AI, the PC era, Ukraine lessons, and what we fail to see... also some optimism
Great points from Gamiel (as usual)
I agree that comparing what is happening with AI now to the advent of the personal computer is too narrow, too slow, too brittle, and historically dissimilar.
Contrasting what is happening now to the PC in the era of the 80s is actually useful.
In a remote 3G world
The more I have time to think over here, 'on a break', in a lost-in-time tiny Galician village, the more the lack of understanding of four things stands out, in priority order:
Just how fast AI capability and its ecosystem tentacles are growing, and that the rate of change is actually accelerating. The last three years were the slow, flatter part of the curve.
How fast and unevenly are the changes in the underlying production cost structure for AI moving.
How those two things change the cadence of design and a couple of foundational elements in strategy if you care about not being leapfrogged or just priced out of existence
How all of that has to be about very broad, intentional ecosystem work
The asymmetry of dollar-per-unit impact is how conflict will be won, as long as you have motivated/trained troops/employees, great leadership, and a solid strategy.
Those three, which are all very hard to do, tend to suffer when tech leaps forward.
New Co's will have an advantage. Small agile beats big slow, generally, it always has.
Having said that big agile kills all.
Уроки України
Ukraine is nailing the asymmetry play plus strategy, motivation and leadership.
On the other side, firing a precision, expensive missile into an apartment building in Kyiv to kill a grandma and some kitchen appliances is not.
Lying to your 'employees' and using them as cannon fodder is not.
Having a 'reward' system that fosters self-interest and corruption (front-liners can bribe their way to the rear guard) is not.
Corporate competition is not war. Your employees don't get killed. Having said that your firm might be killed. The lessons are the same.
How many firms have looked at what their real targets are ? Do they include integrative cost structure innovation and agility-focused changes?
How many firms have taken a hard look at incentives, from the top down, to match this new AI-infused trajectory?
How many firms have said to their employees, 'Don't worry, AI is just making jobs better, not eliminating jobs'? How many firms have really thought through motivation?
Ask yourself two questions if you think your firm is fine with regard to the above:
What was the last innovation program the C-suite reviewed and celebrated that failed, that got rewarded for trying and being out on the leading edge?
Are your leaders incentivized for Plan vs Action success or for impact and agility improvements? Minor hint: Plan vs Action approaches generally drive conservative plans, punish risk-taking, and change the status quo around the edges. That is fine, except in times of rapid change... You know, like now.
The Ukrainian Gov/Mil are the ones who get those four points above and use them to achieve success, brilliantly and effectively.
Optimism
When that war ends, that thinking, innovation, and leadership can create an era of rapid reconstruction and reinvention that turbocharges their economy and leapfrogs essential ecosystems. This can create world-leading exemplars in healthcare, transportation/logistics, agriculture, education, urban/ex-urban efficiency and livability, construction, power generation, and the defense industry.
Ukraine will move from a war footing to a period of innovative, leapfrogging reinvention. It will be the most exciting place on earth where tech is woven into the fabric of change and real-world fast-cycle impact.
