Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?

The British rock sensation The Who recorded an inquisitive song Who Are You (Polydor 1978). It conveniently included the band name "who" about 150 times. The kids back then were enthralled with the hook that is the title of this post "Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?" As the song fades toward the final chorus, the inquiry becomes more pointed. That line was even more popular with the kids I knew, but I digress.

The appellate court recently rendered an interesting order in Villaverde v. Jorge Castillo, American Airlines and Sedgwick CMS, Case 1D2022-1804; L.T. No.: 12-023578MGK; (Fla. 1st DCA November 27, 2024). The case was originally decided in July 2024, but that decision was withdrawn following the appellant's motion for rehearing, though that motion was denied. On its own motion, the court substituted a new decision.

The original proceedings were before a JCC. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimant's former attorney in the trial proceedings files a notice of appeal seeking review. As the court succinctly described,

"In other words, Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC (Villaverde), identified itself as the appellant, in spite of the fact that it was not a party to the proceedings below."

That is a critical point. Before seeking relief on one's behalf one might aptly question "Who are you, Who, Who, Who, Who?" And if the answer to that question is not "a party," then your plea may have more complications than you might expect. Parties, you see, are those with an interest in a case, be it on the prosecution or the defense. Everyone else involved is ancillary, from the experts to the lay witnesses, lawyers, and the rest. There are parties and there is everyone else.

The former attorney in the trial proceedings before the JCC was seeking attorney fees. The:

"orders appealed established the costs and attorney’s fees to which Villaverde was entitled based on its lien of Castillo’s workers’ compensation claim."

Despite this interest in the outcome, that is, a pecuniary property interest in recompense, the court reminded:

"Villaverde is Castillo’s former attorney, not a party to the administrative proceeding."

And because the attorney was not a party to the "administrative proceeding," the court concluded, the attorney was "not a party here." The court directed attention to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(g)(1), and the specific language there regarding "appellant":

"an appellant is '[a] party who seeks to invoke the appeal jurisdiction of the court[]'"

Concluding that the appellant was not a party, the court dismissed the appeal and declined to review the trial judge's conclusions and orders.

In a separate order in the same case, the court addressed an:

"original fee motion (that) sought reasonable fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, as sanctions against Appellant."

The order notes that there is a specific appellate rule of procedure regarding sanctions, Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. That rule is quoted in the order, as regards "the safe harbor provision of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(b)(3)–(4)," which the court reminds is mandatory ("Failure to comply with the safe harbor provision cannot be cured. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(b)(4)").

This is discussed from the perspective of procedure. The court describes method of seeking sanctions, dictated by the appellate rule. The rule uses "shall" and "must," and thus seems mandatory. However, there are no consequences dictated. Some might perhaps question whether these provisions are mandatory or merely directive, despite the seeming mandatory language. Nonetheless, the conclusion is seemingly of mandatory result here. See also The "Shall" in Workers' Compensation Referral (February 2021).

In addition to this procedural discussion, the court addresses a similar substantive point related to the first order (above). Just as there is importance in who one is and rule definition, there is importance in the plain statutory language of what a particular conflict is. The court concludes that:

"section 57.105 does not establish a path for attorneys’ fees in this case."

The substantive point as regards fees "under section 57.105(1)" is that this "statute applies only to civil proceedings—not administrative actions. See § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat." That conclusion as regards this statute and workers' compensation is not new. See Express and Direct Conflict (May 2019); see also Lane v. Workforce Business Services, Inc., 151 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Thus, there are multiple lessons for the practitioner. There are important considerations of who you are, what kind of proceeding you are engaged in, and how you move forward. There are substantive statutory laws, plain procedural rules, and precedents that bear careful consideration and attention. For the scholar, there are perhaps significant points in these orders that bear study and contemplation in broader contexts.

Dopamine and Protection

There are various critics who have concluded that high doses of dopamine are not so beneficial. The potential for harm is greater in adolescents and younger. An interesting overview is Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review, World J Psychiatry. 2023 May 19; 13(5):160–173. Another worth a read is Social Media, Dopamine, and Stress: Converging Pathways, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, August 2022, 

Some would nonetheless argue that the jury is out on dopamine. Nonetheless, the National Institute of Health has published an overview on self harm that is interesting reading. This is beyond the attractions of dopamine and more pernicious. See The role of online social networking on deliberate self-harm and suicidality in adolescents: A systematized review of literature, Indian J Psychiatry. 2018 Oct-Dec; 60(4):384–392. .

Despite the protestations to the contrary, there are some scientists who believe there is a potential for harm and self-harm connected to social media. If you have not engaged in social media, know that the world can be one of great positive reinforcement and engagement. It can also be an amazing pit of despair into which self-confidence, spirit, and aplomb can be dissolved in the acid of vitriol, groupthink, and mob mentality.

These latter influences are sometimes driven and enabled by keyboard trolls. The trolls lurk in their shadows, cloaked in anonymity, and throw verbal feces at others in hopes of boosting their own feelings of self-worth. If they join a majority in some escalating storm against some victim, their dopamine rewards fuel their frenzy as sure as blood in the water excites sharks.

Australia is reported recently to be set to be "the first" to try preventing minors from using social media. It applies to all who are under 16, and the New York Times calls it "one of the world’s most comprehensive measures aimed at safeguarding young people from potential hazards online." To be accurate, this is not a ban on minor use. It is a ban on minor user accounts.

What is the difference? Well, it is illegal for children to drink and smoke. Those prohibitions include a preclusion on underage purchasing (an account) and use. So if you give your child alcohol or cigarettes, you might face penalties. That combination is a ban on use.

The new Australian law is a prohibition on purchasing (an account; the "purchasing" is a euphemism. No one buys social media, it is free. That is because you are not their customer, "you are their product".

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in the lead-up to Australia's vote, reported that some social media argues it should be exempt. LinkedIn, for example, essentially argued that it is too boring to merit inclusion in the ban. Stated otherwise, "it is too dull for kids to warrant its inclusion." Does it matter? Is that like allowing low alcohol beer or "light cigarettes?" The fear of tobacco reached such a point that they outlawed cigarettes made of candy. 

Great Britain already has some constraints regarding adulthood and social media. Those may militate against the conclusion, above, of Australia perhaps becoming "first." Regarding the earlier British efforts, the BBC reports that recent surveys (brace yourself) support that some people actually lie about their age to gain access to various content that is age-constrained. As Daryl Hall & John Oates begged us:

"Say it

Say it isn't so

Say it

Say it isn't so"

Say It Isn't So (RCA Records, 1983).

