A Wright Brothers Moment

Like most business leaders these days, I am obsessed with the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence. Not a day goes by without the promise or threat of AI dominating the headlines. There is insurmountable prognostication from pundits on all sides of observation — thinkers, doers, computer scientists, investors, executives, academics, journalists, policy-makers, and just regular folks — about where AI will lead, with or without direct human control.

As always, my core belief is that technology advances faster than our ability to understand its social implications. This is also another one of those situations where it is impossible to say if anyone can paint a clear and true picture of what we’ll see on the road ahead, be it five, ten, or a hundred years from today.

This for me has become a Wright Brothers moment. What I mean by that is trying to imagine what the Wright Brothers might have thought about where their first powered flyer might lead in the ensuing hundred years. Although they understood the potential military applications of flight, they couldn’t have imagined the 37-hour round-trip path of the recent B2 intercontinental bombing mission. They couldn’t have imagined commercial flights filling up daily at relatively low cost with endless travelers. They couldn’t have envisioned space travel with or without humans to the moon, Mars, or beyond our own galaxy.

I’m familiar with the Wright Brothers story as it was foundational to the first storytelling project I joined to bring to life in technology, a very early computer game called Wings. That game followed the life of a young pilot in World War I, an extremely rudimentary military use of aeronautics long beyond the imagination of the innovators Wilbur and Orville Wright. The success of the Kitty Hawk biplane experiment in 1903 led to armed aircraft and pilots fighting each other in flight a decade later. That was an early twentieth-century sign of how fast technology would evolve from concept to unplanned implementation.

The more I study AI and approve early-stage projects where it is being applied to our business, the more I am convinced we are in a Wright Brothers moment. Virtually no one reading this blog will be around in a century to either say “I told you so” or gasp at the outcome of where machine learning, large language models, generative AI, or agentic adoption will take us. It would be like the Wright Brothers on that remote North Carolina beach envisioning a frequent flyer program and pre-ordering their inflight meal — or trying to picture an aircraft carrier at sea, or a massive rocket lifting into the air and landing again on its base.

Futurists may try to see through a crystal ball, but we all know that’s mostly a fool’s errand. What we may think the history of science will bring and what it actually delivers are almost impossible to reconcile within a lifetime, let alone beyond a lifetime.

I felt similarly when I bought my first personal computer in the mid-1980s at the beginning of my career, mostly to use as a word processor. That was a few years before a small team of collaborators built that WWI game called Wings. In those few years following the first monochrome monitor on my desktop, we created a brightly colored rendering of a three-dimensional flight simulator at extraordinarily low cost and sold at a similarly attractive consumer price point. I thought to myself, where will this exponential compounding take us in the tangible decades ahead of me?

The quantitative advances in processing instructions were already staggering. We had just bought new computers with 20mb hard drives and the Holy Grail of local storage appeared to be CD-ROM. That was before the commercial internet, before broadband, before widely available cellphones, and long before any kind of advanced mobile device in your hand that could access and display unlimited high-definition video. No one could have pictured an iPhone, not even Steve Jobs.

All of that pales in comparison to what I think AI will bring. I’m trying to envision the world in a decade, in two decades, which hopefully I will see. A hundred years from now, what will be the human experience? What is the equivalent of boarding a plane with 400 other passengers for a flight of several hours across an ocean and hoping to get upgraded versus waiting in line at a port hoping to find passage on a steamship for a week or two of unsteady seas?

Together we are sharing a Wright Brothers moment. We’re on a windy shoreline, staring in awe at an ingeniously designed, materially fragile, heavier-than-air, modestly motor-powered, fancy bit of kite architecture, equipped to carry a single passenger off the ground for about 12 seconds.

What this means is that we are about to fly.

_______________

Photo: Pixabay

“Tune Out The Noise”

In lieu of a broader blog post this month, I’m sharing a link to a documentary film recently released on YouTube entitled “Tune Out the Noise.” It was featured in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend and tells the story of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA), a pioneering investment firm born out of exhaustive academic research at the University of Chicago. That graduate school of business, now known as the Booth School, is named for David Booth, a generous contributor to the university and a co-founder with Rex Sinquefield of DFA.

