Monthly Archives: April 2017

Ko Sasaki/The New York Times/Redux/eyevine

Androids, such as this one directing shoppers in Tokyo, will replace humans in many service occupations in the next 1020 years.

Advances in technology pose huge challenges for jobs. Productivity levels have never been higher in the United States, for example, but income for the bottom 50% of earners has stagnated since 1999 (see 'Job shifts'). Most of the monetary gains have gone to a small group at the very top. Technology is not the only reason, but it is probably the most important one.

A report published on 13 April by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine details the impacts of information technology on the workforce1. We co-chaired the report committee and learnt a great deal in the process including that, over the next 1020 years, technology will affect almost every occupation. For example, self-driving vehicles could slash the need for drivers of taxis and long-haul trucks, and online education could enrich options for retraining of displaced workers.

Most important, we learnt that policymakers are flying blind into what has been called the fourth industrial revolution or the second machine age. There is a remarkable lack of data available on basic questions, such as: what is the scope and rate of change of the key technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI)? Which technologies are already eliminating, augmenting or transforming which types of jobs? What new work opportunities are emerging, and which policy options might create jobs in this context?

At best, this paucity of information will lead to missed opportunities. At worst, it could be disastrous. If we want to understand, prepare for and guide the unpredictable impacts of advancing technology, we must radically reinvent our ability to observe and track these changes and their drivers.

Fortunately, many of the components of a fit-for-purpose data infrastructure are already in place. Digital knowledge about the economy is proliferating and has unprecedented precision, detail and timeliness. The private sector is increasingly adopting different approaches to generating data and using them in decision-making, such as A/B testing to compare alternatives. And technologies that protect privacy while allowing statistical summaries of large amounts of data to be shared are increasingly available.

We call for the creation of an integrated information strategy to combine public and privately held data. This would provide policymakers and the public with ways to negotiate the evolving and unpredictable impacts of technology on the workforce. Building on this, we call for policymakers to adopt an evidence-based 'sense and respond' approach, as pioneered by the private sector.

These are big changes, but the stakes for workers and the economy are high.

Much of the data needed to spot, understand and adapt to workforce challenges are not gathered in a systematic way, or worse, do not exist. The irony of our information age is that despite the flood of online data, decision-makers all too often lack timely, relevant information.

For instance, although digital technologies underpin many consumer services, standard US government data sources such as the Current Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics don't accurately capture the rise of the contingent or temporary workforce because they do not ask the right questions. Researchers and private-sector economists have tried to address this by commissioning their own surveys2, but these lack the scale, scope and credibility of government surveys. Government administrative data, such as tax forms, provide another potentially valuable data source, but these need to be integrated with government survey data to provide context and validation3.

Similarly lacking are metrics to track progress in the technologies and capabilities of AI. Moore's law (that microprocessor performance doubles every two years or so) captures advances in the underlying semiconductors, but it does not cover rapid improvements in areas such as computer vision, speech and problem solving. A comprehensive index of AI would provide objective data on the pace and breadth of developments. Mapping such an index to a taxonomy of skills and tasks in various occupations would help educators to design programmes for the workforce of the future. Non-governmental groups, such as the One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University in California, are taking useful steps, but much more can and should be done at the federal level.

Happily, we are in the middle of a digital data explosion. As companies have come to understand the power of machine learning, they have begun to capture new kinds of data to optimize their internal processes and interactions with customers and suppliers. Most large companies have adopted software and data infrastructures to standardize and, in many cases, to automate tasks from managing inventories and orders to handling staff holidays. Internet companies such as Amazon and Netflix routinely capture massive amounts of data to learn which products to show customers next, increasing sales and satisfaction. These lessons about real-time data collection and the data themselves can also be valuable to governments.

For example, websites for job-seekers contain data about millions of posts, the skills they require and where the jobs are. Universities have detailed information about how many students are taking which courses, when they will graduate and with which skills. Robotics companies have customer data showing demand for different types of automated assembly system. Technology-platform companies have data about how many freelance workers they employ, the hours they work and where. These sorts of information, if connected and made accessible in the right way, could give us a radically better picture of the current state of employment.

But hardly any such data are being shared now between organizations, and so we fail to capture their societal value. Reasons include the unwillingness of companies to divulge data that might be used by competitors. Privacy issues, cultural inertia and regulations against sharing are other obstacles.