Seriously, kids lying about their age? This strains the imagination. A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17-year-olds lie about that they are 18 or over on social media apps. Despite Britain's Online Safety Act (OSA)(which is not in "full force" until 2025, back to that "first" debate),"22% ... lie that they are 18 or over." Who could have seen that coming?

Of course, any glass can be half full or half empty. It is encouraging that 78% of the 17-year-olds at least deny lying. That does not necessarily mean that 78% are not doing so, but it is encouraging nonetheless. 

The British Office of Communications (Ofcom), similar to the U.S. FCC, has the authority to fine social media companies that do not effectuate the 2025 OSA requirements. Fines may be as much as "10% of (a social media company's) global revenue." Note that phraseology. This does not apply to "profit" but to "revenue." It is not their British revenue, but "global." Such a fine might be crippling.

So, there is a beginning here. Some legislators are striving to limit the exposure of youth. The steps may empower parents who want to act responsibly. But there is little to deter a parent who is seeking a moment of peace from giving any child full access to a panoply of content. The parent might as easily provide social media access as any other potential harm.

Before we mount our steeds (high horses) let's all admit that parents have been distracting children with content since Adam and Eve had that run-in with a serpent. This has included books, toys, games, video games, the Internet writ large, and now social media. This is not new. 

Nonetheless, the content of those books, toys, and games (even the early video games) was much easier to review, monitor, and police. The Internet and social media are a world wide waste (www) of potential content that stretches from benign to hilarious to hideous to worse. The potentials are vast, the harms are indescribable, and the road back from unlimited access for children will be long. 

England has taken a step. Australia follows suit. Florida enacted Senate Bill 3 in 2024 (SB3). This will be effective January 1, 2025. Florida will help lead the way to a contemplative, and considered course to better protect children in our society, our state, and eventually perhaps elsewhere. 

In the process, perhaps, we will all learn how to better protect ourselves from the dopamine urge, the boredom of LinkedIn (LOL), and the array of inappropriateness on the world wide waste.

The Eeeeyew AI Says What?

Perhaps in a nod to antiquity, I possess many Lightning cords. Yes, my phone is that old. The team at Apple introduced us to Lightning back in 2012 and its demise is symbolic to me regarding how fast the world of technology evolves. There will be many who will never miss the Lightning any more than the old "30-pin" that Apple debuted in 2003 and which the Lightning replaced.

Each was interesting. They had inter-brand compatibility. People who used both the Apple phone and tablet could use one cord interchangeably. That cut some of the travel and tool management challenges. The Lightning was simple (no "right side" up), but it was destined to disappear. Not through any failure of efficiency, cost, or market competition, but through government regulation.

PCMagazine explains that government regulation and that "all phones, tablets, and cameras will be required to use the USB-C charging standard by 2024, forcing Apple into USB-C port adoption." That statement in itself is confusing to the tech-conscious. We remember that USB stands for "universal serial bus," and some think "universal" has broad meaning. Nonetheless, there are a raft of USB types. "Universal" is anything but.

In the end, everyone just wants a phone and that usually means a parade of charge cords: at your desk, home, car, travel kit, etc. Often, those cords do not last a lifetime and must be replaced. The old ones could be recycled, but we have precious little time for that. A significant volume of old cords end life in a landfill.

The government took umbrage at that waste and pollution. Despite acquiescence in diversity throughout history, regulation was seen as compelling with phone chargers. The fact is that electronics have long required singularly designed power sources. Many an electronic device has gone to the landfill over the decades because the power cord expired and replacing it was impractical or impossible even in the age of Radio Shack.

So, the government mandated that one cord would "rule them all, One cord to find them, One cord to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." Well, that is perhaps an overstatement, borrowing from the thoughts of J.R.R. Tolkien, but perhaps the inference of Sauron is not so far off base. You see, it was not the U.S. government that killed the Lightning. It was the lords in the distant land of Eeeeyew.

The lords of Eeeeyew control a significant world marketplace that includes most of what we used to think of as the "continent" of Europe. It may be a continent ("one of the main landmasses of the globe"), but some contend that it is not a separate and distinct landmass, but merely the western end of Asia. Nonetheless, there is a fair amount of Euro-centrism in this world, and certainly in our North American history and views of history.

The lords of Eeeeyew ordained that all phones would use the "universal" cord. This, apparently, will result in less waste in landfills because when we buy a new phone, we can continue to use the old cords. In fairness, that was working pretty well with my successive Lightning phones before this mandate. More likely, their efforts will mean more USB-C production, expiration, and disposal. The same number of cords will hit the landfills, but they will be compatible with each other.

Nonetheless, and despite the doubts about Eeeeyew's continental status or the independence of various other markets, the folks at Apple shifted to one of the "universal" tools.

The fact is, Apple could have continued to sell different products in different markets. A North American tool could have used the Lightning and the otherwise identical tool marketed in the Eeeeyew could have had their beloved USB-C. According to the Federal Communications Commission, there are fundamental differences in "networks from country to country" and in phone hardware. But, there are economies of scale in simplicity and uniformity. Apple made a conscious uniformity decision and bowed to the distant lords of Eeeeyew.

By now, the reader is wondering what this rambling diatribe on phone cords, lords, and continents has to do with anything. Some are more perturbed with the fact that they tuned in based on a headline about Artificial Intelligence. And, finally, we get to the point.

Will the U.S. government regulate and constrain the spread of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or will its evolution be limited by market forces.?

In October 2023, the White House enacted executive legislation on AI. Many speculate that the next administration will "roll back" that regulatory attempt to corral the wild beast of AI. In the conversations I have about AI, I find people who think it is Godzilla come to stomp and smash and others who think it is pasteurization or the printing press come to save the world. Occasionally, I even get someone who still says "A-what?" Bless their hearts.

Thus far, the White House 2023 executive order is the most significant AI regulatory response on this continent. Despite the lofty goals espoused, it is not legislative change and does not broadly bind evolution or development of AI. It places constraints on those who do business with the federal government. That population should not be discounted, a great many companies do business with the government or with companies that do. But, the order is limited in scope nonetheless.

The Order proceeds to discuss the need for "best practices," and "guidance." The chief executive is indeed powerful in those terms. Over time, a great deal has been regulated through executive orders. But "elections have consequences," and there is the chance that this executive order will soon join many Lightning cords somewhere. Legislative change is more permanent; though laws can be changed, it takes more effort, time, and persistence.

