Irving Wladawsky-Berger

The Open Source AI and Data Ecosystem

“The availability of enterprise-grade open source software (OSS) is changing how organizations develop, maintain, and deliver products,” wrote Ibrahim Haddad in a recent report, Artificial Intelligence and Data in Open Source. Haddad is VP of Strategic Programs at the Linux Foundation (LF) and Executive Director of the LF AI & Data initiative. “Using and adopting OSS can offer many benefits, including reduced development costs, faster product development, higher code quality standards, and more. The open source methodology offers key and unique benefits to the domains of AI and data, specifically in areas of fairness, robustness, explainability, lineage, availability of data, and governance.”

Earlier this year, Stanford released the 2022 AI Index report, its fifth annual study on the impact and progress of AI. The Stanford report noted that “2021 was the year that AI went from an emerging technology to a mature technology - we’re no longer dealing with a speculative part of scientific research, but instead something that has real-world impact, both positive and negative.” 

A few weeks ago I wrote about the impressive scope of the Linux Foundation. The LF supports a large and growing number of open source projects in a wide variety of areas. AI is no different from other technology domains, so it’s not surprising that open source now plays a major role as AI is being increasingly integrated into the economy.

Web3 - Safeguarding Our Identity and Personal Data in the Digital World

Transformative technologies are generally accompanied by a mixture of excitement and confusion in their early years. Something important is going on out there, although there’s no consensus on what it is yet. A major reason for the lack of consensus is that there’s no single dimension around which to define an emerging technology or business model. It’s like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Each one touches a different part of the elephant. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

This was the case with the advent of the commercial internet in the early 1990s. A lot was starting to happen around the internet, but we weren’t sure where things were heading. It was pretty clear that a communications revolution was underway: after all, the internet was fundamentally a network of networks, and email was one of its earliest and most popular applications. It was also an information revolution: anyone with a browser, a PC, and an internet connection could now access all kinds of content in the new World Wide Web. And, above all, it promised to be an economic revolution: the internet ushered a historical transition to a new kind of digital economy, including many innovative e-business applications.

Over the past few decades, the term internet has come to encompass a number of related technologies including broadband networks, mobile devices, social media, cloud computing, e-commerce platforms, big data, AI, and more. More recently, we’ve seen the emergence of a new set of technologies and business models that are once more generating excitement, confusion, and multiple opinions on what they’re all about: Web3.

Last week I wrote about web3, referencing two recent books: the just-published Digital Asset Revolution by Alex Tapscott, and the soon-to-be-published Think Blockchain by Jerry Cuomo.

I wrote that web3 aims to usher a more open, entrepreneurial internet and digital economy by replacing today’s corporate mega-platforms with blockchain-based decentralized networks. Web3 would thus give creators, developers and users a way to monetize their contributions, involve them in the governance and decision-making of the platforms supporting their work, and give individuals more privacy and control over their data.

I now want to discuss another perspective on web3 based on The Emerging New Economy: Causes and Consequences of Web 3.0, a recent Stanford seminar by Alex (Sandy) Pentland, MIT professor and faculty director of the MIT Connection Science Research initiative, - with which I’ve long been affiliated as a Connection Science Fellow.

The Potential Impact of Web3 on the Internet and the Digital Economy

A few weeks ago, the Blockchain Research Institute (BRI) announced that its annual global conference would be renamed Web3 Blockchain World, and that the Enterprise Blockchain Awards would now be called the Web3 & Blockchain Transformation Awards.

I’ve been affiliated with BRI for a number of years as a research contributor and as chair of its blockchain awards committee. I was somewhat concerned with the name change, because, as is generally true of new technologies in their early stages, there are multiple views of what web3 is all about. Critics view web3 as little more than hype, a rebranding effort to shed some of the cultural and political baggage of crypto, while supporters believe that web3 represents the future of the internet, upending traditional gatekeepers and ushering a middleman-free digital economy.

Over the following weeks I learned from BRI founder Don Tapscott his reasoning behind the decision that BRI should embrace web3 in its research and events. I read Think Blockchain, a book by IBM Fellow and VP of Blockchain Technologies Jerry Cuomo that will be published later this month. I read the section on Web3 and the New Internet of Value in Digital Asset Revolution, a book by BRI co-founder Alex Tapscott that was just published earlier this week. And I looked at a number of articles from both supporters and critics of web3.

In the end, I became convinced that web3 is now where the commercial internet was in the early 1990s, cloud computing in the late 2000s, and blockchain in the mid 2010s: a very promising set of technologies and applications in their early years. While, at this stage it’s not yet clear how it will evolve, it’s time to start paying serious attention to web3 and try to influence its directions. Let me briefly share my views of web3.

How to Build Organizational Resilience to Cyberattacks

I became quite interested in cybersecurity around a year ago, given the growing threats of cyberattacks by criminal groups and adversarial governments. I then joined CAMS, MIT’s interdisciplinary cybersecurity consortium and started attending its online weekly seminars. A few weeks ago I attended a CAMS seminar on cyber resilience by Manuel Hepfer, a research affiliate at Oxford University and a research analyst at ISTARI, a cyber risk management company.

What is cyber resilience? While cybersecurity is the practice of protecting critical systems and sensitive information from digital attacks, cyber resilience is the ability to prepare for, withstand, and recover rapidly from any major disruption, whether an intentional cyberattack or a natural disaster.

The seminar was based on a study by Hepfer and colleagues of the 2017 NotPetya ransomware attacks, a series of powerful cyberattacks which caused over $10 billion in global economic damage across a number of industries. Their study was primarily focused on three global companies that were the subject of NotPetya attacks: a logistics company with over 60,000 employees, a manufacturing one with over 20,000 employees, and a third in professional services with over 5,000 employees.

The study conducted around 50 interviews with senior executives across the three companies, including CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and CISOs. In addition, it reviewed internal documents, presentations, press releases, newspaper coverage, and audio and video files related to events before, during, and after the attack. Their study was published in two articles in the MIT Sloan Management Review, the first in 2020, the second in 2022.

Can We Trust Our Impressive AI Language Models?

One of the key findings of the 2022 AI Index Report was that large language models (LLMs) are setting records on technical benchmarks thanks to advances in deep neural networks and computational power that allows them to be trained using huge amounts of data. LLMs are now surpassing human baselines in a number of complex language tasks, including English language understanding, text summarization, natural language inference, and machine translation.

A.I. Is Mastering Language. Should We Trust What It Says?, a recent NY Times Magazine article by science writer Steven Johnson, took a close look at one such LLM, the Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3, generally referred to as GPT-3. GPT-3 was created by the AI research company OpenAI. It’s been trained with over 700 gigabytes of data from across the web, along with a large collection of text from digitized books. “Since GPT-3’s release, the internet has been awash with examples of the software’s eerie facility with language - along with its blind spots and foibles and other more sinister tendencies,” said Johnson.

“So far, the experiments with large language models have been mostly that: experiments probing the model for signs of true intelligence, exploring its creative uses, exposing its biases. But the ultimate commercial potential is enormous. If the existing trajectory continues, software like GPT-3 could revolutionize how we search for information in the next few years.” Instead of typing a few keywords into Google and getting back a long list of links that might have the answer, you’d ask GPT-3 what you’re looking for in English and get back a well-written, accurate answer. “Customer service could be utterly transformed: Any company with a product that currently requires a human tech-support team might be able to train an L.L.M. to replace them.”

A Human-Compatible Safe, Controllable AI

“Even in its present state, the technology of artificial intelligence raises many concerns as it transitions from research into widespread use,” wrote UC Berkeley professor Stuart Russell in a recent essay, If We Succeed. “These concerns include potential misuses such as cybercrime, surveillance, disinformation, and political manipulation; the exacerbation of inequality and of many forms of bias in society; the creation and deployment of lethal autonomous weapons; and the usurpation of human roles in the economy and in social relationships.”

“My concern here, however, is with the potential consequences of success in creating general-purpose AI: that is, systems capable of quickly learning to perform at a high level in any task environment where humans (or collections of humans) can perform well.” Decades ago, Alan Turing expressed a similar concern. While answering a question during a lecture in 1951, Turing said: “It seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. … At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control.” Over the past decade, a number of public figures like Stephen Hawking and Nick Bostrom have argued that a superintelligent AI could become difficult or impossible for humans to control, and might even pose an existential threat to humanity.