Taking advantage of existing data needs a change in mindset4. Over the past decade, many corporations have moved from a 'predict and plan' approach to a 'sense and respond' one, which allows them to adapt quickly to a rapidly changing environment. By continuously collecting massive volumes of real-time data about customers, competitors, suppliers and their own operations, companies have learnt how to evolve their strategies, product offerings and profitability. The number of manufacturing firms adopting a data-driven approach to decision-making has more than tripled since 2005, reflecting the improvements it can bring to profitability and effectiveness5.

The most nimble firms run real-time experiments to test different policies and products. For example, Internet companies routinely run A/B tests: presenting customers with different interfaces, measuring which is most effective, then adopting the most successful. We discussed this approach with Sebastian Thrun, founder of the online education provider Udacity. In this way, the company learnt that it can dramatically improve retention of people on its courses by requiring students to apply for admission before beginning the course. Counter-intuitively, it also found that raising its prices in China tripled overall demand for its services.

John Phillips/Getty

A robot delivers takeaway food to customers in a trial in London.

Governments can and must learn the lessons of data-driven decision-making and experimentation. In the face of rapid and unpredictable changes that have unknown consequences, they need to be able to observe those changes in real time, and to quickly test policy responses to determine what works. For example, the best policy for retraining displaced workers could be decided after trialling several different policies for workers within one region. The policies' different impacts on employment could be observed for a year before moving forward with the one that produces the greatest re-employment. Authorities could continue to experiment to accommodate future changes.

One example of such an experiment was actually an accident. In 2008, the state of Oregon used a lottery process to randomize which of its citizens would be granted access to government health insurance (Medicaid), after an unexpected shortfall in state funding required funds to be rationed. The process provided invaluable information about the causal effects of the programme on health and well-being, and showed that Medicaid coverage led to an increase in preventive screening, such as for cholesterol6. There are many opportunities for more deliberate experimentation in government programmes. Because many are implemented in a phased process, some randomization can be done at little or no cost.

Digital data should not be treated as a substitute to information that is collected in more conventional ways by the government. It often makes government data more valuable, not less. Typically, the 'digital exhaust' data trail that is generated as a by-product of digitizing an organization's processes, goods and services does not fully capture or represent the underlying phenomena. For example, according to our analyses, Java programmers are well represented in databases of the employment-networking platform LinkedIn, but truck drivers are not. Not everyone has a smartphone, let alone a particular app. The use of digital payment tools, social networks or search engines varies across demographic categories and other variables of interest.

Although terabytes and exabytes of data are now available, they need to be calibrated and validated. The best way to do that is often through the kinds of systematic survey (such as a national census) and administrative data that the government collects. And, like industry, government should leverage more types of digital data that are collected as a by-product of its operations for instance, automatic toll collections or taxes.

Information is the ultimate public good.

Collecting truly representative data will at times require the force of law for compliance and anonymity. It might also require new modes of publicprivate partnerships including ways to incentivize the collection of data that are of great value to society but of little direct value to the private organization that is best positioned to collect them. This reflects the fact that information, which can often be shared at close to zero marginal cost, is the ultimate public good7. For example, job-placement websites might have little reason to publish statistics about which laid-off workers from one economic sector are getting new jobs of a certain type owing to skills obtained from a particular retraining programme. This holds true even if such trends are visible in their data, cost no money to share and are valuable to newly displaced workers.

We have spoken to leaders at private organizations including human-resource consultants Manpower in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; LinkedIn of Mountain View, California; and job-market analytics firm Burning Glass Technologies in Boston, Massachusetts. All have expressed an openness to such data sharing.

A rational public strategy for managing the jobs revolution calls for a clear and comprehensive picture of the changes. Obtaining that picture will require three things. First, we must find ways to collect data and statistical summaries from diverse sources, including private organizations. Second, a trusted broker is needed to protect data privacy, access, security, anonymity and other rights of data providers, and to provide summaries for the public (much as the US Census and other statistical agencies currently do). Third, we need ways to integrate data from sources that reflect different statistical sampling skews and biases, normalizing the data where possible and flagging any remaining biases.

