility in the far off future, but for the medium term the human component will remain necessary.
Fascinating topic! It seems extremely technical, but somewhat of a no-brainer for AXA to use machine learning to improve its models and give it a pricing “edge” versus the competition, but I also have to wonder if there is an element of “false precision” that comes from these models. For example, how accurate is long term/short term historical data actually useful in predicting future probabilities of accidents/claims in an industry where the tech in cars is rapidly evolving to reduce/eliminate these risks? Is machine learning any better at making these estimates than more traditional methods? Just a thought.
Great job taking on such a controversial topic! I had no idea that the NFL was doing any of this, which certainly speaks to your point about building credibility at the NFL by announcing such actions – although, as you point out, maybe they don’t because they don’t necessarily want to own up to the issue. It is a fascinating way to make sure that the best tech is actually produced for the players’ safety. However a cynical view would be to ask how the league selects the tech they are going to use, whether it be those with the best protection for the players, or if cost plays a major role in the decision-making process.
To answer your question though, I don’t think it is the NFL’s responsibility to collaborate with other sports, but certainly sharing the tech and open source innovation with the NCAA and their college football athletes seems like an easy step, if they haven’t already done so.
Very interesting! There were some real gems in there. I loved that you referred to business size as both an asset and liability, because I did not initially think that there was an innovative downside to having a large R&D team, which would (ideally) have people of varying views and thoughts on new products. However, I guess if you really think about it, business size typically correlates highly with bureaucracy. I would be interested in learning how Nestle utilized “open innovation” directly with its consumers, as this seems like the most efficient way to producing products that the masses are actually looking for – just ask them.
To answer your question though, I do think you need to be proactive in collaboration if you want to stay ahead of your competition, when it comes to consumer tastes, in a very competitive industry.