Until recently, we didn’t have to worry about the consequences of such superhuman AIs because AI applications weren’t all that smart and were mostly confined to research labs. But, powerful AI systems have now matched or surpassed human levels of performance in a number of application- specific tasks such as image and speech recognition, skin cancer classification, breast cancer detection, and complex games like Jeopardy and Go. While these application-specific breakthroughs, - generally referred to as soft, or narrow AI, - were once viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, AI still lacks the deeper, general-purpose human intelligence that’s long been measured in IQ tests.

The Digital Divide in How We Use the Internet

A few weeks ago I attended an MIT seminar by Esteban Moro, professor at Universidad Carlos III in Madrid and visiting professor at MIT. Moro’s talk discussed the socio-economic digital divide based on how we use the internet, focused on two key questions: how profound is the digital usage gap in our society?; and can we use mobile phone traffic to infer socioeconomic status? His seminar was based on a recently published article in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface co-authored with four collaborators, - News or social media? Socio-economic divide of mobile service consumption.

“Inequality is a central societal problem, especially within rapidly expanding urban areas,” wrote the authors. “While it is a crucial driver for economic growth, the progressive clusterization of workers, industries, companies and services in cities has a tremendous cost in terms of segregation and discrimination. This cost is not only economic: in the same city, different areas can have a 10- to 15-year imbalance in life expectancy and highly divergent education levels, with little chances of social mobility.”

“The design and successful implementation of policies to alleviate these problems require fine-grained, frequently updated information about income, education or inequality across metropolitan areas,” they added. “However, most data sources employed today, such as population censuses or surveys, suffer from sparsity in population coverage or infrequent updating, hence they do not allow the swift evolution that urban societies experience nowadays to be followed. Thus, the traditional ways of understanding cities tend to explain what happened 5 years earlier rather than nowcasting or even predicting urban transformations.”

In his seminar, Moro referred to the socio-economic divide based on how we use the internet as the second digital divide, in contrast to the original digital divide which was based on access to the internet.

The 2022 Work Trend Index: How to Get Hybrid Right

“The people returning to the office are not the same as those who left in March 2020,” wrote Jared Spataro, Microsoft Corporate VP for Modern Work, in a recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, 5 Key Trends Leaders Need to Understand to Get Hybrid Right. The article summarized the findings of Microsoft’s 2022 Work Trend Index, a report based on various sources of information, including a survey of 31,000 people in 31 countries, labor trends from LinkedIn, and trillions of signals from Microsoft 365 suite of productivity apps.

“The data shows that the past two years left an indelible mark on the psyche of workers, altering their expectations and fundamentally shifting the way work gets done,” said Spataro. “This is a pivotal moment, where leadership matters more than ever. Those who embrace a new mindset and shift cultural norms will best position their people and their business for long-term success. Adapting to the influx of change in this business environment is no easy feat.”

“After many false starts, organizations are finally making the shift into a true hybrid work model. Like every other turning point over the past two years, there’s no shortage of perspectives on what this next phase will look like.” However, there’s no going back to the way work once was. Adapting to the many changes in this business environment is a challenge now facing every leader. To navigate the transition to hybrid work, leaders need to understand five key trends.

Beyond GDP: A Framework for Measuring Economic Progress

“What is meant by economic progress, and how should it be measured?,” asked economists Diane Coyle and Leonard Nakamura in a recent paper, Time Use and Household-Centric Measurement of Welfare in the Digital Economy. “The conventional answer is growth in real GDP over time or compared across countries, a monetary measure adjusted for the general rate of increase in prices. However, there is increasing interest in developing an alternative understanding of economic progress, particularly in the context of digitalization of the economy and the consequent significant changes Internet use is bringing about in production and household activity.”

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) became the accepted international measure of economic progress in the 1940s. It was a good measure for an industrial economy dominated by the production of physical goods, but GDP doesn’t reflect important economic activity beyond production, such as income, consumption and quality of life, nor does it capture measures of economic welfare or utility, that is, the extent to which a service or good satisfies an individual’s wants and needs. In addition, GDP doesn’t include the value of the increasing amounts of free information goods now available in the Internet-based digital economy, including email, texts, social media, maps, apps and videos.

In their paper, Coyle and Nakamura propose an alternative approach for measuring economic progress based on how much time people spend on different daily activities - e.g., paid work, household tasks, leisure, and consumption - combined with measures of well-being while engaged in these different activities. “In an economy that is four-fifths services rather than goods, with time to consume therefore inherent in the majority of economic activity, the utility of the different uses of time seems key to understanding economic welfare as well as productivity.”

How Do Young People See the World Compared to Older Generations?

“There is an emerging narrative about a growing intergenerational divide worldwide,” said a recent international survey conducted by The Changing Childhood Project. “In the media and in popular culture, the young are often portrayed as impatient, militant, outspoken, and even entitled, in contrast to more sober temperaments among older people. The concept of intergenerational tension is not new. What may be new, however, is the speed with which our world is changing – and with it, childhood.”

The Changing Childhood Project is a collaboration between UNICEF, - the UN agency responsible for providing humanitarian and developmental aid to children around the world, - and Gallup, - the analytics company best known for its international opinion polls. Created to explore these intergenerational shifts, the project seeks to answer a few key questions: what is it like growing up today?; how do young people see the world differently?; and, is there an intergenerational gap?

The 2022 AI Index Report: AI’s Emerging Real-World Impact

On March 16, Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) released the 2022 AI Index report, its fifth annual study on the impact and progress of AI. The comprehensive study was led by an interdisciplinary group of experts from across academia and industry, and highlights the rapid rate of technical and marketplace AI advances, as well as the growing ethical and regulatory concerns associated with AI.

“2021 was the year that AI went from an emerging technology to a mature technology - we’re no longer dealing with a speculative part of scientific research, but instead something that has real-world impact, both positive and negative,” said Jack Clark, co-chair of the AI Index. “This year’s AI Index tells us that AI is being integrated into the economy and the effects of it are beginning to go global across research, deployment, and even funding.” Two weeks ago I attended an online HAI seminar where Clark gave this excellent presentation on the AI Index.

The report is organized into five chapters: Technical Performance, AI Ethics, R&D, Economy and Education, and Policy and Governance. Let me summarize the key findings of each chapter.

What Is Web3, and Could It Usher a New Economic System?

Bitcoin was introduced in 2008 with the release of Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, which explained how to design a decentralized cryptocurrency and digital payment system without the need for central banks or trusted intermediaries. Blockchain, the digital ledger for managing and certifying the validity of bitcoin transactions, was introduced in the same paper.

Over the years blockchain has transcended its original objectives, and has evolved in two major directions. One continues to focus on blockchain as the underlying platform for bitcoin, but it’s also become the platform for the large number of cryptocurrencies, digital tokens, and other cryptoassets that have since been created. The other is focused on the use of blockchain as a trusted distributed data base for private and public sector applications involving multiple institutions, such as supply chains, financial services and healthcare. The cryptocurrency camp is based on public permissionless blockchains, which anyone can join and require some kind of proof-of-work or proof-of-stake systems. The multi-institution camp is based primarily on private permissioned blockchains where participation is restricted to the institutions transacting with each other.

Given my professional interests, I’m particularly interested in the use of blockchains in business and public sector applications for two major reasons. First, I consider blockchain as a major next step in the continuing evolution of the Internet, helping us enhance the security of Internet transactions and data by developing a layer with the standard encrypted services for secure communication, storage and data access. And, longer term, blockchain technologies can significantly improve the efficiency, resilience, and management of complex global applications involving multiple institutions.

But, while I’ve been somewhat skeptical of the crypto camp, a number of intriguing crypto-related topics have recently captured my attention, including Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and especially Web3. These various topics were nicely explained by technology columnist Kevin Roose in The Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto, an article in the March 20 SundayBusiness section of the NY Times.

The Widening Gap Between Technological and Institutional Change

A few weeks ago I read The Exponential Age Will Transform Economics Forever, an article in Wired by Azeem Azhar based on his recently published book The Exponential Age. Azhar’s central thesis is that the chasm between what technology allows us to do and what our institutions are prepared to handle has been rapidly widening. New technologies are being invented and scaled at an ever-faster pace. But our institutions, - including our economic systems, political organizations and social norms, - are changing much more slowly. While technological advances follow an exponential curve, institutional adaptation follow a straight, incremental line.