As an aside, I have this conversation many times in law classes. Too many believe that the U.S. assures equal rights for women in the Constitution. The protections are instead statutory in such tomes as Title VII and Title IX. Just as legislation is harder to change than executive orders, so is constitutional status harder to change that statutory protection. Ah, but I digress.

There is little legislative action in the U.S. regarding AI. Despite that, those who develop and deploy AI are concerned about the law. In 2021, before AI dawned on many of us, the lords of the Eeeeyew passed the Eeeeyew AI Act. It is "the world’s first comprehensive AI law." It is lauded by its makers as "protection" for the consumer as well as a foundation for "supporting innovation." It has been the topic of many a debate in the halls of legality and invention. Whether it is "canned beer" or "hot air" remains to be seen.

But, one point is clear. It is here. It is the law. The Eeeeyew has spoken. Now, there will be those who clutch their Lightenings and yawn at the potential for this foreign law to implicate or affect our lives. In the interest of their attention, a second example.

In 2016, the lords of Eeeeyew enacted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This is a broad constraint on "the collection and processing of personal information from individuals." The privacy of the residents of the Eeeeyew is protected, the operations of businesses in the Eeeeyew are restricted, by law. And a big part of that is cookies, and not the "baked" kind.

Unless you have been under a rock for the last decade, you have noticed that every website now includes a pop-up. They generally say "We have been collecting personal data on you for years, but now we have to warn you and get your permission because of the GDPR." Joking. I have not seen one single example that says that. They say, essentially, "We use cookies to make your world better, click 'accept' to allow us to keep doing that." Which statement might be more accurate is left to the reader. That said, we all get those pop-ups.

Just as the beloved Lightning, the death of the "stealth cookie" comes from a regulation a world away. Companies with websites could strive to determine if a visitor is or is not in the Eeeeyew. Or, as they have done, the website owners can simply comply with the most restrictive rules (GDPR) and ignore the location of users (which in the age of the VPN is likely more realistic).

The age of the lowest common denominator has arrived. Without stealth or guile, we are all being subjected to laws we neither voted for nor in many instances even understand.

The fact is that markets influence each other. That is economics. The fact is that governments control markets. That is politics. The fact is that the decisions of lords continents away will continue to impact and affect us even here in the free world. Anyone who thinks that AI is "unregulated" might want to read the Eeeeyew AI Act. Warranted or not, wise or not, AI regulation is here.

We might even decide to invest hours, days, or months in our own AI Act as so many clamor for. But others in society might demand that we first know why. What would we do that would better define, constrict, empower, or affect AI? What would an American Act add to the milieu?

I close with an anecdote. I ran into an intellect who explained to me why AI must be stopped. Chicken Little he was not, but greatly troubled he was. He described many potential evils of AI in a terrified tone and at near-breakneck speed. I had but one question when he concluded: "If we restrict or forbid AI and refuse its potentials, do you really imagine the world's miscreants (You remember, the "Axis of Evil") will follow suit, decry AI, and 'go gentle into that good night'?" (Dylan Thomas). He looked at me like I had lost my mind.

Perhaps I have. I shall confidently leave that question to the faraway leaders of the Eeeeyew. 

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Disuse Atrophy

The Cleveland Clinic defines disuse atrophy:

"Disuse (physiologic) atrophy is caused by not using your muscles enough. If you stop using your muscles, your body won’t waste the energy it needs to take care of them. Instead, your body will start to break your muscles down, which causes them to decrease in size and strength."

There are those who have lamented the decline in lawyering skills in the subculture of workers' compensation. I used to think this was a Florida thing. I listened to many discuss their lamentations across the country though and there is support for declaring this a phenomenon, or perhaps a pandemic. 

As I have listened, I have harkened back to the old adage that "practice makes perfect." It is likely that litigation is a dying art through disuse atrophy. There just are not enough cases getting to trial to keep the skills intact. The brain is not technically a muscle, but I think the term is apropos and persuasive. 

The topic reminded me of a book that attracted my father in the old days (before the pandemic). It is both a self-help book on survival and an encyclopedia of all the knowledge that your ancestors had. That is, all the knowledge they had that you and I lack. To some degree, that statement is pejorative. Apologies. But we have all been relieved of so much responsibility that our ancestors faced. 

If you had to dig a well to obtain drinking water, would you know where to dig?

If you need a wheel for a wagon, barrow, or implement, would you have any idea what wood to use, how to prepare it, cut it, etc.?

If you were faced with a loss of sanitary services, how far from your living, well, etc. would/should you deposit waste?

If you needed to pick a spot for a garden, where would you start? What crops would grow well where you are?

In such an instance, how could you preserve your harvest for later?

These are topics that your ancestors faced. They learned skills that were necessary for their survival. They lived in a world without "big box" stores, 24-hour convenience stores, or even grocery stores. Over time, the idea of mercantile exchange came to pass, but there was a time when self-sufficiency was for real. 

I am often reminded of the movie Idiocracy (20th Century, 2006). This tells the story of a dystopian future society and a chilling perspective on the impact of technology on humankind. The movie theme revolves around the cryogenic preservation of two test subjects by the United States military. 

Due to a bizarre accident (the army forgets these two), the experimental preservation lasts far longer than planned. Following an odd accident, the test subjects are revived. These two low-ranking, 20th century "average," soldiers find themselves in a future in which there has been widespread mental atrophy (they are literally surrounded by people "a bit slow on the uptake." 

They find themselves far from their "average" heritage. They are easily the two smartest humans on the planet. The evolution that has occurred during their slumber has been instead a devolution. Humans in that theme have been coddled by technology and their intellect and ability have both atrophied through disuse. 

This is not dissimilar to the theme of Wall-E (Disney Pictures, 2008). The characters there exist in a world of floating easy chairs. Their flabby and distended bodies are the product of muscle wasting (disuse atrophy), and their minds are not that much better off. Living in a world of convenience and utopianism has diminished their functionality on multiple levels. They have been coddled and cared-for too long.

If you have not read Bob Wilson’s Cluttered Desk page regarding Wall-E, it’s worth a moment. It is a little insulting to us fat folks, but still worth your time.

The intellectual impacts are widespread. I recently ran into a gentleman I have known for years. He related how his adult child had frustratingly attempted to provide destination driving directions to a passing motorist in the adult child's neighborhood. In a town in which the person a lifetime, the adult could not provide any estimate of east west, north, or south, miles, kilometers, or even blocks. Striving to provide landmarks, there were challenges with landmarks, as the adult child remembered more readily what "used to be" on a particular corner and was unable to recall what is there today. The inquirer was uncomfortable with the smartphone "maps" and the direction provider was incapable without one. 