This 86-minute documentary, directed by the masterful Errol Morris, frames the practical application of decades of study by multiple Nobel Prize laureates around the triumph of passive investing over active investing. If you’re not familiar with the difference between index investors (passive) and stock pickers (active), or the alleged controversies surrounding the comparison, this film will provide an entertaining primer to one of Wall Street’s greatest battles for the hearts and minds of ordinary people putting their money to work for the long-term, particularly into retirement. I won’t spoil the punchline, but you won’t have to wait for the end of the movie to understand its thesis.

The DFA leadership team sponsored the production and made it available free of charge because they want to broaden the public’s perspective on the mathematics underlying equity markets, generation after generation. I have been a massive fan of DFA almost since its inception. Whether or not you agree with the firm’s approach to investing, I believe you owe it to yourself to better understand what they set out to do, how it has played out, and how many believers have been fortunate enough to benefit from so many serious, critical thinkers who set out to change their corner of the world and pulled it off in spectacular fashion.

I hope you enjoy the show as much as I did, and come to respect this brilliant group of financial leaders as much as I do.

_______________

Video: YouTube

Rage On

It’s a strange way to end a strange year.

About a decade ago I wrote a book about an internet uprising in support of a pair of unlikely criminals who kidnapped a pair of executives after accidentally killing a businessperson during the abduction. In hindsight, it’s a bit eerie given current events.

The book is called This Is Rage. It’s a novel of outlandish observations and counterintuitive character behavior I assembled from a career in technology and media. Much of the underlying ethos had been eating at me in repeated cycles. My goal was to paint in the extreme, to bridge the dying days of old world communication with the uncharted future of a world without filters. It was meant to be outrageous, plausible only at the fringes, a look into events that possibly could happen, but held resonance more as a cautionary tale than a slice of life.

I knew the premise was plausible because I’ve been a student of the commercial internet since it entered our lives. I watched it bring out the worst in people, particularly behind anonymity, but also the ways uncontainable sentiment could be exploited by businesses, politicians, and other special interests. I knew the events could spin out beyond the control of those seeding them, while a clever few would convince themselves they could harness the battered convictions of those who felt forgotten.

I meant it as satire in the spirit of Tom Wolfe. In the years that followed, the line between satire and reality began to blur. Then one day, it seemed to me the line was gone.

Skits on Saturday Night Live and news headlines often became indistinguishable. Something called fake news became identified as unreliable information emerging from unconfirmed sources that took on snowball effects with implied credibility. Just as we got our heads around the notion of fake news, it became an easy label for anything someone didn’t want to believe. Deepfakes, videos that appeared to be evidence of real activity, were revealed to be manipulated images edited for effect without regard for truth. The act of lying was sometimes referred to as alternative facts.

Imagine that, alternative facts as a reality we should consider.

This confluence of powerful, widely distributed technology and internet anarchy has exceeded most of what I imagined, yet the one storyline I hoped was long into the future no longer is. While I anticipated the fiery populism most often expressed with unchecked anonymity, I held the belief that human character would nonetheless gravitate toward a sense of justice. The stretch in my satire was that in fully unrestrained expression, a villain could in the public eye become a hero. This to me was a bridge too far, and that if a movement began to form in that direction, the goodness in us would win out. The failings in our logic would become uncomfortably apparent.

I was wrong. Today the headlines tell us popular sympathy can align behind a villain if the circumstances motivating a crime are deemed by spiraling opinion somehow more pernicious than the crime itself. It was impossible then and it is impossible now for me to believe a vote of internet emotion can take the side of the criminal who murders an insurance executive because he finds the victim’s business unethical. I say it is impossible to believe, and yet it is reality.