The gap between technological and institutional change is nothing new. Ever since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, there’s been a significant time lag between the emergence of a transformative technology and its ensuing impact on economies and societies. Even after reaching a tipping point of market acceptance, it takes considerable time, - often decades, - for their benefits to be fully realized.

In The Productivity J-Curve, a 2018 NBER paper, Erik Brynjolfsson, Daniel Rock, and Chad Syverson  explained that general purpose, transformative technologies, - such as the steam engine, electricity, and semiconductors, - “are the defining technologies of their times and can radically change the economic environment. They have great potential from the outset, but realizing that potential requires larger intangible and often unmeasured investments and a fundamental rethinking of the organization of production itself.”

The life cycle of historically transformative technologies consists of two district phases, investment and harvesting. Since the technologies are general purpose in nature, they require massive complementary investments, including business process redesign, co-invention of new products and business models, and the re-skilling of the workforce. Moreover, the more transformative the technologies, the longer it takes for them to reach the harvesting phase when they are widely embraced by individuals, companies and industries across the economy.

The Impact of Open Source on the EU Economy

In the 1990s, open source was generally viewed as experimental approach to software development mostly used by research and academic communities on emerging projects like the Internet and Linux. Open source has since evolved to become a well-accepted model of economic production across just about all private- and public-sector communities around the world. But, while widely used, what’s been the economic impact of open source on nations and firms? This question was addressed in a recent study on the impact of open source on the European economy.

“The increasing relevance of Open Source (OS) during the last two decades requires an update of an in-depth analysis of its current role, position and its potential for the European economy,” said the European Commission (EC) in its report on The impact of open source software and hardware on technological independence, competitiveness and innovation in the EU economy.

“Whereas Open Source Software (OSS) has become mainstream across all sectors of the software industry during the past 20 years, Open Source Hardware (OSH) is still in an emerging phase. However, the business ecosystem for OSH is developing.”

The EC conducted a comprehensive analysis of the commercial uses, costs, and benefits of OSS and OSH. “On the basis of this information, the study assesses the potential for the European Union (EU) to achieve its policy goals (including economic growth, greater competitiveness, innovation, and job creation) through the use, promotion and support of OSS and OSH.”

The Rise and Fall of Nation-States

Several weeks ago I attended The End of Nation-States, by technology executive and consultant Tomás Pueyo, - part of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab seminar series. In May of 2021, Pueyo launched Unchartered Territories, a newsletter he describes as aiming to explore the unchartered territories of a fast changing world “to know how we can prepare for them.”

His seminar discussed the role of information technologies in the rise of nation-states throughout history, and how information technologies are likely to lead to the end of nation-states in the coming decades. Let me summarize Pueyo’s key arguments based on his talk and two related newsletters.

The Rise of Nation-States

In Internet and Blockchain Will Kill Nation-States, published in August of 2021, Pueyo explained how the printing press led to the emergence of nation-states in the 16th century.

The feudal system was the basic structure of society between the 9th and 15th centuries in medieval Europe. Feudalism was based on the relationship between a landed-aristocracy, - e.g., kings, dukes, counts, - and the vassals under their protection who vowed them allegiance. Power in the feudal system was hyperlocal and widely distributed across different landowners. Communication was difficult across different localities, since they each generally spoke different dialects or altogether different languages.

The Catholic Church was the biggest power in medieval Europe. The root of its power was the Church's well organized hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope, all of which were able to communicate with each other far better than everyone else, - aristocrats and vassals alike.

Getting Ready for the 100-Year Life

“In the United States, demographers predict that as many as half of today’s 5-year-olds can expect to live to the age of 100,” said The New Map of Life, a recent report from the Stanford Center on Longevity. The   cross-disciplinary Stanford Center was founded in 2007 to conduct research on the key issues associated with increased longevity, - from cognitive health to physical well-being and financial security, - with the aim to make long lives healthy and rewarding.

While the 100-year life may be here, we’re not ready. “By the middle of this century, this once unattainable milestone may become the norm for newborns, continuing a remarkable trend that saw human life expectancies double between 1900 and 2000, and still rising in this century, despite the grievous toll of the Covid-19 pandemic,” notes the report. “Longevity is one of the greatest achievements in human history, brought about by reductions in infant mortality, advances in sanitation and medicine, public education, and rising standards of living. Yet the change came about so quickly that the social institutions, economic policies, and social norms that evolved when people lived for half as long are no longer up to the task.”

According to the Stanford Center, there’s a clear distinction between aging and longevity. Aging is the biological process of getting older - the accumulation of changes in a human being over time. Longevity is “the measure of long life,” - the ways to enhance the quality of a long life “so that people experience a sense of belonging, purpose, and worth at all ages and stages.”

The Promise & Peril of Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

In his 1950 seminal paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Alan Turing proposed what’s famously known as the Turing test, - a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. If a human at a keyboard couldn’t tell whether they were interacting with a machine or a human, the machine is considered to have passed the Turing test. “Ever since, creating intelligence that matches human intelligence has implicitly or explicitly been the goal of thousands of researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs,” wrote Erik Brynjolfsson, - Stanford professor and Director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, - in a recent article, The Turing Trap: The Promise & Peril of Human-Like Artificial Intelligence.

“The benefits of human-like artificial intelligence (HLAI) include soaring productivity, increased leisure, and perhaps most profoundly, a better understanding of our own minds. But not all types of AI are human-like - in fact, many of the most powerful systems are very different from humans - and an excessive focus on developing and deploying HLAI can lead us into a trap. … On the one hand, it is a path to unprecedented wealth, increased leisure, robust intelligence, and even a better understanding of ourselves. On the other hand, if HLAI leads machines to automate rather than augment human labor, it creates the risk of concentrating wealth and power. And with that concentration comes the peril of being trapped in an equilibrium where those without power have no way to improve their outcomes, a situation I call the Turing Trap.”

Over the past decade, powerful AI systems have matched or surpassed human levels of performance in a number of tasks such as image and speech recognition, applications like skin cancer classification and breast cancer detection, and complex games like Jeopardy and Go. These AI breakthroughs are generally referred to as soft, narrow or specialized AI, inspired by, but not aiming to mimic the human brain. They’ve been generally based on machine learning, that is, on the analysis of vast amounts of information using powerful computers and sophisticated algorithms, whose results exhibit qualities that we associate with human intelligence.

The Work of the Future Is Ours to Invent

The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines, by David Autor, David Mindell and Elisabeth Reynolds was published last week. The new book is based on the multiyear MIT Task Force on The Work of the Future that they jointly co-chaired.

The Task Force was commissioned by MIT President Rafael Reif in the spring of 2018 to address one of the most critical questions of the digital economy, - an economy that technology universities like MIT have played a major role in bringing about: as emerging technologies raise aggregate economic output and the wealth of nations, will they also enable people to attain higher living standards, better working conditions, greater economic security, and improved health and longevity? Led by Autor, Mindell and Reynolds, the task force involved over 20 faculty members from 12 departments at MIT as well as more than 20 graduate students. Its final report was released in November of 2020. In addition, the Task Force published a number of working papers and research briefs.

“Amidst a technological ecosystem delivering rising productivity, and an economy generating plenty of jobs (at least until the COVID-19 crisis), we found a labor market in which the fruits are so unequally distributed, so skewed towards the top, that the majority of workers have tasted only a tiny morsel of a vast harvest.” was the Task Force overarching conclusion. But, it argued that with better policies in place, more people could enjoy good careers even as new technologies transform the very nature of work.

Let me summarize the Task Force key findings which the book builds on:

Is It Possible to Establish Norms for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace?

In mid-December, the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored a virtual roundtable with Joseph Nye, - former dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, - to discuss his recent Foreign Affairs article The End of Anarchy?: How to Build a New Digital Order. Professor Nye has long been regarded as one of America’s preeminent strategic thinkers and political scientists. In the 1970s he chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and over the past decade he’s brought his expertise to the study of conflict and deterrence in cyberspace.

Cybersecurity is an increasingly important aspect of the of US national security strategy, including global trade and the protection of our critical infrastructures. In June of 2021, FBI Director Christopher Wray compared the danger of ransomware attacks on US firms by Russian criminal groups to the September 11 terrorist attacks. And, in a July editorial, the NY times said that ransomware attacks have emerged as “a formidable potential threat to national security,” given “their ability to seriously disrupt economies and to breach strategically critical enterprises or agencies,” urging governments that “It is a war that needs to be fought, and won.”