I was reminded how quickly we can diminish when I recently rented a vehicle and was upgraded from my habitual lowly "compact" to a very nice SUV. This car had bells and whistles on its bells and whistles. I drove the car for three days. When I then got in my own car and tried to back up, I found myself wishing for the huge screen and back-up camera. When I got on the highway, I immediately remembered my car does not drive itself. Three days, and I forgot how to drive!

Convenience comes at us in the form of software, hardware, and even artificial intelligence. There is an entire generation that has never held a dictionary in their collective hands. With each cycle of technology and convenience, we are losing another layer of knowledge and skill to disuse atrophy. 

This can be physical (I know a guy who does not even grocery shop anymore, except on an app that spurs a front-door delivery). He gets lots of exercise with his index finger. This can be mental (I know people who cannot begin to hand-write a letter to a friend). This can be humorous ("This car does not drive itself") or dangerous ("Officer, I forgot this car does not drive itself"). 

Could you Shepardize a case using a book (that was a bound collection of pulpous sheets called "paper" on which knowledge was stored)? Could you proofread without spell check, grammar check, or more? Could you engage in a hearing effectively if you have to be in-person (and not in your pajama bottoms, in your home, relaxed and chilling)? Can you remember evidentiary foundations, rule, and even where to look for them (is this a hearsay issue under 90.803 or a procedural rule issue under 1.330? Omigosh, is it both?)

The fact is that we are each a collection of diminishing skills. Our past experiences are a collective of education, mistakes, bruises, and recoveries. We have been challenged, faced uncertainty, and presented evidence and arguments. We have tried cases, been in the moment, and succeeded. But in the world of software, those skills are seemingly softening. Is it any different in any profession?

This is bad news for us all. But it is more so for those who were not around for the golden age of litigation, discovery, and interaction. Us old dogs struggle to remember. But the next generation is not struggling to remember, retain, and apply. They are struggling to understand, acclimate, and apply. Their challenge is daunting. Their world is different. 

The inescapable prognostication is that the volume of trials will continue to decrease. There is less comfort with the challenges, less motivation to build and maintain skills, and less interest in the ways of yesteryear. Trials will increasingly be video exchanges (Texas reportedly just announced all their workers' compensation trials will now be video). 

Skills will atrophy. We will step another step down the path away from great trial work. The changes and atrophy will not happen suddenly or violently. They will be subtle and slow. But you will likely look back in 20 years and "wonder how it ever got this crazy" (Eagles, Lyin' Eyes, Asylum Records, 1975). We may all wonder "did (we) get tired or just get lazy?" as we realize we are "so far gone (we) feel just like a fool." Cue the chorus. 

The Trough of Dissolusionment

The theme these days is Artificial Intelligence (AI). The term is bandied about with frequency and reverence. I noted in First - What is it? (November 2024) that there will come an ubiquity with AI, I noted that a time may come when product

"package's (will) reference to AI. That labeling may be the next 'as seen on TV' or 'new and improved,' pushed upon us in such volume that it achieves innocuity or cliche."

The consumer of today perhaps does not remember the onslaught of the past, in the days of print, radio, and television. We are no less subjected to ads today, but the paths have changed markedly. In the past, Madison Avenue and glitzy ad campaigns more persistently pushed products upon us.

We Boomers learned the hard way that "new and improved" seldom meant a markedly better product experience and "as seen on TV" became the punchline for products like the Chia Pet, the Pocket Fisherman, and so much worse. Certainly, the Millenials were exposed to that cliche at the end of the discount store era.

There is also merit, perhaps, in considering the various phases of the Gartner Hype Loop, see Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024). The third phase suggested by Gartner is the “trough of disillusionment.” In it, "There is some “'fail(ure) to deliver' and a resulting marketplace malaise." 

I had no sooner penned Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024) than a plausible example of the disillusionment potential appeared in the news.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published US regulator says AI scanner 'deceived' users after BBC story. The theme centers on a company that manufactures and markets scanners "used in the entrances of thousands of US schools, hospitals and stadiums."

Back to the Boomers, they remember a day before such devices. Not that long ago we could enter and exit airports with convenience and ease. Many a loved one was walked to or greeted at the aircraft gate by loved ones. That was normal. We could walk into schools, courthouses, and entertainment venues. There were no scanners, bag checks, or (believe it or not) widespread violence. 

Make no mistake, scanners were a thing in the last decade of the 20th century. But they were not the thing that they are today. But I have spoken to many a GenX or GenZ who has told me over the years that September 11 caused the security and scanning. It did not, but it exacerbated the proliferation of these devices and secure buildings. 

The manufacturer featured by the BBC allegedly advertised and marketed scanning devices with reference to AI. It described how it had created images of thousands of profiles to assist the machine in identifying various shapes and contours that might indicate a weapon. 

This seems similar to the self-checkout tool I described in Long Term Solutions (June 2022). The producer of that scanning tool reportedly spent weeks photographing every product and item in a convenience store, from multiple angles, to train its scanner to identify products readily. The weapon device is seemingly similar, but more singularly purposed. 

But as to the security scanners, the BBC asserts that in marketing the company "claims to do this with artificial intelligence, which can actively detect concealed weapons like bombs, knives and guns." However, searches of the company website in late November 2024 did not reveal references to AI specifically. The website did contain a banner announcement of "Resolution of FTC Inquiry," the theme of the BBC article. 

Consistent with that absence, the BBC story recounts that the company will no longer be "making unsupported claims about its products in a proposed settlement with the US government." There is stress on the fact that the manufacturer "hasn’t admitted wrongdoing." There are many reasons for disputes to be compromised, and so no inference should be drawn by such an agreement.

Nonetheless, the BBC reports that "The FTC said the action should be a warning to other AI companies." There are several mentions of AI in the article. Ultimately, the BBC concludes that 

There is concern amongst officials in the US and UK about companies overstating the ability of artificial intelligence to improve products. In some instances it’s unclear whether artificial intelligence is being used at all.

And there is the rub. Just like "new and improved," the outcome regarding products and services in the coming days may be less than advertised. The lure of AI may draw us to products or services that are not actually AI. We might also be drawn to products that are legitimately AI and yet disappoint us nonetheless. Both tracks will lead consumers through the “trough of disillusionment.”

