It’s 2018

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” Eleanor Roosevelt

For the first time in human history, something unexpected happened. An artificial creation put a stop to natural evolution. It might be the lack of imagination or inability to dream big, but regardless what the reasons are, the result is the same – Technology is now the dominant force that dictates our path forward.

2018 might be flag as the year where new abilities to codify our lives pave the way for yet unexplored individual quantification models, new devices will discover that they can also have a voice in the idea that everything is now connected and “smart.”

Artificial Intelligence will continue to spark our imagination, and even so, we don’t get it, I trust that the big companies will find a way to make money from our innocent ignorance.

Automation will continue to grow and together will 3D printing, will open up new opportunities, mainly in the manufacturing area but also for individuals.

We will still download apps and tap on screens. Apple will come up with a new color for their iPhone and will probably improve on old ideas. Google and Amazon will strengthen their penetration to take over our cognitive functions. Yet at the end of the day, I can only hope for awakening and investments in new interaction models, ones that are focused on value rather than apps and content.

Cryptocurrencies will raise more interest from individual, companies, and governments but as long we do not have an adult leader and a new set of monetary values, nothing will be revolutionized.

Politics will still suck.

2018 shouldn’t be the year of technological answers. It should be the year of human questions. The irony is that while we came to the point of no return where technology suppresses the natural powers of evolution, it is technology that will yet if used correctly, it will enable us to imagine and dream prominent than ever before.

The moral compass of autonomous driving cars

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics.”

1. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

In a perfect world, these points should explain how machine ethics is separate to a human one — or in other words: what keeps human on top of the food chain. Likely for me, we do not live in a perfect world so I can allow myself to challenge the status-quo.

“Throughout history, whenever we tried to “enslave” free minds to bow to our wishes, that journey always ended up in bloodshed.” Continue reading “The moral compass of autonomous driving cars”

The intention economy

The current structure of most enterprises is base on 18th-19th-century infrastructure, rules, and perceptions. The medium that channels the company’s ability to scale and expand its core business is outdated and anchored in a hierarchy made of paper.

Most business models revolve around one central management entity. Much like the Swift in banking, you can create a psychological consensus for “single point control” as long as you work in the comfort zone of one unique industry, country or even a local geographic location. Continue reading “The intention economy”

Interaction zero

By Jon Seneger, Vadim Dubrov, Aric Dromi

– The future of interactions has no interaction!

“Can zero interaction models support both states of user certainty or uncertainty?”

• Certainty: Command/Event/Place/Time driven interaction. (Need/Want)

• Uncertainty: Desire/Exploratory/Impulse driven interaction. (Wish)

With many user experience and interactive design discussions are still focused on expanding established, but outdated interaction models. Ever since the first dream of a calculus machine, there has been a desire to have a verbal interaction model. Yet the efforts of the last 30 years have been mostly focused on the “Glass Window”, enhancing the looking glass effect. Initially, this window wasn’t portable, and the content is existing behind the Glass could only be created, activated and manipulated by physical interaction with mechanical devices like mouse, keyboard or joystick. Once the “Window” was made portable, and the Glass touchable, the digital natives’ primary access to the digital world became tapping on the glass. Continue reading “Interaction zero”