At an MIT conference in February of 2019, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was asked if we need cybersecurity control agreements with Russia, China and other nations similar to the nuclear arms control agreements that he spent so much time negotiating during the Cold War. Dr. Kissinger replied that for arms control to be effective, the two sides needed to share information and agree to inspections. But such mechanisms are harder to apply in the digital world, because the transparency that was essential for arms control would be very hard to establish for cyber threats. In addition, while controls of physical arms are relatively explicable and negotiable, the variety and speed of cyber attacks make it much harder to develop adequate control agreements.

What’s the State of Our Digital Technology Revolution?

I first met Carlota Perez in the mid-2000s when she gave a seminar at IBM based on her 2002 bestseller Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. At the time, we had been living through a series of major changes, - the explosive growth of the Internet, the advent of the digital economy, the dot-com bubble, and the bursting of the bubble. In her excellent presentation Perez explained these turbulent times by positioning them within the historical perspective she wrote about in her book.

If you look at the historical big picture, patterns begin to emerge which serve as a good guide for understanding the past and thinking about the future. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution we’ve had 5 major technological revolutions, each one lasting roughly 40 to 60 years. First was the age of machines, factories and canals starting in 1771. This was followed by the age of steam, railways, iron and coal, starting in 1829; steel, electricity and heavy engineering in 1875; oil, automobiles, and mass production in 1908, and our present information technology and telecommunications (ICT) digital age starting in 1971.

Technology revolutions are engines of growth, ushering new paradigms for innovation, rejuvenating and transforming the economy, and re-shaping social behavior and the institutions of society. To better understand the dynamics of a technology revolution, we should split it into two different periods, each lasting 20 to 30 years.

A New Measurement Framework for the Digital Economy

Several weeks ago I heard a very interesting keynote presentation by Cambridge professor Diane Coyle at the annual workshop of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, - What Don’t We Know About Measuring the Digital Economy? Professor Coyle is also a research associate of the UK Economics Statistics Centre of Excellence. In 2017 she was a recipient of the Indigo Prize on how to measure economic activity in the digital economy for her essay Making the Future Count, co-authored with Benjamin Mitra-Kahn.

“GDP captures only market transactions at the price of exchange, and not the welfare gains, externalities, environment, distribution of wealth or innovation which occurs in an economy,” wrote the authors. “Hence almost since its creation in the 1940s it has been criticised for its inability to capture economic welfare. Now changes in the economy, being restructured by digital technology and paying the price for unsustainable growth, make the case for a new measurement framework more pressing than ever. GDP was never an ideal measure of economic welfare and its suitability has been decreasing.”

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) became the accepted international measure of economies in the1940s. While being a good measure for the 20th century industrial economy, GDP is a flawed measure for the 21st century economy. It was suitable when the economy was dominated by the production of physical goods, but GDP doesn’t adequately capture the growing share of services and other intangible assets that now characterize advanced economies. Nor does it reflect important economic activity beyond production, such as income, consumption and living standards.

The World Ahead 2022: Adjusting to New Realities

A few weeks ago The Economist published The World  Ahead 2022, its 36th annual look at the economic, political, social and cultural trends that will likely shape the coming year. “If 2021 was the year the world turned the tide against the pandemic, 2022 will be dominated by the need to adjust to new realities, both in areas reshaped by the crisis (the new world of work, the future of travel) and as deeper trends reassert themselves (the rise of China, accelerating climate change),” wrote the issue’s editor Tom Sandage.

Here are the top ten major trends in The World Ahead 2022:

New Ways of Understanding Human Behavior

“It is often said that no person is an island and it takes a village to raise a child, but psychology has largely lacked the scientific evidence to quantify and characterize these aphorisms,” wrote MIT professor Alex (Sandy) Pentland in Contextualizing Human Psychology, - an article published in the August, 2020 issue of Technology, Mind and Behavior, a journal of the American Psychological Association. “As a result, experimental focus is usually on more easily quantifiable individual traits and behaviors.”

“In the last decade, however, digital data from online interactions, cell phones, and credit cards have allowed us to precisely quantify large-scale social behavior at a very fine level of detail. The little data breadcrumbs that we leave behind as we move around in the world are enabling new ways of understanding human behavior, giving rise to the emerging discipline of computational social science. “[T]hese new tools can help relate individual traits to the surrounding social context and thus better explain life outcomes and societal characteristics.” 

The article illustrated the advances and challenges of data-driven predictions by discussing a 2017 mass collaboration experiment. The experiment asked each of 160 academic teams to predict six life outcomes, - such as a child’s grade point average and whether a family would be evicted from their home, - by analyzing development data of over 4.200 at-risk children from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. These data had been collected by interviewing primary caregivers over more than 15 years, as well as other assessments including early childhood education and the children’s scores on a variety of standard tests. Additional information was provided on the parents, including medical, employment, and incarceration histories, religion, and child care practices. Almost 13,000 measurements were made for each child and their family.

How Has Working from Home Worked Out So Far?

“COVID-19 triggered a mass social experiment in working from home (WFH),” said economists Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, and Stephen J. Davis in Why Working from Home Will Stick, a paper published in April of 2021 by the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER). “Americans, for example, supplied roughly half of paid workhours from home between April and December 2020, as compared to five percent before the pandemic. This seismic shift in working arrangements has attracted no shortage of opinions about whether WFH will stick.”

Working from home (WFH) has been around for decades, modestly growing in the 1990s with the rise of the Internet. The share of WFH three or more days per week was under 1% in 1980, 2.4% in 2010, and 4.0% in 2018. Then came Covid-19, forcing tens of millions around the world to work from home and triggering a mass workplace experiment that broke through the technological and cultural barriers that had prevented its adoption in the past.

To investigate whether WFH will stick, the authors of the NBER paper devised a survey that asked questions about working arrangements and personal experiences with WFH during the pandemic, as well as worker preferences and employer plans after the pandemic ends. The survey was conducted monthly between May 2020 and March 2021, by which time it had collected 28,597 valid responses from 20-64 years old US workers, of which 43.8% were female. The typical respondent was 40 to 50 years old, with one to three years of college, who earned $40 to $50 thousand in 2019.

Let me discuss a few of the survey’s questions and findings.

Which Colleges and College Programs Give Students the Best Bang for their Buck?

“The decision not to attend college for fear that it’s a bad deal is among the most economically irrational decisions anybody could make in 2014,” wrote NY Times journalist David Leonhardt in Is College Worth It? in May of 2014. “Over the long run, college is cheaper than free,” he added, citing an article by MIT economist David Autor which pointed out that a college-educated worker can expect an additional lifetime earning of over $500,000 compared to one whose highest degree is a high school diploma. Experts and journalists questioning the value of a college education are most likely obsessing to get their toddlers into an elite nursery school, so they are on-track for the right schools over the ensuing 20 years, added Leonhardt.

In May, 2019 seminar I attended, Autor noted that over the last four decades, the US and other industrial economies have seen a remarkable rise in wage inequality by educational attainment, with the earnings of the most-educated increasing, and the earnings of the least-educated falling in real terms. Since the 1980s, the earnings of those with a four year college degree have risen by 40% to 60%, while the earnings of those with a high school education or less have fallen among men and barely changed among women.

Every year, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a set of earning projections by educational attainment. Their 2020 projections showed that the median weekly earnings for all workers is $1,029; for those with less than a high school degree it is $619; high school diploma - $781; some college, no degree - $877; associate’s degree - $938; bachelor’s degree - $1,305; master’s degree - $1,545; doctoral degree - $1,885; and professional degree - $1,893.

Beyond these aggregate numbers, which institutions of higher education give students the best economic returns, that is, the best bang for their buck. In April of 2020, Third Way, a public policy think tank, published a report that introduced a new approach for estimating the economic return of an education, - that is, the Price-to-Earnings Premium (PEP), - based on the amount of time it generally takes a student to recoup the cost of obtaining a credential at a particular school.

Impact of Covid-19 on Job Automation

“Why are there still so many jobs?,” asked MIT economist David Autor in a 2015 article on the history of workplace automation. Given that technologies have been automating human work for the past couple of centuries,“should we not be somewhat surprised that technological change hasn’t already wiped out employment for the vast majority of workers?”

As Autor explained in the article, the answer is based on an economic reality that’s frequently overlooked. “Automation does indeed substitute for labor - as it is typically intended to do. However, automation also complements labor, raises output in ways that lead to higher demand for labor, and interacts with adjustments in labor supply. … journalists and even expert commentators tend to overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor.”