The paths are distinct. Whether we are misled or oversold, there is the real potential for our disappointment to hinder the adoption of AI advances. Frustration of expectation can be powerful deterrent. In parallel, our reluctance to adopt and accept may in turn frustrate the investment in and development of useful and imperative AI applications. Just as excitement and anticipation may drive upward spirals, so might disillusionment spiral us down.

That leaves us little comfort. We can invest in disappointment with the expectation of coming genuine innovation. Or we can loiter on the sidelines, avoiding charlatans and puffers, and in the process, we will impede both the good and the bad developers without discretion. 

In a view back on history, I am certain this is not new. Some invested in Hudsons, Edsels, and worse. They fell prey to the marketers and puffers. Others were not so susceptible. 

Others brought true innovation, like the Tucker. Despite the genuine and ingenious technical innovations it offered, its impacts generally came to the broad market years later in other automobiles. 

The history is easily found and cited. The "trough" is a real potential. How it and the other Gartner analyses impact AI and our near-term future remains to be seen. 

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024). 

What you can do?

The news last week was disturbing, about an ambush-style assault in New York City. There is some perception of naïvete regarding the reality of some big cities. The simple fact is that murder is commonplace in far too many locations. Law enforcement struggles to keep pace with criminal activity.

USA Facts reports that "there were 24,849 homicides in the US in 2022." That is a significant number. The statistics support that the "most" occurred in New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. New York is not on that list. But, often, "most" is a list ranked based on population, that is "murders per 100,000 people." In that context, Mississippi is number one among the states.

The Rochester Institute of Technology published a report with the raw data (for 2022). According to them, the most prevalent murder cities are Chicago (692), New York (433), Los Angeles (382), and Detroit (307). The raw numbers suggest that these are dangerous places despite, perhaps, the comfort that you are statistically less likely to be killed there (more people in those cities are "not killed" as opposed to "killed").

The reader can decide if Chicago or New Orleans presents the most risk. For me, there is some admitted reluctance to visit any of these places, whether they are among the most prevalent list or the most prevalent "per 100,000 in population" list. Admittedly, to be fair, there is some potential for either under or over-reporting these numbers. There is nuance in the determination of whether a death is homicide or not. But, for the sake of comparison, there is at least some comparative validity here.

CNN reports that the chief executive officer of an American health insurance company, Brian Thompson, was reportedly in New York for a meeting. While this gathering was in a hotel, the CEO elected to stay at a different property. He was apparently walking from one to the other when a man approached him from behind and shot him twice.

We live in an era of ubiquitous surveillance, a topic I have touched on in the past. See Pay Attention (July 2023). That post includes links to various other thoughts on surveillance over the years. Cameras are everywhere. Anyone who is even somewhat observant will have noticed the great volume of security cameras that monitor our every move. In news story after story, we hear about police soliciting video footage from businesses, homeowners, and the government. They track the movement of suspects, vehicles, and even witnesses.

Almost immediately following the shooting last week, there were still pictures on social media. The suspect was depicted, and described, and various sightings were soon reported. An alleged escape path has been plotted, and evidence collected. Despite that flood of data, days have passed without an arrest. CNN explains that despite Hollywood's take on surveillance and the ability there to solve any puzzle in an hour or less:

It could take weeks to find and scrub through a massive array of video footage from all the places where the gunman may have traveled.

The high profile of this shooting will likely mean devotion of volumes of resources, time, and attention. Some have wondered aloud at the amazing volume of killings (24,849) and some suspicion that they are not all investigated with the same zeal and focus that Mr. Thompson is receiving.

The police have announced that they are seeking a "person of interest," according to CBS News. Four days after the shooting, they released new photos of the alleged shooter. They have recovered and are testing a backpack they believe could be related, and divers have been seen in central park presumably searching for evidence in ponds.

There has been focus in recent days on personal security. Some have questioned why the CEO of a company would be alone and unprotected. I recently had breakfast with the CEO of one of the largest companies on the planet. To be fair, by “with” I mean that he and I were in the same restaurant. Fortunately, my security detail was sufficient to deter him from autograph-seeking, or other flattery or dining interference. (I did not go to the restaurant to be bothered by the paparazzi or fans).

OK, admittedly the roles were reversed (I have no security detail to speak of). But, to most observers, the CEO I dined "with" was traveling with a group of friends. However, their posture, positioning, movement, and attentiveness belied their casual appearances.

As we sat together in the lobby later (“together“ again meaning the same room, similar to my grandiose "with"), multiple sets of eyes persistently scanned and evaluated the premises, and fellow travelers. I was looked at particularly critically. That is likely due to my obvious physique and athleticism (I no doubt looked like a greater threat of physical violence - and "denial ain't just a river in Africa," LOL).

The point is that CEO was not traveling with an entourage, though he could easily afford one. But he was also not alone. His coterie was small but engaged. He was certainly not "safe" as none of us can be in an absolute way. Nonetheless, I am confident that doing him harm would have been difficult.

In the days since the New York shooting, one of the clearest expressions of curiosity over this event has come from Mr. Thompson's former bodyguard. The Hill quotes Phillip Klein as "dumbfounded" and his reaction "baffled." He explained that some find being guarded uncomfortable and Mr. Thompson may have declined protection. He suggests that the company may also have consciously decided protection was not necessary.

In either event, a choice was made. Yahoo News reports that Mr. Thompson was worth tens of millions of dollars and earned over ten million annually. Ultimately, traveling without security was a decision. That is important not because we judge him or his decisions. That is important because to some degree, we all make choices: where to travel, what time to be out, whether to walk or hail a cab, etc. 

There can be a rational debate about whether such attentiveness and protection “should” be necessary in today’s world. That said there could be many debates in our society as regards to the word “should.“ At the end of the day, as individuals, we are not generally able to move or change society, norms, or processes. We cannot really make the world safer in a general sense. So we say we want fewer homicides, but we are individually ill-equipped to change the numbers.

At the end of the day, we as individuals are only afforded the ability to focus upon ourselves, and those close to us. We must remember that violence is not limited to the high profile, the popular, the famous, or other superlatives. Violence may visit upon any of us in our ordinary day-to-day.

One can certainly question why this CEO traveled alone, had no security detail, and was so blatantly ambushed. As readily, we must all admit our own personal ambivalence regarding security. We all make choices. 

When you travel, meaning anytime you’re outside of your home or office environment, are you conscious of your surroundings? Paying attention to the potential of someone repeatedly appearing in your orbit? Are you aware of news reporting regarding threats in specific locations, and avoiding those heightened risks? Personally, for good or ill, I am more watchful and careful in Chicago than here in Paradise. That may be logical or merely delusional.

