Irving Wladawsky-Berger

How Can You Trust the Predictions of a Large Machine Learning Model?

Artificial intelligence has emerged as the defining technology of our era, as transformative over time as the steam engine, electricity, computers, and the Internet. AI technologies are approaching or surpassing human levels of performance in vision, speech recognition, language translation, and other human domains. Machine learning (ML) advances, like deep learning, have played a central role in AI’s recent achievements, giving computers the ability to be trained by ingesting and analyzing large amounts of data instead of being explicitly programmed.

Deep learning is a powerful statistical technique for classifying patterns using large training data sets and multi-layer AI neural networks. Each artificial neural unit is connected to many other such units, and the links can be statistically strengthened or decreased based on the data used to train the system. But such statistical methods are not equally suitable for all tasks. Tasks that are particularly suitable for machine learning, exhibit several key criteria, such as the availability of large data sets of well-defined input-output pairs for training ML classifiers, - e.g., carefully labeled cat, not-cat pictures for cat recognition classifiers, and english-french document pairs for machine translation algorithms.

The methods behind a machine learning prediction, - subtle adjustments to the numerical weights that interconnect its huge number of artificial neurons, - are very difficult to explain because they’re so different from the methods used by humans. The bigger the training data set, the more accurate the prediction, but the more difficult it will be to provide a detailed, understandable explanation to a human of how the prediction was made.

A few weeks ago I attended an online seminar, - How Can You Trust Machine Learning? by Stanford professor Carlos Guestrin, - on the difficulty of understanding machine learning predictions. Guestrin’s seminar was based on a 2016 article he co-authored with Marco Tulio Ribeiro and Sameer Singh , “Why Should I Trust You?” Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier.

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.”

Beatlemania: Why Are Success and Failure So Unpredictable?

“Why did the Beatles become a worldwide sensation? Why do some cultural products succeed and others fail? Why are some musicians, poets, and novelists, unsuccessful or unknown in their lifetimes, iconic figures decades or generation after their deaths? Why are success and failure so unpredictable?,” these are among the questions explored in Beatlemania, a draft paper by Harvard professor Cass Sunstein that will be published later this year in the inaugural issue of The Journal of Beatles Studies.

“On one view, the simplest and most general explanation is best, and it points to quality, appropriately measured: success is a result of quality, and the Beatles succeeded because of the sheer quality of their music,” wrote Sunstein. “On another view, social influences are critical: timely enthusiasm or timely indifference can make the difference for all, including the Beatles, leading extraordinary books, movies, and songs to fail even if they are indistinguishable in quality from those that succeed.”

In 1961 the Beatles  were an obscure English rock band from Liverpool, with no manager and modest prospects. They tried to release a debut single, Love Me Do, but every record label they approached rejected them and the band came close to splitting. In January of 1962 Brian Epstein became their manager. Epstein had no experience in managing artists, but he liked their music and sense of humor. He eventually persuaded EMI producer George Martin to audition the band in June of 1962, who despite feeling that they were “a rather raw group” with “not very good songs,” agreed to sign them to a recording contract.

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.

A Winning Strategy for the Post-Pandemic “New Normal”

“A winning digital strategy requires new twists to familiar moves,” said a recent McKinsey article, Strategy for a digital world. “Competitive differentiation, now more than ever, emerges from superior digital capabilities and technology endowment, more agile delivery, and a progressively more tech-savvy C-suite.”

According to the latest McKinsey Global Survey on digital strategy, the pandemic has sped up the adoption of digital technologies by several years. While the imperative for a strategic approach to technology is universal, the survey found that some companies are already leading the pack because they have better overall technology capabilities, talent, leadership, and resources, and their superior technology endowment is linked to better economic outcomes.

The pandemic has accelerated the pace of change of the leading technology companies as well as the industry leaders who’ve been investing heavily in new digital-enabled strategies and business models, widening the gap between these top economic performers and all other companies. At the same time, the survey showed that many of the organizations that are being left behind could be missing opportunities to catch up by investing in the areas of their business most at risk of digital advances.

Traditional legacy companies should revisit the classic strategies that may have worked well for them in decades past but that must now be updated given the accelerated pace of digital disruption. The McKinsey article offers a road map for so doing based on five major changes.

