Thank you very much for the article. As a “car” person, the automotive industry has always been really interesting to me. I personally believe that current automakers (traditionally capital intensive and with long product cycles) greatest challenge is to overcome the mentality of a slow-paced and product centered (as opposed to client centered) business. I believe that the company can change its mindset, but to do so it will have to make changes much deeper and more drastic to their culture than just partnering with technology companies and doing business the “old way” with new technology. GM must be bolder if it wants to remain in the game and be a true competitor to “big tech automotive”.
Thank you for the article, Bernie. It showcases the enormous challenges that we face in healthcare to innovate and bring solutions to the market. Regarding your question about the ethics of Organovo investing funds on innovative and disruptive R&D when there are safer and more efficient investments to be made, I would say they should keep charging the big problems. In my opinion, innovation needs to come from the union of disruptive and incremental ideas (the former are the ones that create leaps in knowledge and are extremely important to keep science going on). Organovo is uniquely positioned to explore these disruptive ideas in the healthcare business so I believe it actually has the moral duty of doing so (as if they do not do it, no one else will).
Thank you very much for the article, Oliver. It is indeed very interesting how Valve was able to build their success leveraging the ideas of its (very) creative customer base. I also agree that opening the creative process to customers might generate some inappropriate content, but I believe that Valve can offset that risk by taking two measures. First, I believe Valve could create/purchase machine learning to understand better which content might be offensive (e.g. searching through comments on that game within the platform). Second, I believe that Valve could share this responsibility with users, by creating a very clear and easy to use channel for players to whistle-blow issues related to content to the company.
Thank you for your post! I would say that although civic duty is not enough to fully engage the population, it can be the basis of a motivation platform. For instance, NYC could promote people who contributed in the platform on its social media (giving exposure to people) channels or using it as a platform for hiring talent. Both these initiatives would not be very expensive and difficult to manage and would create a lot of value to people contributing to the city.
Thank you for the post, Sada! It is clear that AI will have an increasing impact on the advertising industries in the years to come. However, I do not believe that the advances of technology would enable the companies to be fully independent from advertising agencies. I would say so because if companies started to use only AI for advertising, the demand for more edgy and transformative ideas (that can only be produced by humans) would increase, creating necessity for ad companies, which can innovate!
Thank you for the great post, Courtney! I completely agree with you that future of identification remains unclear and that this represent a big challenge for companies such as Jumio, that try to offset that risk by going into these new technologies. I wonder, however, if we (and these companies) are still thinking with a very much analogical/ physical mindset (basically, thinking of identity as piece of physical document). What if, in the future, identity could be linked to your behavior patterns (e.g. typing speed, sites you visit, places you’ve been to), creating a “digital DNA”? Then, such companies wouldn’t be ready for the change. The idea of using AI for better identity processes is great, but I believe there is still space for being more disruptive!