This is no suggestion of vigilanteism, or inciting of violence. I concede that none of us are likely postured to pay personal security. I’m suggesting, however, that each of us can be conscious of our surroundings. We can be eyes and ears when violence occurs around us, to us, or to others. We can be supportive of law enforcement and their efforts to both prevent violence and investigate outcomes.

Supportive. NPR reports that "internet sleuths" are engaged in striving to identify and find the shooter, who has likely left New York. There is a tip line. There is a reward offer. There are opportunities for the public to engage.

But, The New York Times reports that some will decline to help. They see the shooter as a "folk hero." There is apparently a trend to emulate his wardrobe. The words allegedly etched on shell casings are repeated on social media. People are sitting in their homes celebrating a man's death? PBS reports that the shooting has "opened floodgates of Americans venting insurance frustrations." There is apparently a population that roots for and celebrates gunning down people in the street.

On social media, there are references to Hollywood. A frequent feature is the title John Q (New Line 2002). This features a protagonist who resorts to violence and terrorism. The audience is encouraged to excuse his actions based on sympathy for his motivations (an ill family member). He is described in reviews as a "hero," and cast as such. There is Hollywood magic there in all of his victims apparently forgiving him for his lies, threats, kidnapping, and confinement.

Perhaps there are many in society who would react so to being held hostage, threatened, and confined. Never having been there, I am not comfortable conjecturing my reaction. However, it is possible that the Hollywood take on such violence may not be universally held or appreciated. Some might resent being the victim, regardless of how heartfelt their assailant's motivation is?

It is undoubtedly a difficult situation for the family and close associates of Mr. Thompson. It is possible that his decisions or the decisions of his employer may differ from decisions you would make. You may or may not share his values, any more than you share the values of any of the people shot in Chicago last year (one is shot "every other hour" there, according to WBEZ).

Are you willing to say those people deserve to be shot? Are you willing, based on what you know or suspect of those people and their shooters, to declare either the "hero?" Are you so calloused by the parade of violence in these various cities that you can leap to blame the victims, champion the shooters, and disregard the horror that a human elected to plan, pursue, and commit an execution in the street?

It is troubling that violence exists. It is troubling that violence is accepted, expected, and even celebrated. Perhaps both action and reaction are part of the human condition. The effort to draw lines, condemn some violence and celebrate some, is intriguing, disturbing, and perhaps worthy of pause. Are we really ready to societally accept violence as even "a" nonetheless "the" solution? 

If you are willing to celebrate vigilantism in one instance, will you celebrate it in all? Or, is there some subjective and emotional distinction you will draw between the murder of one man or the other on a sidewalk? Will you make such a distinction based on someone's occupation, location, or otherwise?

It is possible that nothing Mr. Thompson tried or did would have interfered with this attack. It is possible that violence will visit any of us at any time, whether in Chicago or Paradise. Nonetheless, it is an opportune moment for each of us to question whether we are personally observing good behavior and exercising sound personal precautions. That is what you can do. You can look out for yourself and your own, remain aware of your surroundings, and help law enforcement with eyes, ears, and video when possible.

Now is likewise a moment for us to pause and question whether violence is an acceptable answer to any question. If you are one of the social media keyboard warriors willing in these initial moments to judge the victim or celebrate the shooter, take a moment to remember that you do not know either of them. Focus for a moment that a husband and father are irretrievably lost. Remember that 24,849 are similarly lost annually. Ask yourself why you would ever celebrate someone's death.

Timmy!

October was Disability Awareness Month. Such recognitions can be of significant value in helping people to remember a variety of causes and needs in society. The U.S. Department of Labor notes this but also adds that we can pursue "year-round efforts" at appreciating and understanding the challenges of disability.

The topic came to my mind again in a random article on the British Broadcasting Corporation in November. The author, Alex Taylor, uses a wheelchair and relates his experiences with that tool and a cartoon character from a television show that started a quarter century ago, in 1997.

Mr. Taylor relates that the show, South Park, had a wheelchair-using character named Timmy. He perceives that character cast a "shadow" over his youth when people would see him in his chair and shout "Timmy." He was, at least in his perception, labeled with this pop-culture presentation of someone reliant upon such a device.

He expresses praise for the character and the writers who created it. Timmy is described as having "warmth" and "character." There is a description of the satire of the show and the avoidance, perhaps, of disability being the joke. In it, Mr. Taylor found criticism of the way people perceive and react to "disabled people," a positive side-effect of the satire and direction of the show generally. 

He also concludes that Timmy was a popular character and noted critics described the character "as the most 'progressive, provocative and socially relevant disability humor ever presented on American television.'” Mr. Taylor notes value in the character challenging the viewer, the views, and the perceptions.

His angst over being confronted with periodic public "Timmy!" assaults apparently waned over the years. Those teenagers who were enthralled with its rendition as the last century concluded apparently matured and the catcalls of "Timmy!" faded.

But now they are back.

The article recounts how the "phenomenon ha(s) returned to a new young generation." Through the wonders and magic of social media, today's youth is "take(ing) part in trends by using the audio of popular videos" with their own video creations. TikTok is specifically mentioned, but the spectrum of potentials is broad.

So, the character of "Timmy!" has returned to Mr. Taylor's life, and perhaps to others' as well. Mr. Taylor recounts how he responds to the exuberant "Timmy" as he encounters it today. With the young, his simple response is merely "really?" But for the older, he writes to express the pain caused by this simple reference, seen by too many as a simple and acceptable humor.

There are a vast variety of humans on this planet, and we are persistent in our interactions. We are often in close proximity to our fellow travelers. and can frequently choose how to engage them, or not. But there is a limit to the breadth of avoidance for anyone. 

Another interesting example was recently published by the BBC regarding ordeals a blind man faces with his guide dog. In it, there is perhaps a valuable comparison or illustration. He recounts various instances of being turned away by restaurants that do not welcome his dog, despite it being his "guide." with legal protections. He has apparently publicized these on social media and received messages and support.

However, the messages have not always been positive, nor have real-time reactions from fellow patrons. Interestingly, his plea is that he be treated equally. This may come down to a matter of perspective, as equality may be in the eyes of the beholder.

From his perspective, equal means him being able to access services such as a restaurant, despite that necessitating the attendance of a canine. To others, equality might be being able to eat in a public restaurant without the tribulations that come from their allergies to, or fears of, canines. Here we would have a collision of individual rights, and likely no overriding and undeniable "correct" answer.