How did we get here? As I have written so many times before, the implications of the technology weaving through our lives takes its toll whether we understand it or not. Our ability to digest the psychological impact of technology can’t keep pace with the deployment of its power. We use the internet freely, we express ourselves in whatever form of truth we believe is appropriate, but the ability to decipher how our behavior is being altered eludes us as individuals and in the collective.

There are no alternative facts unless we allow them. Fake news is not a convenience unless we allow it be. Villains are not heroes unless we allow them to be.

There will be more rage, I am assured of that. People are angry, confused, and sadly turned against each other for the gains of those who fuel the rage. While we are free to express ourselves without restraint in anonymity, it’s hard for me to think of that as freedom when we could be empowering each other with shared values and vetted knowledge.

We don’t need to hide behind falsehoods. If we are made to feel afraid for saying the emperor has no clothes, we need to rediscover the courage to stand ahead of the herd. Transparency may prove increasingly challenging in a world gone mad, but actual facts are available if we commit to the work of identifying them. Argue with data and a passion for clarity over impulse.

It is a privilege to write for you, and I believe I have one at least one more book in me. Before I get to that, I am going to have to come to terms with what is meant by satire, and whether being predictive has any value at all. Irony is only a teacher if the comparisons we attempt are rooted in decency that is broadly recognized.

As we begin a new year, remember that there are facts worth unearthing, unsung heroes all around us worth celebrating, and plenty of villains playing out schemes to convince us they are worthy of trust. I’ll finish the year on a thread of optimism and say that together we can separate a worthy example from a fabricated manipulation. The choice to offer applause only when it has been earned remains at our discretion.

_______________

Image: Pixabay

Insist on Honesty

I have learned with age that part of life is navigating past disillusionment. With humility we recommit to resilience. The rules have clearly changed on us. What we thought we learned was dependably true no longer seems so.

Defeat is a temporary condition as long as we choose to continue to advocate for character, integrity, and justice. There is no silencing honesty and lies will always be lies.

Perhaps this is a good time to re-read 1984 by George Orwell. First-time readers are equally likely to be astonished by its prescience and relevance. As long as 2 + 2 = 4, the notion of shared understanding remains in the realm of the possible. There is no interpretation of 2 + 2 = 4; it is always so. Facts must be facts.

Can human beings be bullied to answer otherwise? Can we be compelled to state openly that 2 + 2 = 5? That‘s what’s on the table. There has to be such a thing as empirical reality or all bets are off. When too many people are convinced otherwise, a community can no longer function without chaos. Fear can never cause us to deny the objectivity we know to be true or freedom deteriorates to a misnomer of ethical compromise.

Demanding honesty has to be bipartisan or the ability to cooperate despite our differences becomes impossible. We insist on honesty from our children and teach them this is a fundamental value. One of the first lessons we teach a child is that lying is always wrong. Tell the truth always, take ownership for your mistakes, do not justify doing harm to others, do not cheat, build trust with others through consistent honesty. We must then lead by example, all of us, or the teaching is corrosively undermined.

Understanding science is part of embracing honesty. Sorting past rhetoric to examine the assembled results of structured experiments is not easy work, but without that ceaseless effort, it’s easy to be deceived. Scientific process will forever evolve, that is its nature. We unpack the natural world as we explore it through the generations, century after century.

Sometimes we arrive at settled knowledge. Sometimes we make decisions based on prevailing proof. When an idea gets turned over, that is not a matter of subjectivity but disciplined argument and expert peer review. There are subject matter experts who have earned their authority. Internet and social media noise are forms of unedited expression, not authority.

Insist on honesty from all those in your life who would tell you otherwise. We can’t become cynical or the inspiration to effect positive change will elude us. We are still in this together, our empathy is our strength. What better choice do we have than to be even more honest versions of ourselves?

Raise your voice, maintain your courage, never cave to false promise. Blame is a coward’s tactic, not a sustainable motivation. Hope will lift us up. A setback is a moment in time.

We fight on.

_______________

Book Cover Image: Signet Classics