Tag Archives: innovation

Positively Subversive Leadership

Leave a reply

A colleague in my district was recently complaining that when she went to her staff to see what their needs were, they said they needed new desks. These are an equipment update that:

  1. Will require a fair percentage of the school’s expendable budget.
  2. Won’t help the school progress or move forward with their practice.

As such, my colleague was disappointed that this is what she’d be spending so much of her budget on.

I suggested that she only purchase tables for two students and not individual desks. This meets the need of replacing old desks but invites, if not almost forces, a different way of running a classroom. Students must be in pairs or fours, the tables fold to get out of the way, and they are usually on wheels which invites them being moved regularly.

Instead of randomly replacing desks in different classrooms, she could put all the new desks in one classroom, and distribute the still good desks in that room to where they are needed. Who gets the new double desks? The teacher that wants to have them. If there is more than one, she can have discussions about how the teachers will use them to help her decide.

Transitioning to 2-student tables provides so many opportunities for collaboration, and a teacher excited about using them will change their practice even if they already grouped students together often. This takes a school need and turns it into an opportunity. If someone else is asking for those same tables and the budget isn’t there for them, that invites a conversation about how single desks can be used together to achieve the same goals.

It’s not fun having to use a lot of your budget to replace old items, but this can provide a chance to upgrade in a way that invites a different approach. This is a way to take an expense and turn it into an opportunity.

Dear Grocery Store

Leave a reply

It’s time to enter the 21st-century and provide intelligent search in your stores.

Create an App that is a shopping list that automatically sorts products by the aisle that they are in. Have sensors that the app detects so that once in that isle, you can see right where the product can be found.

Yes, I know you make a lot of extra money selling stuff because people are searching, can’t find their products, and see other products to pick up, but here’s a better way to do it!

You have an extreme amount of data about what people buy together. Instead of relying on them accidentally stumbling upon something as they search, use the data you have:

1. Put things together that people have bought together on their past shopping experiences. There are hundreds of millions of orders you have already tracked on every receipt you’ve ever printed and stored. Yes, that might be challenging for someone who doesn’t use the app, however, you’re going to design the app so that it would be stupid not to use it.

Who knew that people who bought tacos also bought mango curry sauce… you do because the data says so. So, why not put them next to each other in the grocery store?

2. Use the bottom 1/4 of the App to a) suggest related items when an item is added to the list, and b) show related items or data-suggested items while looking for the next item on the list.

3. Personalize suggestions based on individualized purchase history. If someone adds taco shells regularly, remind them about taco shells or salsa the next time they buy ground beef.

4. Make the App features great. Make it ideal for other lists too, make it indispensable. Add features that might suggest other items if you are on a diet. Or let a vegetarian know that a sauce has meat products and suggest another one that doesn’t.

5. Don’t game this too much. We aren’t stupid. If we see that every item you suggest is by Kraft, or we see the same items again and again that your App is pushing to us for advertising kickbacks, we’ll know the App is made for you and not for us. Here’s a magical idea, don’t just say you put the customer first, actually put them first!

The days of forcing people down every isle for them to buy more products are over… or they will be for you if you competitor takes this App idea before you do.

The quest for food

Leave a reply

I’m on holidays and I’ve had the privilege of watching a few sunrises over the ocean. Before the sun rises, but the day has brightened, and before the glare gets in the way, birds nose dive for small fish feeding on the turmoil of the ocean; as waves crash near the shore. I’m reminded of another privilege we all have: we don’t have to spend most of our day seeking food.

These diving birds must constantly be on the move, seeking their next meal. Food is life, and the quest for food makes up a significant part of most bird’s and mammal’s day. We don’t have to do that. We have the luxury of grocery stores, restaurants, refrigerators, and means to store food without it going bad. Much of our innovation and subsequent convenience comes from our ability to spend precious time not in the quest for food.

