Tag Archives: innovation

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

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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.

Fear & Teaching

I just read an interesting article, ‘ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it‘, and got to this sentence about a teacher using it in her classroom:

“Not all these approaches will be instantly successful, of course. Donahoe and her students came up with guidelines for using ChatGPT together, but “it may be that we get to the end of this class and I think this absolutely did not work,” she says. “This is still an ongoing experiment.”

The moment I read this I thought, ‘This is a teacher I’d love to work with!’ What’s her approach? Let me summarize it: ‘Here is a new tool, how can I use it in my classroom to help my students learn? Oh, and sometimes what I try won’t work, but if every experiment worked well then we wouldn’t be learning.’

I see so much fear when a new tool enters schools: Ban calculators, ban smartphones, ban Wikipedia, ban Chat GPT… But there are always teachers doing the opposite, wanting to use rather than ban new tools. Teachers who are willing to try new things. Teachers who know that some lessons will flop, and go in unexpected and unintended directions, yet see the value in trying. These teachers can look long term and see the worthy benefits of trying something new, they are unafraid to have a lesson fail on the path of being innovative.

It’s that lack of fear of flopping that I love to see in teachers. There’s a wide gap between, ‘That failed, how embarrassing. I’ll never do that again!’ and ‘Well, that didn’t work! I wonder what I can do next time to make it better?’ The former is quite fixed in their ways, and the latter is considerably more flexible. While fear rules the former, there is a kind of fearlessness in the latter.

Tools like Chat GPT are absolutely going to change education. I’m excited to see some fearless educators figuring out how best to use it, (and many new tools like it), in their classrooms, and with their students. The teachers willing to iterate, try, fail, and learn to use these tools are going to take their students a lot farther and learn a lot more than in places where these tools will be banned, blocked, and shunned.

Been there, done that

No you haven’t.

I don’t know why, but I can’t seem to link to this Nov. 12, 2017 post by Alec Couros, or my response on Facebook, so I’ll just share them here. Alec said:

‪”Every “new” revolution or trend in education is inevitably accompanied by the critics who wisely note “We tried this back in the x0’s.

‪If you want change to happen and to stick, engage your historians to better understand why things failed the first time around.”

And I responded:

“When I read this I think of Dweck and growth vs fixed mindset. Yes some things ‘come back’, but there can be innovation (and research) since the last time.

For example, much of the ‘learn at your own pace’ of 20 years ago meant ‘here is the (printed) package of work so that you can move ahead’ (on your own). Now with online resources, discussion forums, YouTube, access to research and experts… that ‘own pace’ can be far more collaborative and richly supported. Even more so in a learning environment that focuses on competencies & skills, rather than content.

So in this, and many other examples, it’s not like ‘we did this back in the day’… it’s fundamentally different. It still warrants critique & criticism when it’s due, but it doesn’t warrant dismissal because ‘we’ve already tried it’.

This is the difference between using old tools and tools that are transformative, tools that allow you to engage differently than you could before. A blog isn’t just a digital version of a paper journal. A blog lets you edit more easily, it lets you spellcheck as you go, it allows you to link to sources and other content. It exposes the writing to more than just the teacher, it invites comments and further conversation. It makes the writer a publisher, who as a result tends to care more about editing and presenting better work.

Back in the days of my high school English classes the only audience my journal writing had were my teachers, except for a poem I had published in our yearbook one year… and I can’t exactly find that in a Google search today.

The next time you try something new and someone says, “We tried this back in the x0’s,” or “Been there, done that,” take a moment to think about what’s different this time before dismissing it as something already tried and abandoned… it might just be significantly different this time around.

—–

Here is the list of 6 suggestions I shared in my post, ‘Transformative or just flashy educational tools?‘ which I linked to above:

So what makes a tool great? Or, a better question than that: What should we do with tools to make them great? Here are some thoughts and feadback is appreciated, this is not an exclusive list!

1.Give students choice.

We don’t assess the tool, we assess the criteria, and we want students to meet specific learning outcomes.We can provide students with a choice of tools or even a choice of projects, and not every student in the class needs to meet the same outcomes in the same way.

2. Give students a voice.

Classroom discussions are great, but how else can we provide students with an opportunity to share? What venues can we provide for them to be heard?

3. Give students an audience.

So often we give students an audience of one… the teacher who marks their work. As a teacher, I told students ‘write to your audience’ but I never truly understood those words until I started blogging. If you want students to write to their audience, then give them a legitimate audience.

4. Give students a place to collaborate.

This comes with a caution: A place to collaborate does not in and of itself create good collaboration. You might be using a great collaboration tool, but do your students know how to collaborate effectively? Do they have specific roles to play? Do they have the skills to learn cooperatively?

5. Give students a place to lead.

Whether it be by choosing a tool, or teaching you a tool, or simply choosing their own topic to study, let your students be the lead learner and even the teacher as often as possible.

6. Give students a digital space to learn.

I’ve talked about blogs as learning spaces. Stephen Downes says, ‘To teach is to model and demonstrate, to learn is to practice and reflect.’Give students a space to practice and reflect that is not limited to the confines of a classroom or notebook, and one that helps them build a community, or rather a network, of teachers and learners.

A tool is just a tool! It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.