Professor Autor was co-chair of MIT’s Work of the Future Task Force, which was launched in the spring of 2018 to better understand the impact AI and automation on jobs. The Task Force released an interim report in September of 2019. Its overriding conclusion was that the likelihood that AI and automation would wipe out major workforce sectors in the near future was exaggerated.

However, it raised important reasons for concern, especially the rising polarization of employment and wage distribution over the past few decades, which has disproportionately benefited high-skilled professionals while reducing opportunities for mid- and low-skilled workers. The report emphasized that “at a time of historic income inequality, a critical challenge is not necessarily a lack of jobs, but the low quality of many jobs and the resulting lack of viable careers for many people, particularly workers without college degrees.”

The Covid-19 pandemic came a few months later, pretty much turning our world upside down.

The Complex Interplay Between Cybersecurity and Regulatory Compliance

Cybersecurity threats have significantly increased since March of 2020 when much of the economy was forced online to help us cope with the Covid crisis, including a number of high profile attacks by international criminal groups and adversarial governments. This past June, FBI Director Christopher Wray compared the danger of ransomware attacks on US firms by Russian criminal groups to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. When Biden and Putin met in Geneva a few weeks later, cyberweapons control was at the top of the agenda, a spot previously occupied by the control of nuclear weapons.

It’s been clear for a while that in a world increasingly governed by digital data and transactions, our existing cybersecurity methods have been far from adequate. To learn more about this very important area, earlier this year I joined  CAMS, MIT’s interdisciplinary cybersecurity initiative, and started attending its research seminars.

At a recent seminar, I heard a very interesting presentation on Compliance and Cybersecurity by CAMS research affiliate Angelica Marotta. Her seminar was based on Convergence and divergence of regulatory compliance and cybersecurity, a recent paper she co-authored with MIT professor Stuart Madnick.

Marotta’s opening slide included succinct definitions of cybersecurity and compliance that highlight their different objectives:

• Cybersecurity is responsible for the “internal procedures established by a company to improve the security of its operations.”
• Compliance is responsible for the “external regulations established by governments or industries groups that must be met.”

Today, in order to be successful, every organization needs to be both compliant and cyber secure. But, the extent to which compliance helps or hinder security for an organization continues to be a very important research question.

The Supply Chain Economy - A New Categorization of the US Economy

A few weeks ago I attended The Supply Chain Economy: Understanding Innovation in Services, a virtual seminar sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with economists Mercedes Delgado and Karen Mills discussing their recent paper A New Categorization of the U.S. Economy.

The debate about the drivers of innovation and job creation has long been centered on manufacturing versus services. The predominant view has been that manufacturing drives good wages, economic growth, and innovation as measured by its large share of patents, while services provide lower-wage jobs, less innovation and significantly fewer patents.

But Delgado and Mills argue that categorizing the economy in terms of manufacturing versus services is no longer meaningful. Instead, they’ve proposed an alternative framework for understanding the drivers of innovation and economic performance that’s focused on the suppliers of both goods and services: the supply chain economy.

“A long academic and policy debate has focused on the role of the manufacturing capacity of a country in its economic and innovative performance,” wrote the authors. “This question has become even more relevant as the U.S. economy has shown a large decline in manufacturing employment in recent decades, in part due to increased import competition. In this debate, the predominant view is that a country's manufacturing capacity drives innovation because of externalities associated with the production of intermediate goods (e.g., machine tools, automation equipment, and semiconductors) that improve the efficiency of the innovation process. Most prior work on innovation focused on a narrow view of suppliers as producers of intermediate goods. However, in today's economy suppliers increasingly produce services (e.g., enterprise software).”

A Pandemic Is Fundamentally an Information Problem

A few weeks ago I attended a very interesting online seminar, Economics in the Age of Covid-19, by University of Toronto professor Joshua Gans. Over the past 18 months, professor Gans has been conducting research and writing extensively on the impact of Covid-19, including a number of articles, a newsletter, and two books. His key thesis is that a pandemic is fundamentally an information problem. If you know that someone you interact with is potentially infectious, you can take actions to limit the interactions. However, if you have to guess whether a person is infectious, you’re taking a risk. Not only can you become infected, but you might also pass that infection on to others.

“The difference between perfect knowledge and no knowledge is what causes an infectious disease to have an impact on social and economic interactions,” wrote Gans in The Pandemics Information Gap, first published in April of 2020, followed by an expanded second edition in November of 2020. “With perfect knowledge, some people get sick, they are isolated, and life is (for most of us) essentially unchanged. … perfect knowledge allows you to avoid all infected people. No knowledge makes it near certain that you will encounter at least one infected person.” Furthermore, when we don’t know who is infected, we have to act as if everyone is infected, which then leads to major economic and social disruptions, including near-empty offices and city centers, decreased travel and leisure activities, and learning from home instead of in school.

In his seminar, Gans cited the 2002 SARS outbreak in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the 2015 MERS outbreak in South Korea as examples of pandemics that were quickly contained. With SARS and MERS, people only became infectious when they developed a fever, cough, and other easily identifiable flu-like symptoms. Anyone suspected of being infected could thus be quickly isolated before infecting many others. This made it possible to contain the SARS and MERS viruses within a few short months, and to suppress them completely a few months later.

The 2020 COVID-19 outbreak was different. About a third of the people infected with the virus were asymptomatic carriers who didn’t develop noticeable symptoms but were still capable of infecting others. Of the people who showed symptoms, around 80% were only mild to moderate. And, there was generally a delay of several days between the time a person first became infected and the appearance of the first symptoms. In other words, the information problem was relatively straightforward with SARS and MERS, which made them easier to manage and contain, whereas managing the information problem with COVID-19 has been much, much harder.

Why Our Judgements Are Often Flawed and What to Do About It

A few weeks ago I listened to a very interesting Freakonomics podcast hosted by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt. In the podcast, Why Our Judgment is Flawed — and What to Do About It, Levitt interviewed Daniel Kahneman about his recent book, Noise: A Flow in Human Judgement, co-authored with Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein. Kahneman is Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs Emeritus at Princeton University. In 2002, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty.”

Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman’s 2011 bestseller, was about the major discoveries by psychologists and cognitive scientists that have led to our current understanding of judgement and decision-making over the past several decades. Up to the 1970s, the prevailing view among social scientists was that people are generally rational and in control of the way they think and make decisions. It was thought that people only departed from rational behaviors because powerful emotions like fear, hatred or love distorted their judgement.

These assumptions were challenged by the pioneering research of Kahneman and his long time collaborator Amos Tversky, who died in 1996. In a series of experiments, they demonstrated that human behavior often deviated from the predictions of the previous rational models, and that these deviations were due to the machinery of cognition, that is, to the biases and mental shortcuts or heuristics that we use for making everyday decisions, rather than to our emotional state.

Kahneman has been studying biases and how they lead to errors in judgement for most of his career. But a few years ago, he encountered another type of error, noise, that he hadn’t thought about earlier. Noise is “the sort of ignored stepsister of bias… the complement of bias. And in terms of the standard way of measuring accuracy and measuring error, bias and noise are completely independent of each other. … bias is really the average error. And noise is the variability of error, the standard deviation of errors.

Why Do We Work So Damn Much?

A few weeks ago, I listened to a very interesting podcast, Why Do We Work So Damn Much?, where podcast host, NY Times columnist Ezra Klein, interviewed anthropologist James Suzman. Suzman has devoted almost thirty years to studying and writing about the Ju’hoansi and other bushmen from the Kalahari Basin, who are among the world’s few remaining hunter-gatherer societies. He recently published Work: A Deep History from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, a book about his research.

Modern humans emerged in Africa between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. Our homo sapiens ancestors were hunter-gatherers for most of those years, collecting wild plants and hunting wild animals. Starting around 12,000 years ago, the agricultural revolution introduced the domestication of plants and animals, leading many hunter-gatherer groups to establish agricultural communities and villages.

The vast majority of hunter-gatherers disappeared a long time ago, but a few groups remain in isolated sections of Africa, Australia, the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic. Anthropologists have been studying these remaining hunter-gatherers to learn how they’ve been able to survive so much longer than other human groups, as well as to understand the behaviors and cultures that modern humans may have inherited from our closest ancestors.