Is the Metaverse the Next Major Phase of the Internet?

“Don’t mock the metaverse,” said The Economist in a November 2021 article. “There are good reasons to take the metaverse seriously. One is historical: as computers have become more capable, the experiences which they generate have become richer. The internet began its life displaying nothing more exciting than white text on a black background. Flat images were added in the 1990s. Video came to dominate in the 2010s. On that reading, a move into three dimensions is a logical consequence of the steady growth in computing power.”

“The metaverse is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed,” the article added. “The video-game industry - the only type of entertainment fully exposed to the compounding power of Moore’s law - has been selling virtual worlds for years.” Online games like World of Warcraft, Fortnite, and Roblox have hundreds of millions of users, and their gaming companies have valuations in the tens of billions, - evidence that immersive virtual worlds can be popular and profitable. “It is hard to argue that an idea will never catch on when, for millions of people, it already has.”

3-D virtual environments have had limited success beyond the video-game industry. But this could change. Leading technology companies have announced plans to expand their use in business, education, social media, and other so-called serious applications. On October 28, Mark Zuckerberg announced his commitment to a metaverse strategy by rebranding Facebook as Meta Platforms. A week or so later, Satya Nadella shared Microsoft’s metaverse plans, starting with enabling users of Mesh for Microsoft Teams to interact and collaborate in 3-D immersive workspaces.

Technology’s Role in Society: It’s Complicated

“Welcome to the future - not 2021, as you might have been expecting, but 2025, or even 2030, depending on whom you ask,” said The Economist in a  November, 2020 article. “The adoption of new technological behaviours in response to the pandemic, from video-conferencing to online shopping, means usage has already reached levels that were not expected for many more years.”

For years, companies and governments found all kinds of reasons for not embracing work from home, virtual meetings, telemedicine, online learning, and other digital applications. But, the pandemic forced us to accelerate the digital transformations of the economy and society to help us cope with the crisis. And, not only have these digital applications worked remarkably well, but they offer a number of important benefits, like not waiting for a straightforward doctor diagnosis in a room full of sick people, and not having to travel for hours to participate in a 45 minute meeting.

Post-pandemic, how much will things snap back?, asked The Economist. “Clearly the world is not going to return to its pre-pandemic state…  some new behaviours will stick, but not all, and the result will be somewhere in the middle. Exactly where will have enormous implications: for transport patterns, property prices and the layout of cities, among other things.”

The societal implications of technological transformations are difficult to anticipate, given the rapid changes we’ve been going through in the last few decades, let alone in the last two years. This topic was directly addressed in Technology’s Role in Society: It’s Complicated, the Fall 2021 issue of Footnotes, a publication of the American Sociological Association. The issue includes nine essays on the various ways technology impacts out lives. “As technology continues to evolve at breakneck speed, we find ourselves constantly adapting and keeping up with the latest advancements,” said its Introduction article.

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.

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 Evolution of Shopping in the Digital Economy

Earlier this year, The Economist published a special report on The Future of Shopping, with nine articles on the subject. In its overview article, The Economist argued that “a new species of shopper is emerging: less centered on America, more intent on ensuring that what they buy reflects what they believe, and technologically dexterous. This latest incarnation of the global consumer looks likely to change how capitalism works - for the better.”

Three major changes are transforming the world of retailing. First, Western Europe and North America are no longer the biggest retail markets; nor do they epitomize the leading edge of retail as has long been the case, with innovations like the department store, the mall, catalogue shopping, and e-commerce. Shoppers are increasingly Asian. “Last year China and America were almost neck-and-neck as the world’s biggest retail markets. China’s two biggest online marketplaces, Alibaba’s Taobao and Tmall, both do more third-party business than Amazon.” And Asia’s shoppers are now at the frontier of retail, with innovations like livestreaming e-commerce.