But it’s not just about innovation and convenience, it’s also about creativity. I think we are on the threshold of a new era of creativity. AI and robotics are going to move us into an era of greater innovation and convenience, and ultimately give us more precious time to design, create, and be artistically inspired.

The quest for food will be replaced by the quest for self-expression. A new chapter is about to be written… it will feel much more like fiction than reality.

It’s already here!

Leave a reply

Just yesterday morning I wrote:

Robots will be smarter, stronger, and faster than humans not after years of programming, but simply after the suggestion that the robot try something new. Where do I think this is going, and how soon will we see it? I think Arther C. Clarke was right… the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.

Then last night I found this post by Zain Khan on LinkedIn:

🚨 BREAKING: OpenAI just made intelligent robots a reality

It’s called Figure 01 and it’s built by OpenAI and robotics company Figure:

  • It’s powered by an AI model built by OpenAI
  • It can hear and speak naturally
  • It can understand commands, plan, and carry out physical actions

Watch the video below to see how realistic it’s speech and movement abilities are. The ability to handle objects so delicately is stunning.

Intelligent robots aren’t a decade away. They’re going to be here any day now.

This video, shared in the post, is mind-blowingly impressive!

This is just the beginning… we are moving exponentially fast into a future that is hard to imagine. Last week I would have guessed we were 5-10 years away from this, and it’s already here! Where will we really be with AI robotics 5 years from now?

(Whatever you just guessed is probably laughably conservative.)

The most daring prophecies

1 Reply

In the early 1950’s Arthur C. Clarke said,

“If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.”

As humans we don’t understand exponential growth. The well known wheat or rice on a chessboard problem is a perfect example:

If a chessboard were to have wheat placed upon each square such that one grain were placed on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on (doubling the number of grains on each subsequent square), how many grains of wheat would be on the chessboard at the finish?

The answer: 264−1 or 18,446,744,073,709,551,615… which is over 2,000 times the annual world production of wheat.

All this to say that we are ill-prepared to understand how quickly AI and robotics are going to change our world.

1. Robots are being trained to interact with the world through verbal commands. They used to be trained to do specific tasks like ‘find one of a set of items in a bin and pick it up’. While the robot was sorting, it was only sorting specific items it was trained to do. Now, there are robots that sense and interpret the world around them.

“The chatbot can discuss the items it sees—but also manipulate them. When WIRED suggests Chen ask it to grab a piece of fruit, the arm reaches down, gently grasps the apple, and then moves it to another bin nearby.

This hands-on chatbot is a step toward giving robots the kind of general and flexible capabilities exhibited by programs like ChatGPT. There is hope that AI could finally fix the long-standing difficulty of programming robots and having them do more than a narrow set of chores.”

The article goes on to say,

“The model has also shown it can learn to control similar hardware not in its training data. With further training, this might even mean that the same general model could operate a humanoid robot.”

2. Robot learning is becoming more generalized: ‘Eureka! NVIDIA Research Breakthrough Puts New Spin on Robot Learning’.

“A new AI agent developed by NVIDIA Researchthat can teach robots complex skills has trained a robotic hand to perform rapid pen-spinning tricks — for the first time as well as a human can…

Eureka has also taught robots to open drawers and cabinets, toss and catch balls, and manipulate scissors, among other tasks.

The Eureka research, published today, includes a paper and the project’s AI algorithms, which developers can experiment with using NVIDIA Isaac Gym, a physics simulation reference application for reinforcement learning research. Isaac Gym is built on NVIDIA Omniverse, a development platform for building 3D tools and applications based on the OpenUSD framework. Eureka itself is powered by the GPT-4 large language model.”

3. Put these ideas together then fast forward the training exponentially. We have robots that understand what we are asking them, which are trained and positively reinforced in a virtual physics lab. These robots are practicing how to do a new task before actually doing it… not practicing a few times, or even a few thousand times, but actually doing millions of practice simulations in seconds. Just like the chess bots that learned to play chess by playing itself millions of times, we will have robots where we ask them to do a task and they ‘rehearse’ it over and over again in a simulator, then do the task for the first time as if it had already done it perfectly thousands of times.