In one, a patron is turned away because he must have a dog. In the other, a patron is turned away by the presence of a dog. The law steps in to ameliorate a harm to one. However, some would see that legal solution as merely creating a burden on the other individual. Whose health, comfort, and accommodation are the more important for society to protect?

The bottom line, in our complex society, is that there will be instances in which the rights of various individuals will collide. The law will struggle with sorting those particular conflicts, both in crafting and interpretation. Many harken to a quote attributed to Ruth Ginsburg: "Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie." That is an unfortunate characterization. 

Pie is precisely what it may be. More for one dose not mean less for another? Tell that to the person who must forego peanuts or the person who must suffer the exposure. One must have less rights than the other. The inevitability of that is intractable. Society, politicians, and laws will strive to create and impose balance among them, but inevitably those conflicts will at least periodically mean "less rights" for someone. 

That is challenging, and to many will be troubling. One airline patron insists on peanuts, and the passenger across the aisle readies her/himself to administer a medication if there is a reaction. Their proximity in a public accommodation brings their individual rights and desires to the fore, along with the potential for conflict. It is complex.

Less so, I suggest, is the boisterous "Timmy." Just as we might accept that the dog, peanut, allergy conflict is difficult, we might as easily accept that the "Timmy!" is easy. There is insult and damage to the "Timmy," and no countervailing value or conflicting right. 

Certainly, some would say "freedom of expression." Yes, you technically have the right to say anything you wish in most regards. Except on some subjects and some platforms. But there is harm there, in that flippant "Timmy!," without corresponding benefit. There is no value in "Timmy" other than demeaning someone for the sake of a laugh, and there is no value in such a laugh.

The discussions of rights will continue. There will be persistent and recurrent conflict and friction. There will be difficult choices of who gets how much pie. But there will also be examples that offer simple solutions, like don't shout Timmy for your own entertainment at someone else's expense. 

For clarity, you are nonetheless welcome to ridicule people for their selection of favorite football teams, etc. That is a choice. Often a poor one, but a choice. 

Stay out of my Garage

I purchased a shovel at the local hardware store a couple of years ago. It was a seemingly simple transaction in which I used hard-earned currency minted by the U.S. government, for which I had exchanged my labor. I handed that currency to this vendor, at a price it demanded, and I received my shovel. 

I transported that shovel home and used it for various tasks and challenges in my yard. I even loaned it to a neighbor a few times for the sake of community. 

Periodically, the folks from the "hardware store" come by my home and rummage about in my garage. They have sanded over and remodeled that shovel a few times over the last few years. They claim that their efforts will make this a better shovel. They are sometimes all about the "new and improved." 

I am usually surprised when these remodels occur. The "hardware store" people simple let themselves into my garage as and when they wish. To them, somehow, the value exchange that I perceived as purchasing a shovel is somehow more of a lease. They perceive this to be their shovel and that I am mere licensee, possessor, or chaperone. 

To be honest, I am sure there have been some shovel remodels that I never even noticed. To me, the real point is whether that tool will dig a hole or not. I am not interested in the paint job, decals, or even warning labels. As an aside, when did we reach a point where a shovel needed a warning label?

Recently, however, the "hardware store" folks came in the night and apparently renovated my (or "their") shovel yet again. I noticed because they changed the locks on my garage when they left. Not only was the shovel different, but I could not get it out of the garage. I had to use another tool to research how to get past their proprietary locks. 

They were no longer satisfied with their periodic forays into my home, but felt compelled to lock me out of it in the process. When I tried to enter my garage, their new locks asked me to "log in" with their company so that they could track my use of both the garage and the shovel. Their vision was that I would "sign in" with their security as a protection.

No, I soon learned that I did not have to either have or create a "hardware store" account to gain access to my own garage. The Internet taught me that I could simply use the old-fashioned override of Ctrl-Alt-Delete, and then select "sign out" to avoid their presumptuous intrusion into my space. 

Yes, the shovel allegory is false. Actually, I purchased a software and use it on a computer. The company that wrote it pushes their updates and amendments into that software at their will, on their schedule, and with their demands and requirements. There is no request for permission or opportunity to decline. In this one-way relationship, they are entitled to both my money and their unilateral control of my purchase. 

The model is deeply intriguing. It is amazing that the seller is reaching into my home to alter my purchase. It is worse, however, when they purport to require my acquiescence to their invasion and change the locks on my doors. That said, I am certain that I agreed to this relationship somewhere in the litany that was followed by that initial "Accept" click that completed the initial lease agreement.   

Somehow that does not forestall the sting of wasting time researching and deploying the "Ctrl-Alt-Delete" alternative. And I am reminded of the old adage that if you are not the customer, you are the product. Time and again, people have said that the distinction is if something is "free," like social media. But in this instance, I both paid for the product and am still apparently the product. 

Is Gartner Helpful on AI?

As many are, I am focusing significant energy on the Artificial Intelligence (AI). See X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024). I will be striving to comprehend the tools and discuss the implications in coming days. The topic is not new to me. I have published a few articles on robotics, technology, and AI before (a list is included in this post). X-Files or Poltergeist? focused on Turing. Today, I turn to Gartner for some referential perspective. 

 

The world is waking up slowly to the idea of AI. One illustration is the intense interest of a small population of lawyers. One voluntary organization of lawyers, the American Bar Association (ABA), is interested from the standpoints of its Science and Technology Section, Intellectual Property Law Section, Civil Rights And Social Justice Section, Government And Public Sector Section, International Law Section, and Cybersecurity Section.

That is a broad front. It is important to persistently reiterate that the ABA does not speak for all lawyers. It is a private group to which some lawyers belong. It has a history of addressing legal issues, but that has included some perceptions of detours beyond the law into social issues. In short, the organization has both supporters and detractors.

There are lawyers who are concerned about AI. They are concerned about its evolution and influence on the practice of law. As a trade group of and for lawyers, that is seemingly in the organization’s wheelhouse. Some fear self-preservation. Some fear change more foundationally. Some simply fear. And there is also concern beyond the practice of law, and the potential that some will see those as social issues. See Rights for the Toaster (October 2024).

There have been expressions of recognition that we are on a threshold. I have not heard from any speaker that there is confidence regarding the current state of AI. Some have mentioned the various large language models (LLM), the forays of some into “proofs of concepts,” and the theoretical potentials that are foreseen. 