This new information infrastructure should be integrated with existing core indexes that track key measures such as employment, earnings, recruitment, lay-offs, resignations and productivity and combined with powerful data sources from the private sector. This will enable statistics and analysis to shed light on standard key indicators of the economy in the context of ongoing change.

Perfection here is not a prerequisite for utility anything is better than flying blind. Investing in an infrastructure that enables continuous collection, storage, sharing and analysis of data about work is one of the most important and urgent steps any government can take.

Read this article:

Track how technology is transforming work - Nature.com

Twenty-two year old Stanford dropout Austin Russell started working on self driving car technology before he was old enough to drive. Nearly seven years later, Russell believes that his creation, a small little black box the size of a car battery, may make self-driving cars a lot safer.

Russell's startup, Luminar, pulled back the curtain on its work Thursday after years of working in near secrecy. The company claims to have made a big advancement in LiDAR, one of the standard guidance systems used in self-driving cars and what keeps them from smashing into trees, buses, and pedestrians crossing the road.

LiDAR technology is at the center of the self driving car world because it helps cars navigate by letting them detect objects around them without human help. The technology emits laser beams around the car to create a highly accurate 3D map of what's around it.

LiDAR data will tell a car that a cyclist is crossing in front of it at a stop sign or that a pedestrian is walking nearby on a sidewalk. This laser map, plus cameras and software, provides the information that helps a car operate without a driver in control.

The challenge for self-driving cars is that LiDAR technology is expensive . In fact, it's among the most costly things in self-driving vehicles. A high-end LiDAR costs more than $75,000, according to Waymo, the self-driving car arm of Google's parent company, Alphabetand most autonomous cars need at least two LiDAR systems.

Russell's company would compete against rivals like Velodyne, which Waymo used for its LiDAR until 2012. Uber, Volkswagen, and Ford are also said to be Velodyne customers.

Waymo has since created its own LiDAR technology while trying to slash the cost . It's also suing Uber for allegedly stealing some of its self-driving car designs, signaling just how much of a flash point self-driving cars technology has become for the many companies trying to carve out a market in the nascent field.

Russell declined to reveal what Luminar charges for it LiDAR, which it plans to mass produce and sell to automakers. But he hinted that it doesn't come cheap, implying that cutting corners could lead to accidents.

"With price going down, performance will go down," Russell said. "We are focused on building the best performing technology."

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

Russell contends that competing LiDAR systems face another challenge: They're unable to process information fast enough for cars traveling at high speeds. He and co-founder Jason Eichenholz say that the best performing LiDAR systems can only see dark objects (which reflect less light) no more than 35 meters away.

That leaves only one second of reaction time for cars driving at highway speeds. It's simply not enough time to avoid collisions.

However, Russell says that Luminar's LiDAR can spot hard-to-see objects like black cars up to 200 meters away cars traveling at 75 mph seven seconds to change lanes or veer out of the way.

For more on self driving cars, watch:

But Russell declined to compare Luminar's performance to that of any other specific manufacturer. Nor would he say where he got the one second and 35 meter limits on LiDAR technology from other companies.

Russell was also vague about how his team managed to improve its LiDAR's performance. He would only say that that the company has built new sensors and chips using "exotic" materials such as gallium arcinide instead of relying on existing components from suppliers.

The company, which operates from a Silicon Valley mansion and has a Orlando, Fla. production facility, has raised $36 million in funding from Canvas Ventures, GVA Capital, and 1517 Fund. Luminar was reportedly looking to raise additional funds at $1 billion valuation last year, but the startup didn't comment about additional fundraising or the valuation of the company.

Russell declined to say which companies are using his startup's LiDAR, saying only that 100 units are being tested by a handful of partnersat least some of which are paying an undisclosed amount to do so. He added that the response has been "overwhelmingly positive" and that "some customers have been asking to buy every LiDAR sensor they produce for the next five years."

It's clear that Russell doesn't have ambitions to build autonomous vehicles that many believe will become the norm on city streets and highways. The big question that remains is whether Luminar will be the company that Ford, GM , and Uber use as a LiDAR supplier if and when they start selling their own autonomous vehicles.

Here is the original post:

New Technology May Help Self-Driving Cars See Better - Fortune

And the messages about media and tech start almost from the moment they're born: TV will rot your kid's brain! Video games are evil! Kids don't know how to have conversations anymore!

