What a fascinating subject, Bernie. Printing 3D organs makes my mind go to philosophical questions like what it means to be human, if we humans can just be “printed” seemingly out of thin air. While the idea makes me slightly uncomfortable, I do think that, if applying additive technology to this space can save human lives, then it is undoubtedly worth investing in. After all, when it comes to creating value, what can possibly be more valuable than life?
What a fascinating industry and problem to have. Spare parts are not something I think about often; the size of the industry is astounding. As far as Siemens Mobility’s competitive advantage goes, my mind goes to customer service. To prevent customers from developing 3D printing capabilities themselves, the company needs to truly become the expert in spare parts and needs to service its customers better than they can do in-house. While technology is the “problem” here, I believe that people will have to be the solution.
Great piece, Nancy! (Although I am definitely biased.) It sounds like San Jose is well on its way to becoming a smart city, although I do hear your hesitations around the longevity of some of these initiatives. What happens when Mayor Liccardo leaves office? Who has the ultimate accountability for these initiatives? Term limits are hugely limiting in the case of city government, and I personally am concerned about whether and how the smart city technology will be woven into the cloth of the city. I think private-public partnerships will be key to solving this issue. Silicon Valley, where some of the brightest minds live and biggest checks are written, is sure to be open to helping San Jose think through is 20-year plan.
What a great application of open innovation! Although I do tend to agree with what you pointed out: That “tournaments will spur new ideas, but only ideas that align with a pre-determined approach to addressing the opioid crisis.” Because of this (and without any prior knowledge of or experience in the healthcare space) I think it might be beneficial to open up the idea generation process—but not the idea one. I think the sheer scope of the crisis implies that existing solutions are not going far enough, so bringing up more diversity of thought can only help. However, opening up idea selection is dangerous; allowing the non-expert general public to decide how to treat the drug-addicted doesn’t seem to be the best approach.
As an avid Spotify user, it’s super interesting to get a peek into the way in which the company uses AI to curate my music selections. While I agree that personalization is key to keeping users like me engaged, I’m not entirely convinced that Spotify should continue to develop its in-house machine learning capabilities and obtain new technologies through acquisitions, as you write. Would users truly know the difference between a good recommendation engine and a great one? I’d argue that probably not (or at least not enough to be investing that much more in developing capabilities).
Such an interesting application of machine learning! While I appreciate Mattel’s effort to be forward-thinking, I’m not sure that it’s totally necessary for a toy company to implement that technology. As you mentioned, AI and data collection present a lot of ethical questions, and it’s not clear to me that that technology is actually necessary in toys. It smells a bit like desperation: a company in decline using buzzy tech to seem forward-looking. What’s next, Bitcoin games?