Let’s start our Friday Big Ideas with an article in the FT. The rise of the chief AI officer has become a significant trend in companies worldwide. These officers oversee the deployment of AI and generative AI, improve workforce efficiency, identify new revenue streams, and mitigate ethical and security risks. The role requires a deep understanding of AI technology, data science, and analytics, as well as legal and change management expertise. While there is a high demand for AI talent, chief AI officers often come from computer science and business administration backgrounds. The role is sought after across industries, particularly in finance, healthcare, and consumer groups. However, opinions differ on the longevity of the role, with some believing it will adapt with the technology and others thinking it may have a limited shelf life.
I wanted to highlight an opinion piece backed with data in Tech Dirt – “No, The Internet Hasn’t Gotten Worse.” A recent study published in Nature challenges the notion that the internet has gotten worse over time. The study found that the internet has always had its share of toxicity, and conversations today are not necessarily more toxic than in the past. The key factor influencing toxicity is the length of the conversation, with longer conversations being more toxic. Different platforms may attract different levels of toxicity, but overall, the internet isn’t inherently making people terrible.
And I’ll offer an analysis by Big Technology over the changes in search. Yahoo is considering using both AI-generated answers and traditional blue links in response to search queries. Other search engines like Google and Microsoft are also exploring the use of generative AI in search results. The challenge lies in accurately inferring user intent and determining the cost-effectiveness of displaying generative AI answers. The search engines will need to strike a balance between providing relevant information and maintaining ad revenue.
Perhaps we should retire the use of the word “user”. An article in MIT Technology Review argues this caseand traces the history of the term and its association with a transactional relationship between people and technology. The article suggests that using more precise terms, such as “customers” or “players,” can foster a more accurate understanding of the relationships between people and technology. One of the key factors – AI, which combined with machines broadly is a new category of user.
And this is more of a resource – Rest of World is tracking the use of AI in global elections. If you’re interested in the mind of the manipulators, this is a great one.
https://restofworld.org/2024/elections-ai-tracker/
Why do we care?
The point is to offer alternative perspectives, which is why I bring in broad thought pieces here.
I’m going to linger on “user”. There’s some valuable insight here about the loss of nuance of how people engage with technology, moving away from a transactional to a more engaged interaction perspective.
Plus, isn’t it nice to learn that the Internet isn’t as bad as you thought it was?