Revitalizing US Manufacturing

“The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored manufacturing’s role in providing products that are critical to health, safety, national security, and the continuity of multiple industries,” said McKinsey in a recent discussion paper, Building a More Competitive US Manufacturing Sector. “It has also revealed the extent to which global supply chains are exposed to shocks and disruptions. All of this has occurred at a moment when new technologies, process innovations, and demand growth are reshaping the sector worldwide. The United States can seize on these developments to make its own manufacturing sector more competitive.”

Manufacturing jobs helped build the US middle class after WWII. In the 1950s, it accounted for roughly 30% of employment and close to 30% of GDP. But manufacturing has significantly declined in the intervening decades, now comprising only 8% of the workforce and 11% of GDP. Manufacturing growth has particularly slowed down over the past 30 years, from 4.9% in the 1990s to 1.4% in each of the past two decades.

Despite its dramatic decline, manufacturing continues to have a disproportionate impact on the US economy, accounting for 35% of productivity growth, 55% of patents, 70% of R&D spending, and 60% of exports. According to McKinsey, these outsize economic contributions uniquely position manufacturing to strengthen the US recovery over the long term.

Understanding the Impact of Cybersecurity on International Trade

The explosive success of the Internet in the 1990s led to a historical transition from the industrial age of the past two centuries to an economy and society increasingly based on global, digital interactions.  This transition has continued to advance over the past two decade with the advent of billions of smartphones, hundreds of billions of IoT devices, a wide variety of online applications and mobile apps, and huge amounts of data, all connected via Internet-based broadband networks.

Then came Covid-19. A recent McKinsey survey found that the pandemic has accelerated the overall adoption of digital technologies and applications by three to seven years in just a few months.

At the same time, cybersecurity threats have been growing. Large-scale fraud, data breaches, and identity thefts have become far more common. As we moved from a world of physical interactions and paper documents, to a world primarily governed by digital data and transactions, our existing cybersecurity methods have been far from adequate.

More recently, international cyberthreats have escalated, with a growing number of high profile attacks by criminal groups and adversarial governments. Cybersecurity is now invoked by governments as a major aspect of national security, as they focus on protecting their critical infrastructures and the overall wellbeing of their nations. In early June, for example, FBI Director Christopher Wray compared the danger of ransomware attacks on US firms by Russian criminal groups to the September 11 terrorist attacks. And, in a recent editorial, the NY times editorial board argued that ransomware attacks have emerged as “a formidable potential threat to national security,” given “their ability to seriously disrupt economies and to breach strategically critical enterprises or agencies,” urging governments that “It is a war that needs to be fought, and won.”

The New Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative

Following World War II and the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the US undertook a series of measures to strengthen the resilience of the nation. These included a significant expansion of government support for scientific research in universities and R&D labs, leading to product innovations from the private sector and better weapons from the defense industry which contributed to making the US the most prosperous and secure nation in the world.

In the 1950s the government enacted the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which led to the construction of the Interstate Highway System. The Act had a dual purpose: facilitating the economic growth of the country as well as supporting the country’s defense during a conventional or nuclear war should it be necessary.

And, last but far from least, in the late 1960s the Department of Defense launched ARPANET, the digital infrastructure that eventually became the Internet. ARPANET was designed as a flexible digital network that would enable computers to continue to communicate with individuals and with each other following a military attack.

Fortunately, we never had to test the Internet’s ability to keep the US going following an attack or invasion. But, who would have thought that 50 years after the launch of ARPANET, it would be a global pandemic that’s been testing the Internet’s ability to fulfill its original objective of keeping nations and economies going during arguably the biggest shock the world has experienced since WWII.

The Coming Era of Productivity Growth

“The last 15 years have been tough times for many Americans, but there are now encouraging signs of a turnaround,” wrote economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Georgios Petropoulos in The Coming Productivity Boom, a recent opinion article in the MIT Technology Review. “Productivity growth, a key driver for higher living standards, averaged only 1.3% since 2006, less than half the rate of the previous decade. But on June 3, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that US labour productivity increased by 5.4% in the first quarter of 2021. What’s better, there’s reason to believe that this is not just a blip, but rather a harbinger of better times ahead: a productivity surge that will match or surpass the boom times of the 1990s.”

After growing at an average annual rate of around 2.8% between 1947 and 1973, US productivity has significantly slowed down, except for the Internet-driven productivity boost between 1996 and 2004. Despite the relentless advances of digital technologies over the past 15 years, - from smartphones and broadband wireless to cloud computing and machine learning, - productivity has only grown at an anemic 1.3%, between 2006 and 2019. Most OECD countries have seen similar slowdowns.

What accounts for this puzzling so-called productivity paradox and when might it finally end? Over the past several years, Brynjolfsson and his various collaborators have explored this question, first at MIT where he was faculty director of the Initiative on the Digital Economy, and since 2020 at Stanford, where he’s Director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. Brynjolfsson discussed alternative explanations for the paradox at a recent MIT conference.

The Post-Pandemic Future of Work: An Optimistic Outlook

“The COVID-19 pandemic-induced lockdowns and related global recession of 2020 have created a highly uncertain outlook for the labour market … millions of workers have experienced changes which have profoundly transformed their lives within and beyond work, their well-being and their productivity,” said the World Economic Forum (WEF) in The Future of Jobs Report 2020, published in October, 2020. “Comparing the impact of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 on individuals with lower education levels to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, the impact today is far more significant and more likely to deepen existing inequalities.”

The Economist  was considerably more optimistic in a special report on The Future of Work in its April 10 issue, which included several articles on the subject. “A jobs rebound, shifting politics and technological change could bring a golden age for labour in rich countries,” said the overview article. “It might seem premature to predict a wonderful world of work only a year on from a labour-market catastrophe. But America is showing how rapidly jobs can come back as the virus recedes. In the spring of 2020 the country’s unemployment rate was nearly 15%. Now it is already just 6% after a year containing five of the ten best months for hiring in history.”

The key reason for The Economist’s optimistic outlook is that as labor markets recovers, two deeper shifts are unfolding: a political environment which is becoming friendlier to workers than it’s been in decades; and an accelerated digital economy which promises to bring about faster productivity growth. Let me briefly summarize each of these two shifts.

The Three Types of AI: Artificial, Authentic, and Augmented Intelligence

“The history of work - particularly since the Industrial Revolution - is the history of people outsourcing their labor to machines,” notes a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, - AI Should Augment Human Intelligence, Not Replace It, - by National University of Singapore professor David De Cremer and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. “While that began with rote, repetitive physical tasks like weaving, machines have evolved to the point where they can now do what we might think of as complex cognitive work, such as math equations, recognizing language and speech, and writing. Machines thus seem ready to replicate the work of our minds, and not just our bodies.”

Throughout the Industrial Revolution there were periodic panics about the impact of automation on jobs, going back to the so-called Luddites, - textile workers who in the 1810s smashed the new machines that were threatening their jobs. Automation does indeed substitute for labor. However, automation also complements labor, raising economic outputs in ways that often lead to more long-run employment, not less.

Most jobs involve a number of tasks or processes. Some of these tasks are more routine in nature, while others require judgement, social skills and other human capabilities. The more routine, rules-based the task, the more amenable it is to automation. But just because some of the tasks have been automated, does not imply that the whole job has disappeared. To the contrary, automating the more routine parts of a job will often increase the productivity and quality of workers by complementing their skills with machines and computers, as well as enabling them to focus on those aspect of the job that most need their attention.

What Might the World Be Like in 2040?

The mission of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) is to lead intelligence integration and long-term strategic thinking across a wide variety of sources, including the US Intelligence Community, policy makers, and experts in academia and the private sector. Every four years, the NIC develops a Global Trends report that examines the key trends and uncertainties that will shape the global environment during the next two decades. This is done to provide the incoming administration with a framework for long-range strategic policy assessment. Global Trends 2040 - A More Contested World (GT2040), the latest NIC report, was published in March, 2021, a few weeks after President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Let me briefly discuss.

Key Recurring Themes

“During the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded the world of its fragility and demonstrated the inherent risks of high levels of interdependence,” notes the report in its introduction.  Not surprisingly, given that we’ve been living through the most significant global disruption since WW2, GT2040 paints a rather dark picture of what lies ahead.

“In coming years and decades, the world will face more intense and cascading global challenges ranging from disease to climate change to the disruptions from new technologies and financial crises. These challenges will repeatedly test the resilience and adaptability of communities, states, and the international system, often exceeding the capacity of existing systems and models. This looming disequilibrium between existing and future challenges and the ability of institutions and systems to respond is likely to grow and produce greater contestation at every level.” As a NY Times editorial observed, “Experts in Washington who have read these reports said they do not recall a gloomier one.”