In our brains, we think about learning a new task as a clunky, slow experience. Learning takes time. When a robot can think and interact in our world while simultaneously rehearsing new tasks millions of times virtually in the blink of an eye, we will see them leap forward in capabilities at a rate that will be hard to comprehend.

Robots will be smarter, stronger, and faster than humans not after years of programming, but simply after the suggestion that the robot try something new. Where do I think this is going, and how soon will we see it? I think Arther C. Clarke was right…

…the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.

Sensing our world

Leave a reply

I’m going to need glasses and hearing aids in the next few years. I already use small magnification readers when text is small or my eyes are fatigued, and I know that my hearing has diminished. One example of my hearing issue is that when we shut down our gas fireplace it beeps, but I don’t hear the beep. That sound is no longer in the range that I can hear. I only know it’s there because my wife and daughter mentioned it.

It’s only in relatively recent history that we’ve had access to technologies that allow us to enhance our senses when they fall below ‘normal’ capabilities. Before that we just lived less vivid lives as our senses worsened.

Having my family ask me ‘Can’t you hear that?’ and listening to nothing but their voices, knowing full well that I’m missing something is a little disconcerting. How are they getting to experience a sound that is outside the range of my capability? But the reality is that there are sounds they too can’t hear, which dogs and other animals can.

This makes me wonder what our world really looks and sounds like? What are we incapable of sensing and hearing, and how does that alter our reality? And for that matter, how do we perceive the world differently not just from other species but from each other? We can agree that certain colours on a spectrum are red, green, and blue, but is my experience of blue the same as yours? If it was, wouldn’t we all have the same favourite colour?

A few years back I had an eye condition that affected my vision at the focal point of my left eye. Later, I accidentally discovered that this eye doesn’t distinguish the difference between some blues and greens, but only at the focal point. I learned this playing a silly bubble bursting game on my phone. Without playing this game I might not have realized the limitations of my vision, and would have been ignorantly blind to my limited vision.

That’s the thought of of the day for me, how are we ignorantly blind to the limitations of our senses? What are we missing that our world tries to share with us? How will technology aid us in seeing what can’t be seen? Hearing what we can’t usually hear? That is to say, that we haven’t already accomplished in detecting? Our houses have carbon monoxide detectors, and we have sensors for radiation that are used in different occupations. We have sensors that detect infrared light, and accurately measure temperature and humidity. This kind of sense enhancing technology isn’t new.

Still, while we have sensors and tools to detect these things for us, we can’t fully experience aspects of our world that are present but undetectable by our senses. It makes me wonder just how much of our world we don’t experience? We are blessed with amazing senses and we have some incredible tools to help us observe the world in greater detail, but what are we missing? What are we ignorantly (or should I say blissfully) unaware of?

Nature-centric design

Leave a reply

I came across this company, Oxman.com, and it defines Nature-centric design as:

Nature-centric design views every design construct as a whole system, intrinsically connected to its environment through heterogeneous and complex interrelations that may be mediated through design. It embodies a shift from consuming Nature as a geological resource to nurturing her as a biological one.
Bringing together top-down form generation with bottom-up biological growth, designers are empowered to dream up new, dynamic design possibilities, where products and structures can grow, heal, and adapt.

Here is a video, Nature x Humanity (OXMAN), that shows how this company is using glass, biopolymers, fibres, pigments, and robotics for large scale digital manufacturing, to rethink architecture to be more in tune with nature and less of an imposition on our natural world.

Nature x Humanity (OXMAN) from OXMAN on Vimeo.

This kind of thinking, design, and innovation excites me. It makes me think of Antoni Gaudi styled architecture except with the added bonus of using materials and designs that are less about just the aesthetic and more about the symbiotic and naturally infused use of materials that help us share our world with other living organisms, rather than our constructions imposing a cancer-like imposition on our world, scarring and damaging the very environment that sustains our life.