A second change is that, beyond low prices, younger shoppers are increasingly influenced by their social, ethical, and political values when making buying decisions. They’re selecting  which brands to engage with based on their social values like environmental credentials and workplace environment. Well managed firms work hard to establish the kind of positive reputation that attracts people to want to be associated with the brand and its products and services. This is particularly important in our Internet age, which enables a company’s actions to be instantly communicated to all. “One way that capitalism adapts to society’s changing preferences is through government regulation and laws, which voters influence, at least in democracies. But the dynamic response of companies to the signals that consumers send is a force for change, too,” and the reason firms spend considerable time, energy and funds nurturing their brands.

The final big change is the increasingly digitalization of the economy. The explosive growth of mobile devices means that a company can be engaged with its customers not only when they’re shopping online, but wherever they are, - at home, at work, or in a store. “More accurate and voluminous data about shopping patterns are breaking down the decades-long relationship between mass consumption and mass production. In its place is a more varied world in which the shopper can decide whether to buy online or in store, whether to shop via platforms or from individual brands, and whether to accept targeted ads or not.”

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 Transformation of Logistics in the Retail Industry

In the spring of 2018, MIT launched the Work of the Future Task Force to understand the impact of our increasingly intelligent machines on the future of work, and how to best harness these technological innovations for social benefit. The MIT-wide task force released its findings and recommendations in a November, 2020 report, - Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines.

In addition to the task force report, the Work of the Future initiative has published a number of working papers and research briefs on related topics. I’d like to now discuss one of those briefs, The Future of Work in Logistics by Arshia Mehta and Frank Levy, which explored the transformation of the retail industry since the advent of e-commerce in the 1990s. The brief is a very interesting case study of the evolution of the retail industry over the past few decades.

“Twenty years ago, U.S. distribution networks were built to deliver products in bulk to retail stores,” wrote the authors. “Today, large parts of distribution networks are built to deliver individual items to home residences. The shift has been driven by technology, working through e-commerce, and recently reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

What Musical Mindsets Can Teach Us About Business Innovation

In their recently published book, Two Beats Ahead: What Musical Minds Teach Us About Innovation, Panos Panay and R. Michael Hendrix argue that “the mindsets developed by musicians make them good entrepreneurs.” Panay is currently Senior VP for Global Strategy and Innovation at the Berklee College of Music. On June 22, he was appointed Co-President of the Recording Academy effective August, 2021. Hendrix is a Partner and Global Design Director at IDEO.

“[T]he creative mindset is more than a unique approach to entrepreneurship, more than drawing upon the improvisation of jazz or practicing until our fingers bleed,” write Panay and Hendricks. “As musicians, we believe that there is something instructive here for our work as entrepreneurs and business leaders. Musicians know how to create moments that break patterns, fill gaps, capture our attention, and inspire not only because of skills they have developed at a keyboard or a microphone, but because they have honed their ability to listen.”

The book is based on interviews with musicians, songwriters and producers who’ve succeeded as both performers and entrepreneurs. The authors interviewed a number of musicians, including Justin Timberlake, Pharrell Williams, Imogen Heap, T Bone Burnett, and Desmond Child. In addition, they surveyed the careers of Björk, Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine, Gloria and Emilio Estefan, and others who’ve had a major impact on the music industry as creative artists and business leaders.

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.”

A Biological Framework for the Study of Labor Market Resilience

I recently read Universal Resilience Patterns in Labor Markets, - an article published earlier this year in Nature Communications by members of MIT Connection Science and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. The article analyzed the resilience of labor markets in US cities using a framework inspired by biological ecosystems.

Biological principles have long been an inspiration for the study of sociotechnical systems, - that is, systems that deal not only with complex technologies and infrastructures, but also with the even more complex issues associated with human and organizational behaviors, such as firms, industries, economies, and cities. For example, a 2016 Harvard Business Review article, The Biology of Corporate Survival, applied evolutionary biology principles to analyze why businesses are disappearing faster than ever before.

“[T]he typical study of urban labor at equilibrium obfuscates responses to out- of-equilibrium disruptions,” notes the Nature article. “Cities are the innovation centers of the US economy, but technological disruptions can exclude workers and inhibit a middle class. Therefore, urban policy must promote the jobs and skills that increase worker pay, create employment, and foster economic resilience.”

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.”

Will AI Ever Be Smarter Than a Baby?