Leveraging Cloud Computing to Enhance the Nation’s Cybersecurity

There’s clearly an urgent need to significantly improve the security and resilience of IT systems and applications in light of the growing threat of cyberattacks, which FBI director Christopher Wray recently compared to addressing the challenge of global terrorism following the 9/11 attack. Earlier this week, the NY Times published this front page article - Once, Superpower Summits Were About Nukes. Now, It’s Cyberweapons, that said: “The rising tempo and sophistication of recent attacks on American infrastructure - from gasoline pipelines running up the East Coast, to plants providing a quarter of America’s beef, to the operations of hospitals and the internet itself - has revealed a set of vulnerabilities no president can ignore.” On May 12, President Biden issued an Executive Order to Improve the Nation’s Cybersecurity, a welcome and very important step.

Cloud-based technologies and Cloud Service Provides (CSPs) can play a major role in improving the nation’s cybersecurity. Over the years, CSPs have invested billions in cloud security, hired thousands of top cyber experts, and developed an array of new tools and methods. CIOs generally agree that the security on cloud platforms is superior to that of in-house data centers, a major reason why the top IDC prediction for the post-pandemic new normal was that “By the end of 2021, based on lessons learned, 80% of enterprises will put a mechanism in place to shift to cloud-centric infrastructure and applications twice as fast as before the pandemic.”

“Cloud computing drives innovation and productivity across the economy, just as the electric grid did a century ago - yet it is more capable and dynamic.” This is the overriding message of Secrets From Cloud Computing’s First Stage: An Action Agenda for Government and Industry, a report by Bill Whyman that was recently published by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). As someone who’s long been following and writing about cloud computing, I found the report quite instructive. It includes a very good introduction to cloud computing, its economic impact and market dynamics, and the areas where cloud particularly excels. But, it also addresses the key challenges that cloud must overcome to fully achieve its benefits, as well as the need for a policy agenda for cloud computing, - a very important area that hasn’t received as much focus.

The Emergence of Central Bank Digital Currencies

Bitcoin was created in October of 2008 with the release of Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, the original design paper which also introduced the blockchain architecture. A decade later, The Economist published a detailed evaluation of Bitcoin which succinctly concluded that “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless.”

“Bitcoin, the first and still the most popular cryptocurrency, began life as a techno-anarchist project to create an online version of cash, a way for people to transact without the possibility of interference from malicious governments or banks,” it further argued. “A decade on, it is barely used for its intended purpose. Users must wrestle with complicated software and give up all the consumer protections they are used to. Few vendors accept it. Security is poor. Other cryptocurrencies are used even less.”

But last month, the May 8 issue of The Economist reached a very different conclusion in its assessment of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), - i.e., e-dollars, e-yuans, or e-euros, - which it called “The digital currencies that matter.”

“Bitcoin has gone from being an obsession of anarchists to a $1trn asset class that many fund managers insist belongs in any balanced portfolio. … Yet, as our special report explains, the least noticed disruption on the frontier between technology and finance may end up as the most revolutionary: the creation of government digital currencies, which typically aim to let people deposit funds directly with a central bank, bypassing conventional lenders. These govcoins are a new incarnation of money. They promise to make finance work better but also to shift power from individuals to the state, alter geopolitics and change how capital is allocated. They are to be treated with optimism, and humility.”

Can We Look Forward to a New Decade of Innovation?

Can we  look forward to a new decade of innovation, asked The Economist in its January 16 issue. “The 2010s were marked by pessimism about innovation,” notes the issue’s overview article. “Productivity growth was lackluster and the most popular new inventions, the smartphone and social media, did not seem to help much… Promising technologies stalled, including self-driving cars, making Silicon Valley’s evangelists look naive.”

“Today a dawn of technological optimism is breaking,” adds the article. Some giddily predict a new decade of progress, - a kind-of 21st century roaring Twenties. While some of this optimism may be overblown, “there is a realistic possibility of a new era of innovation that could lift living standards, especially if governments help new technologies to flourish.”

There are historical precedents for such optimism. The Roaring Twenties was a decade of economic growth and widespread prosperity, as the country recovered from the dual devastations of World World I and the Spanish flu pandemic. Technological advances like electrification, consumer appliances, the mass production of cars, and the advent of commercial aviation transformed the US into the richest country in the world.

Then following World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the federal government significantly expanded its support of R&D in the private and public sectors, making the US the undisputed leader in science, engineering, medicine and other disciplines. The blueprint for R&D in post-war America was laid out by presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush in his 1945 report, Science The Endless Frontier: “New knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research” conducted in universities and research labs, which is then applied to develop new products by the private sector and new and improved weapons by the defense sector.

The Urgent Need for Wide-Scale Upskilling

Few topics are as important as the future of work in our 21st century digital economy. In the spring of 2018 MIT President Rafael Reif commissioned a task force on the Work of the Future to address whether our rapidly advancing technologies will not only raise economic output and the wealth of nations, but enable people to attain higher living standards and better working conditions. After working across MIT for over two and a half years, the task force released its final report in November, 2020.

“Amidst a technological ecosystem delivering rising productivity, and an economy generating plenty of jobs (at least until the COVID-19 crisis), we found a labor market in which the fruits are so unequally distributed, so skewed towards the top, that the majority of workers have tasted only a tiny morsel of a vast harvest,” was the overriding conclusion of the task fore. But, it further argued that with better policies in place, more people could enjoy good careers even as new technologies transform the very nature of work.

Similar conclusions were reached by Upskilling for Share Prosperity, a report published in January, 2021 by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in collaboration with PwC. “Millions of people are already being left behind because of volatile market conditions, the effects of COVID-19, or because they work in industries that are being replaced by new sectors,” said the report… There is an enormous opportunity to reconfigure the world of work at this critical juncture and embark on an upskilling revolution that will give people across the world the ability to participate fully in the future of work, whatever that might be.”

A New Contract with the Middle Class

“The U.S. is a middle-class nation,” says the opening sentence of A New Contract with the Middle Class, an essay by Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill that was recently published by the Brookings Institution. “Since our nation’s founding, the American Dream has always been based on an implicit understanding - a contract if you will - between individuals willing to work and contribute, and a society willing to support those in need and to break down the barriers in front of them.” The essay is part of the Future of the Middle Class initiative launched by Brookings in November, 2018.

Why focus on the middle class? The reason, notes the essay, is that this is how the majority of Americans define themselves. “An aristocratic leisure class and a welfare-dependent underclass are equally unappealing to most Americans.” It’s why paid work is seen as so important. Americans want a society where everybody has the chance to “make something of themselves.” Joining the middle class is the very core of the American Dream, - the promise that anyone can get ahead and achieve success and prosperity through talent and hard work.

Who is in the middle class? While there are multiple definitions, most are based on income, partly because data on income are widely available, and it’s easier to come up with concrete, quantifiable definitions. But also because income tends be highly correlated with other attributes of social class, such as educational level, job status, consumer preferences, behaviors, aspirations, and cultural tastes.

The essay defines middle class as those in the middle 60% of household income distribution. “To be middle class, a household of three would have an income between $40,000 and $154,000,” - neither poor nor prosperous. “The middle class, by our definition, is diverse: 59 percent white, 12 percent Black, 18 percent Hispanic, and 6 percent Asian. Within a few decades, whites will make up the minority of middle-class families.”

The Post-Pandemic Outlook for Technology, Jobs, and Skills

“The COVID-19 pandemic-induced lockdowns and related global recession of 2020 have created a highly uncertain outlook for the labour market,” said the World Economic Forum (WEF) in The Future of Jobs Report 2020. The pandemic has caused labor markets to change significantly faster than previously expected. What used to be considered the future of work has already arrived. As McKinsey noted in a May, 2020 article: “we have vaulted five years forward in consumer and business digital adoption in a matter of around eight weeks.”

The WEF report aims to shed light on the post-pandemic outlook for technology adoption, jobs and skills over the next five years, including detailed quantitative profiles on 15 industry sectors and 26 advanced and emerging countries. The report is based on a survey of senior executives from nearly 300 global companies which collectively employ 8 million workers. The survey asked 49 questions on the outlook for their companies’ workforce through 2025, including major trends affecting the labor market, the technologies their companies are adopting, the expected evolution of jobs and skills, their training and reskilling programs, and the near-term impact of the pandemic on their workforce.