It all boils down to the idea that too much media and tech will ruin your kid -- or make them fat, dumb, and mean.

But obviously that's an oversimplification. The truth is more complicated -- and a lot less scary.

Here we break down the scariest media and tech rumors and give you some solid research and simple, no-stress advice.

Advice: Turn off the TV unless you're actively watching it. And keep it out of sleeping areas. Play music -- perhaps wordless -- if you want some background noise. And set aside time each day, if possible, to actively play with little kids.

Advice: Avoid commercials by using a DVR or choosing videos without ads. Also, teach kids to recognize advertisers' tricks and marketing techniques, so when they see ads, they can evaluate them critically. Make sure kids get exercise every day, either at school or home. If kids can't spend time outdoors, find ways to be physically active indoors (create obstacle courses; do kid "boot camps") and choose active video games or find fun exercise apps or TV shows to enjoy together or for kids to enjoy on their own.

Advice: Kids don't talk on their phones very much -- they're more likely to text or use apps -- so even if there were a credible connection between the radio waves emitted from phones and damage to the brain, most kids would be at little risk. If you want to be extra cautious, make sure they aren't sleeping with their phones under their pillows (not a good idea anyway!).

Research says: While plenty of research has been done to try to figure this out, the results are still pretty inconclusive, especially for kids. Certainly, studies show that kids feel addicted, but whether many are experiencing the symptoms of true addiction -- interference with daily life, needing more to achieve the same feeling -- is still up for debate. Also, no one has defined what "too much" time is.

Advice: Build as much balance into kids' days and weeks as possible. That means aiming for a mix of screen and non-screen time that includes time with family and friends, reading, exercising, chores, outdoor play, and creative time. If kids seem to be suffering in some area -- at school, with friends, with behavior at home -- take a look at her daily and weekly activities and adjust accordingly.

Research says: Heavy exposure to violent media can be a risk factor for violent behavior, according to some -- but not all -- studies. Children who are exposed to multiple risk factors -- including substance abuse, aggression, and conflict at home -- and who consume violent media are more likely to behave aggressively.

Advice: Avoid games that are age-inappropriate, especially ones that combine violence with sex. Make media choices that reflect your family's values; that can mean choosing nonviolent games, limiting the amount of time kids can play certain games, or playing along with kids to help guide them through iffy stuff. Also, as much as possible, limit other risk factors of aggression in kids' lives.

Advice: Make sure kids get experience having face-to-face conversations with family members, friends, and others, such as teachers, coaches, or clergy. Teach kids proper etiquette, including not staring at a phone while someone else is talking. Model the behavior you want to see. But also accept that digital communication is here to stay. Embrace it and use it with your kid. And don't criticize kids for using it appropriately, even if it's not your preferred method of communication.

Original post:

Why parents fear technology is making kids fat, dumb and mean - CNN

Amazon.com is opening up the microphone technology used by its Echo home speaker to other hardware makers for free, a move that seeks to spread the reach of the companys artificial-intelligence assistant, Alexa.

Seattle Times business reporter

Amazon.com is opening up the microphone technology used by its Echo home speaker to other hardware makers for free, a move that seeks to spread the reach of the companys artificial-intelligence assistant, Alexa.

Owners of Echo devices interact with the Alexa cloud-based software by speaking commands and questions. Hence the importance of the seven-microphone, circular array that Amazon puts in its Echo device.

The mikes, and the software that controls them, are designed to hear instructions from afar and cut through domestic hubbub ranging from juice blenders to screaming children.

Amazon will share this technology with other device makers via an invitation-only program.

Amazons promotion of its Echo and Alexa technology comes amid stiffening competition in the voice-activated artificial-intelligence world from the likes of Microsoft, Apple and Google.

Giving other manufacturers a free ride on its technology might undercut the sale of Amazons own Echo devices. But its a long game. Amazon might consider that its a risk worth taking to make Alexa the dominant voice interface, giving Amazon increased presence in every household.

Analysts with RBC have estimated that Alexa could become a $10 billion business by the end of this decade. About half of that estimated revenue could come from the sale of Alexa-enabled devices, but also from consumers ordering products from Amazons site by talking to Alexa.

Read this article:

Amazon sharing Echo's microphone technology with manufacturers - The Seattle Times