Imagine living in a building that allows more natural air flow, is cheaper to heat and cool, and has a positive emissions footprint, while also being a place that makes you feel like you are in a natural rather than concrete environment. Less corners, less uniformity, and ultimately less institutional homes, schools, and office buildings, which are more inviting, more naturally lit, and more comfortable to be in.

This truly is architectural design of the future, and it has already started… I can’t wait to see how these kinds of innovations shape the world we live in!

Is Generative AI “just a tool”?

Leave a reply

Dean Shareski asks,

Is Generative AI “just a tool”? When it comes to technology, the “just a tool” phrase has been used for decades. I understand the sentiment in that it suggests that as humans, we are in control and it simply responds to our lead. But I worry that this at times, diminishes the potential and also suggests that it’s neutral which many argue that technology is never neutral. I’d love to know what you think, is Generative AI “just a tool”?

My quick answer is ‘No’, because as Dean suggests tools have never been neutral.

Here are some things I’ve said before in ‘Transformative or just flashy educational tools?‘. This was 13 years ago, and I too used the term, ‘just a tool’:

“A tool is just a tool! I can use a hammer to build a house and I can use the same hammer on a human skull. It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.

A complimentary point: If I have a hammer and try to use it as a screwdriver, I won’t get much value from its’ use.”

My main message was, “A tool is just a tool! It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.”

I went on to ask, “What should we do with tools to make them great?” And I gave 6 suggestions:

  1. Give students choice
  2. Give students a voice
  3. Give students an audience
  4. Give students a place to collaborate
  5. Give students a place to lead
  6. Give students a digital place to learn

This evolved into a presentation, 7 Ways to Transform Your Classroom, but going back to Dean’s question, first of all I don’t think technology is ever neutral. I also think that technology need not be transformative yet always has the potential to be so if it really does advance capabilities beyond what was available before. So the problem is really about the term ‘just’ in ‘just a tool’. Nothing is just a tool. Generative AI is not “just a tool”.

We respond to technology, and technology transforms us. Just like Marshal McLuhan proposed that the communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, is what really matters, “The medium is the message”, the technology is the transformer, it alters us by our use of it, it is the medium that becomes the message.

Generative AI is going to transform a lot of both simple and complex tasks, a lot of jobs, and ultimately us.

What does this mean for schools, and for teaching and learning? There will be teachers and students trying to do old things in new ways, using AI like we used a thesaurus, a calculator, Wikipedia, and other tools to ‘enhance’ what we could do before. There will also be innovative teachers using AI to co-create assignments and to answer new questions, co-write essays, and co-produce images and movies.

There will be students using generative AI to do their work for them. There will be teachers fearing these tools, there will be teachers trying to police their use, and it’s going to get messy… That said, we will see more and more generative AI being the avenue through which students are themselves designing tasks and conceiving of new ways to use these tools.

And of course we will see innovative teachers using these tools in new ways…

How different is a marketing class when AI is helping students start a business and market a product with a $25 budget to actually get it going?

How different is a debate where generative AI is listening and assisting in response to the opposing team’s rebuttal?

How different are the special effects in an AI assisted movie? How much stronger is the AI assisted plot line? How much greater is the audience when the final product is shared online, with AI assisted search engine optimization?

Technology is not ‘just a tool’. We are going to respond to Generative AI and Generative AI is going to transform us. It is not just going to disrupt education, it’s going to disrupt our job market, our social media (it already has), and our daily lives. Many other tools, will not be just like the tools that came before them… changes will be accelerated, and the future is exciting.

‘Just a tool’ is deceiving and I have to agree with Dean that it underplays the possibilities of how these tools can be truly transformative. I’m not sure I would have said this 13 years ago, but I also didn’t see technology being as transformative back then. Generative AI isn’t a flash in the pan, it’s not something trendy that’s going to fade in popularity. No, it’s a tool that’s going to completely change landscapes… and ultimately us.