Many are in the market today promoting their products as solutions. They are met with the gamut from horror to skepticism to curiosity to buy in. AI currently exists but remains imperfect, mistrusted, and experimental. 

As I listen to so many discuss AI, I am reminded inexorably of Winston Churchill. Sure, find me two other people who get to Winston on the topic of AI and I would love to have a drink and chat with them. But Winston is credited with

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

I would suggest that AI today is neither the harbinger of doom for human existence nor the ultimate panacea. It will be different things to different people. Some will engage it for good and others not so much. It is perhaps helpful to view the innovation through a lens.

One that is talked about regarding technology is the Gardner Hype Cycle. I have heard it applied to the current AI posture. That is a worthy consideration and perhaps an uncomfortable one for some. The world is replete with human interpretations of phenomena and occurrences. We refer to these maxims in an attempt to understand our world and describe both perception and belief about our surroundings, posture, and progress.

The Gartner Hype Cycle is one such description applied to technology innovation. I do not endorse this or any description (lens), but I find it informative. Gartner captures the potential for a euphoric reaction to “when new technologies make bold promises.” This is cyclical and repetitive, but you have generally needed to stick around a while to notice that. With the speed of technology accelerating, perceiving that repetition may become more ready.

Who (or what) is Gartner?

The "Gartner Hype Cycle" is not focused on an outcome, but a process. It is intended to facilitate decision-making for those who are faced with (r)evolutionary technological leaps. Professionally and personally, we are faced with opportunities and decisions both in what we do and how we do it. Gartner provides five moments that may occur with any new technology and focuses us on the potential path it will take.

First is the “innovation trigger.” This is the advent of something latest and greatest. It occurs when someone makes public some “proof-of-concept,” which excites the marketplace. Think of the news story for the first cell phone test, internet watch, or self-driving car. There are excited claims and we all think to ourselves what it might be like to have a flying car.

Think of the news story that those two bicycle guys had managed to defy gravity with a heavier-than-air flight down in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina (1903). There was ample excitement. It pays to be first. Their names will forever be linked to flight. 

Second is the “peak of inflated expectations.” In this evolutionary era, there are some success stories in the news. Trade magazines with a more narrow focus start to discuss the idea. Amongst the successes, there are “scores of failures.” At this moment, there are both births and deaths of start-ups. The survivors will be the ones blessed with focus leadership, significant capital reserves, and frequently bold risk attitudes.

Many jumped into the fray with efforts to both copy the Wright Brother’s initial success and to exceed their progress. There is little to be gained in a flight like theirs (12 seconds, I can hold my breath that long). Being first is exciting, but those who followed needed to fly farther, faster, higher, longer, etc. to generate news coverage and interest. There is rarely newsworthiness in doing what the guy down the street did yesterday. 

Third is the onset of reality. The “trough of disillusionment.” Here, there is some “fail(ure) to deliver” and a resulting marketplace malaise. High hopes turn to disappointment either in the extent of fulfillment (it does not work as promised or has unforeseen shortcomings) or the timing (think of a product that had a promised roll-out date, but then was not on the shelves for years after).

Aircraft innovators and adopters found danger, failure, and death. There was reporting of some excitement, but once the initial Kitty Hawk news coverage cooled, there was little marketplace appreciation for how and when this might impact their individual lives. There was a long pull between Kitty Hawk and today's flights (today, daily: “45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers across more than 29 million square miles of airspace.”).

Fourth is the “slope of enlightenment.” Here, after some patience and adaptation, we see repetitive instances of viable deployment. The benefits of the innovation become more credible through reproduction, further innovation, and evolution. There “appear second- and third-generation products” with the technology. The “proof-of-concept” becomes proof-of-application. There will be increased access to resources and rewards as this slope develops.

The airplane was invented in America. But, its slope of enlightenment began instead in Paris (no, not Texas, the other one). The intrepid Wright Brothers showed their innovation to the world there. The flights were repeated, accessible, and exciting. There was talk of adaptation and integration. The acceptance and deployment will depend on excitement.

Finally, fifth, we reach the “plateau of productivity.” Here, there is “mainstream adoption” of the innovation per se or of integrating it into existing mainstream process. There is a broader grasp of both risk and benefit afforded by the innovation, and with stronger information access various market elements will make informed adoption or integration decisions.

Florida was the site of “productivity.” It was here that the first scheduled commercial flight occurred. It was here that the U.S. Navy bought in with a base designed around training pilots and implementing heavier-than-air aircraft deployment.

In this stage, someone said “Let’s spray crops,” “drop bombs,” “survey,” “move mail,” and more. The marketplace found the “why” that justified investment in the “what.”

Is Gartner’s a rule? Not really. It is a series of labels or categorizations. Through its prism, the viewer is able to perceive the world of possibilities with a bit more order, organization, and hopefully clarity. There are numerous other paradigms that one might as or more compelling.

A similar attempt to label and describe (lens) is Moore’s law. See Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015); The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015); and Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024). 

And yet another is Turing’s Test (lens) see X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024).

These are no more absolute than generations. At any moment, we are living in a world in which some technology or innovation is in each of these Gartner periods. Remember that AI is not “an” invention or “a” tool, but is a new pathway to many inventions and tools. 

As various innovations travel parallel and describable paths, we are confronted with multiple choices regarding our adaptation to or of various potentials. Burdened with our own day-to-day, we are all presented with different opportunities which may each be the next iPhone or Edsell.

Tom Shullman wrote in Dead Poet's Society (Harvest Moon Publishing, 2001):

"There’s a time for daring and there’s a time for caution, and a wise man understands which is called for."

Are we wise, or are we simply pretending to be?

These postulates, like Gartner's, Turings, and Moores, bring us a touchstone. The human mind is prone to touchstone references because familiarity and brevity are comforting. The process labels help us to discuss and comprehend difficult and complex challenges. We are then able to make shorthand references to concepts, conflicts, or predictions in a way that is comforting to our own self-perception and reassuring. It also affords us the luxury of comparisons that aid our comprehension and communication.

In that process, we face the very real potential for the influence of human bias and other imperfections. That said, we are reasonably comfortable that the processors in your head are far more complex than the computers that are being engaged to emulate human thought. They will have advantages in speed and focus but will remain tools for our deployment and use.

The airplane did not end the world as they knew it at the turn of the 20th century. Neither will computers and their programs be the end of the world for us. These innovations are harbingers of change. The cheese will move. And yet, you and I will still be here performing the human function as these tools aid us in that enterprise.

Prior posts on AI and Robotics
Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024).