“The global shift to a future of work is defined by an ever-expanding cohort of new technologies, by new sectors and markets, by global economic systems that are more interconnected than in any other point in history, and by information that travels fast and spreads wide. … As a new global recession brought on by the COVID-19 health pandemic impacts economies and labour markets, millions of workers have experienced changes which have profoundly transformed their lives within and beyond work, their well-being and their productivity. One of the defining features of these changes is their asymmetric nature - impacting already disadvantaged populations with greater ferocity and velocity.”

The Intriguing Nature of Non-Fungible Tokens

The blockchain first came to light in 2008 as the digital ledger for bitcoin transactions. The blockchain creator’s original vision was limited to enabling peer-to-peer bitcoin transactions with no need for a bank or government agency to certify the validity of the transactions. But, like the Internet, electricity and other transformative technologies, blockchain soon transcended its original objectives.

Over the years, blockchain technologies have evolved along two major lines. One continues to focus on blockchain as the underlying platform for bitcoin, as well as a wide variety of cryptoassets, such as digital tokens and cryptocurrencies. The other focuses on the use of blockchain in the business world, - a kind of Internet 2.0. The cryptocurrency camp is based mostly on public permissionless blockchains, which anyone can join and require some kind of proof-of-work or proof-of-stake systems. The business camp, - best characterized by Hyperledger, - is based on private or public permissioned blockchain networks to support transactions among institutions that need not know nor trust each other.

Given my professional history with the Internet and e-business, I’ve been almost exclusively focused on the business camp for two major reasons. First, blockchain technologies can help us enhance the security of Internet transactions and data, by developing a layer with the required standard services and their open source implementations for secure communication, storage and data access. And second, blockchain technologies can significantly improve the efficiency, resilience, and management of supply chains, financial services, and other complex global applications involving multiple institutions across multiple countries.

I have not paid much attention to bitcoin or other cryptoassets. But recently, I’ve become quite intrigued by non-fungible tokens (NFTs). To me, NFTs are further evidence that, as with the Internet of Things (IoT), we’re increasingly living in a hybrid physical-digital world. Let me explain.

The Changing Nature of the Liberal Arts in the Digital Economy

What is meant by the liberal arts? Here is a succinct dictionary definition: “The academic course of instruction intended to provide general knowledge and usually comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, as opposed to professional or technical subjects.” And, here is a more thorough explanation: “A liberal arts education is by nature broad and diverse, rather than narrow and specialized…  [it] is not intended to train you for a specific job, though it does prepare you for the world of work by providing you with an invaluable set of employability skills, including the ability to think for yourself, the skills to communicate effectively, and the capacity for lifelong learning.”

Over the past few decades, business, engineering, and other professions not previously associated with the liberal arts have embraced a number of its attributes. A few years ago, for example, I came across an article about the efforts of Roger Martin to transform business education. At the time, Martin was the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He had long been advocating “that students needed to learn how to think critically and creatively every bit as much as they needed to learn finance or accounting. More specifically, they needed to learn how to approach problems from many perspectives and to combine various approaches to find innovative solutions.” Such a transformation would require business schools to move into territory more traditionally associated with the liberal arts.

Similarly, in a 2006 report, the National Academy of Engineering called for reforming engineering education. “New graduates were technically well prepared but lacked the professional skills for success in a competitive, innovative, global marketplace. Employers complained that new hires had poor communication and teamwork skills and did not appreciate the social and nontechnical influences on engineering solutions and quality processes.”

A few years ago, USC’s Annenberg School of Communications and Journalism conducted a study to better understand the key competencies companies were looking for. Future leaders, the study found, must be strong in quantitative, technical and business skills. But to advance in their careers, they also need to be good strategic thinkers and must have strong social and communications skills. Companies were looking for so called T-shaped professionals who combine deep quantitative, technical, problem solving hard skills with broad multidisciplinary, communications, and social soft skills that enable them to collaborate with experts in other fields.

New Directions for Government in the Digital Age

Over the past few decades, economies and societies around the world have been going through historical transformations as they transition from the industrial age of the past two centuries to a 21st century digital age. Companies - especially large, global corporations - have leveraged digital innovations to improve their productivity and competitiveness and adapt better to these powerful technology and market changes.

In 2010, the Technology CEO Council released a report recommending that governments embrace the information technologies (IT) and organizational best practices that the private sector was successfully applying: “By harnessing major technological shifts and adopting best business practices, we can not only make our government far more productive, but also foster greater innovation in areas ranging from healthcare to education and energy - innovation that will generate economic growth and job creation.”

But governments have continued to lag the private sector, and risk falling further behind as the pandemic accelerated the digital transformations that are helping companies cope with the crisis. “We’ve seen two years’  worth of digital transformation in two months,” as companies adapt to stay open for business “in a world of remote everything,” said Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in April 2020. A month later, McKinsey & Company added, “We have vaulted five years forward in consumer and business digital adoption in a matter of around eight weeks.”

The authors of a recently published report, “New Directions for Government in the Second Era of the Digital Age,” argue that governments should exploit this fast-moving era of technology in their own operations, for the overall benefit of their nations. The 120-page report was authored by Don Tapscott, Kirsten Sandberg, and Anthony Williams from the Blockchain Research Institute (BRI), in collaboration with the Chamber of Digital Commerce and experts from several countries. The BRI is a global think tank dedicated to the strategic implications of blockchain and related technologies to business, government and society. I am a research contributor at the BRI.

The report aims to assist government leaders around the world, but is particularly focused on the opportunities and challenges facing the new US administration.

Is Work-from-Anywhere Here to Stay?

Remote work has been around for a few decades, but took off in the mid-late 1990s with the explosive growth of the Internet.  There were predictions that the Internet would lead to the decline of cities, because technology was making location less relevant to our work and personal lives.  Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive, stressful metropolitan area and endure a long daily commute?  However, instead of declining, superstar cities continued to attract talented, ambitious knowledge workers, and to generate the greatest levels of economy activity and innovation.

But, even before the pandemic, “a movement was brewing within knowledge-work organizations,” wrote Harvard professor Prithwiray (Raj) Choudhury in a recent Harvard Business Review article, Our Work-from-Anywhere Future.  “Personal technology and digital connectivity had advanced so far and so fast that people had begun to ask, ‘Do we really need to be together, in an office, to do our work?’”

“We got our answer during the pandemic lockdowns.  We learned that a great many of us don’t in fact need to be colocated with colleagues on-site to do our jobs.  Individuals, teams, entire workforces, can perform well while being entirely distributed - and they have.  So now we face new questions: Are all-remote or majority-remote organizations the future of knowledge work?  Is work from anywhere (WFA) here to stay?”

Trends That Will Likely Shape a Highly Uncertain Year

A few weeks ago The Economist published The World in 2021, it’s 35th annual look at the economic, political, social and cultural trends that will likely shape the coming year.  Overall, 2021 will be a year of unusual uncertainty given the still ongoing pandemic, the uneven economic recovery, and the turbulent political environment in the US, Britain, and a number of other countries.  “The great prize on offer is the chance of bringing the coronavirus pandemic under control,” wrote the issue’s editor Tom Sandage.  “But in the meantime risks abound, to health, economic vitality and social stability.”

The World in 2021 highlights ten specific trends.  Let me focus my discussion on three of them.

The Evolution of American Capitalism - Tweaks, Reforms, or Wholesale Change?

“American capitalism has evolved time and again, and we may be poised for another such shift,” said a recent McKinsey article, Rethinking the future of American capitalism, by James Manyika, Gary Pinkus, and Monique Tuin.  “Capitalism has contributed to significant gains in economic growth and prosperity throughout its history.  But at a time of growing public discontent about rising inequality, heightened competition from economies with different models, and existential threats including from climate change, capitalism in its current form - and American capitalism in particular - may face its most serious test.”

Adam Smith, the 18th century Scottish philosopher and economist, is generally considered the father of free-market, free-trade capitalism.  Smith is most famous for The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776 and generally regarded as the first work of modern economics.  He’s also well known for his famous metaphor of the invisible hand - “the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right results by this so-called invisible hand.”

Smith believed in a balanced approach to capitalism.  On one side is the fierce competition and self-interest inherent in open, free markets.  On the other, - as he wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, - is the sympathy and community support that’s required to achieve beneficial results in well functioning, stable societies.