Human protectionism is unhelpful. Happily, it is also unnecessary. We can, and should, expect automation to grow in capability and sophistication. We should expect — demand!—that it is as collaborative, creative and empathetic as possible, because it will be more fun and rewarding for people to work with and produce greater benefit for people.
We may assert that machines do not feel emotion or exhibit real creativity. When we take that assertion and extrapolate that tasks reliant on these qualities are the sole domain of people, we limit our ambition. The constraint on automating any given result — including illusions of creativity and empathy—to an…
…ne behave empathetically in a way that is useful is hard. Is there enough value to make the effort? If everyone had a friend they could chat to, who would be available any time, who would listen and empathise with their emotional ups and downs, would that be a good thing? Would people be happier, healthier, wealthier? And if that friend is a machine, does it matter?
Working with a team of peers in the same space can be stimulating and rewarding. More and more collaboration happens remotely, and across time zones: when you are already using technology to collaborate, is it unreasonable to imagine some of the members of the team being machines?
Our Governance model is broken, we live in a ‘systemocracy’ – a world of massive inter-dependency yet we are holding on to 19th century versions of governance. This creates the illusion of sovereignty & supremacy – acting as a denial of the complexity we must confront. We need a new governance model which acknowledges our global inter-dependence at all scales & focuses on the quality, diversity and integrity of feedback in all its natures, whilst recognising the future is real-time and negotiatory. For us to move forward structurally, we need massive reform of our model of governance – reinventin…
Logistics companies such as UberEats, Deliveroo, Glovo, Foodora or Wolt in Europe have solved distribution and discovery in this value chain. They have laid out part of the “infrastructure layer” enabling companies such as Taster to flourish on top of them, at the “application layer”. This isn’t dissimilar to how the Apple and Google app stores solved distribution and discovery on mobile, and enabled companies such as Supercell, Uber or Spotify to flourish. These companies are becoming the app stores of the Food industry.
In a sense, current conceptions of blockchain are trying to do the impossible. They want the security of a decentralized system with the control of a centralized one. The desire is the best of both worlds, but what they end up getting is the worst of both worlds. You get the costs and difficulty of a decentralized system with the failure modes of a centralized one.
What’s clear is that a lot of companies looking to use the blockchain are not really wanting a blockchain at all, but rather IT upgrades to their particular industry. This is all well and good, but using the word “blockchain” to get there is dishonest and overselling its capability.