I recently listened to a fascinating podcast where NY Times columnist Ezra Klein interviewed Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopney. Professor Gopney is best known for her research in cognitive science, particularly the study of children’s learning and development. She’s written extensively on the developmental phases of the human brain from babies to adults.

Gopnik, a member of the Berkeley AI Research group, has also been exploring the differences between human and machine intelligence, more specifically, what babies can teach us about AI. She’s long argued that babies and young children are smarter than we might think. In some ways, they’re even smarter than adults, let alone way smarter than the most advanced AIs.  

What do we mean by intelligence?

In 1994 the Wall Street Journal published the Mainstream Science on Intelligence, an article that included a definition that was agreed to by 52 leading academic researchers in fields associated with intelligence:

“Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings - ‘catching on,’ ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do.”

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 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 Increasing Economic Value of Digital Capital

A firm’s financial statement comprises two distinct types of assets. Tangible assets are mostly physical in nature, and include vehicles, land, plants, equipment, and furniture, as well as financial assets like stocks, bonds, account receivables, and cash which have a concrete contractual value. On the other hand, intangible assets aren’t physical. They include patents, copyrights, trademarks, goodwill, brand value, human capital, R&D, software, and data. Intangibles do have a monetary value since they represent future potential revenue, but they’re more difficult to value because, unlike tangibles, their costs and market values are hard to determine.

The economic value of intangible assets has truly exploded over the past several decades. According to a 2019 research report , the overall value of the S&P 500 in 1975 was $715 billion, of which 17% was intangible. By 1995, intangibles had risen to 68% of a $4.6 trillion S&P value. The value of intangibles continued to climb in our 21st century digital economy, reaching 84% of the $25 trillion overall S&P value in 2018. The reason for this fast rising valuations is that intangible capabilities are a major source of a company’s long-term competitive strengths, and are generally quite complex to build and replicate. Yet, conventional accounting treats these capabilities not as company investments but as expenses, which means that their funding isn’t reflected as capital on balance sheets.

“For digitally-focused firms, investments in the intangible assets needed to realize value from new technologies – like cumulative investment in skills training, new decision-making structures within the firm, management practices, and software customization – often account for significantly greater total costs than the technologies themselves,” notes Digital Capital and Superstar Firms, an NBER working paper published in December, 2020.

The paper is focused on the digital capital that’s required to create value out of a company’s investments in hardware, software, and other IT assets that are recorded as tangible capital investments on a company’s financial statement. It introduces a set of methods for quantifying the value of digital capital investments, as well as their impact on a company’s long term productivity and growth.

The Increasing Influence of Recommendation Systems in Our Everyday Lives

A few years ago, I attended a seminar by University of Toronto professor Avi Goldfarb on the economic value of AI. Goldfarb explained that the best way to assess the impact of a new radical technology is to look at how the technology reduces the cost of a widely used function. Computers, for example, are powerful calculators whose cost of arithmetic and other digital operations have dramatically decreased over the past several decades. As a result, we’ve learned to define all kinds of tasks in terms of digital operations, e.g., financial transactions, inventory management, word processing, photography. Similarly, the Internet and World Wide Web have drastically reduced the cost of communications and of access to all kinds of information, - including numbers, text, pictures, music and videos.

Viewed through this lens, the data and AI revolution can be viewed as reducing the cost of predictions. Predictions mean anticipating what is likely to happen in the future. Over the past decade, increasingly powerful computers, advanced machine learning algorithms, and the explosive growth of big data have enabled us to extract insights from the data and turn them into valuable predictions. As was previously the case with digital operations, communications and access to information, - we’re now able to reframe all kinds of applications as prediction problems. A major such family of applications are recommendation engines or recommender systems, which Wikipedia defines as “a subclass of information filtering system that seeks to predict the ‘rating’ or ‘preference’ a user would give to an item.”

“The essential function of recommender systems is mathematically predicting personal preference,” writes MIT visiting scholar Michael Schrage in his recently published book Recommendation Engines. But, “recommendation engines are far more intriguing and important than their definitions might suggest,” as they not only predict but also shape their users’ preferences. Throughout the book, Schrage explores the human yearning to get good, practical and actionable advice, -  whether from the gods, astrology or self-help books, - and the evolution of recommendations into our ubiquitous algorithm-based technologies to the point where they’ve almost become an extension of our brains. “More people around the world are becoming more reliant - even dependent - upon recommendation engines to better advise, inform, and inspire them.”