New tools, old borders

For the 3rd or 4th time this year I’ve tried to sign up for a new AI tool only to find out that it isn’t available in Canada yet. I get it, I understand that there are specific rules and regulations in each country. I know that Canada often lags behind other countries because there are language laws requiring tools to offer policies and pricing etc. in both French and English. I even know that many of these rules are to help me, the consumer. That said, I find it frustrating that red tape is an innovative restriction. The speed of creativity and ingenuity is faster than ever, and we can’t seem to figure out how to keep the opportunities open and equal.

And yes, I understand this topic is complex. How complex? “All news in Canada will be removed from Facebook, Instagram within weeks: Meta“. It’s messy merging rules for access with rules to support consumers and be protective of Canadian content. But when new laws are drawn up, they need to come from a place of cooperation, not restriction; collaboration, not exclusivity.

It may not seem like a big deal to have to wait longer than most to get access to some cool tools, but that wait comes at a price… A price I think Canadians are going to pay for quite some time before innovation trumps protectionism. It is what it is/C’est comme ça.

Martec’s Law in education

In “Martec’s Law: the greatest management challenge of the 21st century” author Scott Brinker states:

“Three years ago, I described a conundrum that I dubbed Martec’s Law:

Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically.

As shown in the graph [below], we know that technology changes at an exponential rate. This is the phenomenon of Moore’s Law— and, more broadly, Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns. But we also know that human organizations don’t change that quickly. Changes in behavior and culture take time. There are only so many changes in people, processes, and technology that an organization can productively absorb at once — at least without a major disruption.

So approximately speaking, organizations change at a logarithmic rate — much slower than exponential technological change.

In my opinion, Martec’s Law encapsulates the greatest management challenge of the 21st century: how do we manage relatively slow-changing organizations in a rapidly changing technological environment? It is a hard problem.”

I think this is something significant to consider in education. Schools tend to change quite slowly. It takes a very long time to change curriculum. Textbooks are a sunk cost on a fixed learning tool. Technology costs money and there are limited funds. And access to technology needs to be safe, and keep student information private.

Training is also a challenge. When a new technology is added to an organization, many employees get on-the-job training to learn how to use the technology appropriately. Often between 25-40% of the cost of a new tool could be put into training. That doesn’t happen in education. Teachers are in front of students daily; The technology itself tends to be 90%+ of the funding cost; and teachers get limited training and professional development.

Martec’s Law: “Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically,” is exaggerated in education making adaptation to technology much slower. To appropriately integrate new technology requires systems thinking about how to scale.

I used to think that fearless ‘techie’ teachers, the innovators and early adopters, were the ones who really move education forward. I still see how they play an important role, but they transform classrooms not schools, much less districts. Now I see the value of district-wide initiatives where every teacher is given a minimal amount of access and training… in the same tools. Because tech support can’t be sustained when every teacher wants full access (cost and support) to the newest shiny technologies.

Large organizations with rich budgets only advance logarithmically while technology advances exponentially, so to expect schools to do the same on more limited, government funds is hardly realistic. Yes we need the outliers who will try new tools and share their knowledge, but we also need system wide support and training, on tools that are safe and educationally sound.

This is getting harder because technology today is less about purchasing tools and more about subscriptions. A single overhead projector can last a decade with a bulb change or two. A laptop can last 4 years. But a subscription to a tool that teachers become dependent on will have a yearly cost to it. And if that tool isn’t supported at the district level, then that leads to frustrations for educational leaders, teachers, and students alike.

Schools are not about kids having access to all the newest tech tools, they are places where kids learn to think critically and creatively, and to effectively use the tools available to them. Providing access to technology equitably requires sunk costs in tools, and subscriptions, with some training and support. Recognizing that the newest tech will almost always be out of reach for schools doesn’t mean they are falling behind, when even large high-budget organizations have difficulty keeping up. Rather, it’s districts and schools with vision about how to move forward as an entire organization that will keep up as technology exponentially changes.