“Recommenders increasingly influence how individuals spend their time, money, and energy to get more from life. That explains why global organizations ranging from Alibaba to Netflix to Spotify to Amazon to Google invest so heavily in them.” These powerful platforms are driven by their huge economies of scale, - which are largely based on their highly personalized recommendations. The larger the network, the more data is available for recommending highly personalized offerings. That’s what network effects are all about: the more products or services a platform offers, the more users it will attract, helping it then attract more offerings, which in turn brings in more users, generates more data, and makes the platform even more valuable

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.

The Current State of AI Adoption

For the past few years, McKinsey has been conducting a yearly online survey to help assess the state of AI adoption. The 2019 survey garnered responses from over 2,300 companies, and found that AI was becoming more mainstream, with nearly 80% of the responding companies using AI in some capacity. Most of these companies saw measurable benefits from their AI deployment, with 63% reporting year-over-year (YOY) revenue increase, while 44% reported YOY cost savings. However, much work was still necessary to scale the use of AI across the company, manage the risks, and retrain their workforce.

The most recent survey, took place in June of 2020 and received responses from almost 2,400 participants from different regions, industries, company sizes and functions. The State of AI in 2020, published in November, found that revenue increases had become a bit more common (66%) compared to the previous year, while cost decreases were now somewhat less common (40%). The biggest year-over-year increases were found in the strategy and finance functions (73% vs 59%), risk management (68% vs 57%), manufacturing (71% vs 61%), and supply-chain management (72% vs 63%). The biggest YOY cost decreases were found in strategy and finance (32% vs 50%), risk management (38% vs 54%), manufacturing (50% vs 64%), human resources (43% vs 55%), and product and/or service development (21% vs 29%).

What accounts for these (relatively small) differences between the two most recent surveys? “What we’ve said in the past about ‘following the money’ to find where AI adds value in organizations still holds true,” explained the report. “And, overall, many companies focused on growth in 2019 …; for that reason, it’s likely that we saw more companies driving revenues with AI rather than decreasing their costs - not because AI can’t effectively reduce costs.”

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?”

The Intangible Asset Revolution

“Take all the physical assets owned by all the companies in the S&P 500, all the cars and office buildings and factories and merchandise, then sell them all at cost in one giant sale, and they would generate a net sum that doesn’t even come out to 20% of the index’s $28 trillion value,” said Epic S&P 500 Rally Is Powered by Assets You Can’t See or Touch, an article in Bloomberg published on October 21, 2020, -  a day when intangible assets made up more than 84% of the S&P value.

“The rise of intangibles helps explain why many American workers have recently had it so rough, with wages stagnating and benefits disappearing,” adds the article.  And, given our increasingly digital post-pandemic new normal, we can expect the share of intangibles to go higher, “a source of deep concern for those who worry about things like employment and inequality.”

Intangible assets are easier to define as the opposite of tangible assets.  Tangible assets are generally physical in nature, including vehicles, land, plants, equipment, and furniture, but they also include financial assets like stocks, bonds, account receivables, and cash which have a concrete contractual value.   On the other hand, intangible assets are neither physical nor have a concretely specified financial value.  Intangibles include patents, copyrights, trademarks, goodwill, brand value, human capital, R&D, software, and data.  Despite having no physical existence, intangibles have a monetary value since they represent potential revenue, but that value must be established based on accounting principles.  And, unlike tangible assets, intangibles are difficult to value and insure.

According to a 2019 research report by the Ponemon Institute, the value of intangible assets has truly exploded over the past several decades, right along with our increasingly digital economy.  In 1975, the overall value of the S&P 500 was $715 billion, of which 17% was intangible.  In 1985, out of a total value of $1.5 trillion, 32%, or around one third was intangible.  By 1995, the percentages had switched, with intangibles now being 68% of $4.6 trillion.  Intangible values continued to climb to 80% out of $11.6 trillion in 2005; and to 84% of $25 trillion in 2018.