 |
|
|
|||||
In Silicon Valley boardrooms, a small group of executives is quietly making decisions that will shape the lives of billions. And most of us wont know what those decisions are until its too late to change them. In July, the White House published “Americas AI Action Plan,” a 28-page document that reads like an industrial policy for a new arms race. Buried in Pillar I is a line that tells you exactly where U.S. policy is headed: Revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change. When governments start crossing out those words by design, its fair to ask who is setting the terms of our technological futureand for whose benefit. This is more than rhetoric. The same plan boasts of rolling back the prior administration’s AI order, loosening oversight, and fast-tracking infrastructure and energy for data centers. It recasts artificial intelligence primarily as a geopolitical race to “win,” not as a societal system to govern. Its a perspective less about stewardship and more about deal-making, a style of governance that treats public policy like a term sheet. That framing matters: When the policy goal is speed and dominance, accountability becomes a nice-to-have. The European path Europe has chosen a completely different sequence: Set guardrails first, then scale. The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024 and phases in obligations through 2026, with enforcement designed around risk. Imperfect? Sure. But the message is unambiguous: Democratic institutionsnot just corporate PRshould define acceptable uses, disclosures, and liabilities before the technology is everywhere. Meanwhile, the center of gravity in AI sits with a handful of firms that control compute, models, and distribution. Consider computethe acceleratorbased computing capacity (GPU/TPU time) required to train and run modern AIas well as models and distribution. Analysts still peg Nvidias share of AI accelerators at around 90%, and hyperscalers lock up capacity years in advance. That scarcity shapes who can experiment, who cant, and who pays whom for access. When the head of state approaches technology policy like an investment banker, those negotiations arent about public interest; theyre about maximizing a deal, often for the states coffers, and sometimes for political capital. Opacity compounds the problem. OpenAIs own GPT4 technical report declines to disclose the training data, model size, or compute used, explicitly citing competition and safety. Whatever you think of that rationale, it means society is being asked to accept consequential systems while remaining largely blind to what went into them. Trust us” is not governance. Concentrated power If you want a small but vivid example of how private choices ripple into public life, look at what happened when OpenAI released a flirty voice called Sky that many thought sounded like Scarlett Johansson. After public backlash, the company paused the voice. A cultural boundary was drawn not by a regulator or a court, but by a product team, a crisis comms cycle, and a corporate decision. Thats a lot of power for a very small group of people. Power also shows up on the utility bill. Googles latest environmental reporting links a 48% increase in greenhouse emissions since 2019 to datacenter growth for AI, and documents 6.1 billion gallons of water used in 2023 for coolingnumbers that will rise as we scale. Mistrals life cycle analysis goes further, estimating perprompt energy and water use for its models. Every ask the model has a footprint; multiply by billions and you cant pretend its free, no matter how much of a climate change denialist you may be. So yes, the United States is winning the raceto concentrate decisions that affect expression, employment, education, and the environment in a tiny crcle of boardrooms. The result is a democratic deficit. The public is reduced to spectators, reacting to faits accomplis instead of setting the rules. The alternative What would it look like to flip the script? Start by treating AI as infrastructure that requires public capacity, not just private CapEx. The National AI Research Resource pilot reflects the right instinct: Give researchers and startups shared access to compute, data, and tools so that inquiry isnt gated by hyperscaler contracts. Make it permanent, wellfunded, and independent, because open science dies when access is controlled by NDA. Second, attach conditions to public money and public procurement. If agencies and schools are going to buy AI, they should demand basic disclosures: which data were used for training; what guardrails govern outputs; which independent tests the model has passed; and an energyandwater ledger tied to time and place, not annual averages. If a vendor cant meet those bars, they dont get the contract. Thats not antiinnovation. Its market discipline aligned with public values. Third, separate layers to curb lockin. Cloud providers shouldnt be able to mandate that their model must use their chips to run their services as the default. Interoperability and data portability arent romantic ideals; they are how you keep a sector competitive when three firms control the stack. Fourth, transparency must mean more than model cards written by the vendor. For systems above a certain scale, we should require auditable disclosures to qualified third partieson training data provenance, evaluation suites, and postdeployment performance. If that sounds onerous, thats because consequence at scale is onerous. Weve learned this in every other critical infrastructure. Finally, align the environmental story with reality. Water and energy disclosures must be realtime, facilityspecific, and verified. Water positive by 2030 doesnt help a town whose aquifer is being drained this decade. If companies want to be first to ship frontier models, they should also be first to implement 24/7 carbonfree energy procurement and hard water budgets tied to local hydrology. A deeper danger Theres a deeper danger when national technology strategy is run like a business portfolio: Efficiency and revenue become the primary metrics, overshadowing the harder-to-quantify needs of citizens. In the private sector, sacrificing ethics, transparency, or long-term stability for a profitable deal can be chalked up to shareholder value. In government, that same trade-off erodes democracy itself, concentrating decisions in even fewer hands and normalizing a profit-first lens on matters that should be about rights, safeguards, and public trust. The point is not to slow AI. It is to decide, in public, which AI we want and on what terms. The U.S. is capable of both ambition and restraint; we did it with aviation, with medicine, with finance. AI should be no different. If we leave the big choices to a few firms and a few political appointees, well get a future built for us, not by us. And the price of rewriting it later will be higher than anyone is admitting today.
Category:
E-Commerce
David Marquet was formerly captain of the nuclear submarine USS Santa Fe and is the best-selling author of Turn the Ship Around, which tells the story of transforming that submarine from the worst-performing to the best-performing sub in the fleet. Since retiring from the Navy, he has worked with businesses globally as a leadership consultant. Mike Gillespie is an associate professor of psychology at the University of South Florida who studies how to make organizations more effective. He teaches organizational psychology and directs the Human Applied Cognition and Decision-Making Lab. Whats the big idea? Great leaders have a superpower that lets them remove many of their biases, see reality more clearly, and make better decisions: distance. By distancing themselves from situations along the dimensions of identity (what if I were someone else?), place (what if I was in a different position?), and time (what if I was in the future?) they can connect with the essence of what is truly important. Below, coauthors Marquet and Gillespie share five key insights from their new book, Distancing: How Great Leaders Reframe to Make Better Decisions. Listen to the audio versionread by Marquetin the Next Big Idea app. 1. We live in a curated reality. In the early 1980s, Gordon Moore and Andrew Grove, who were running Intel, faced a critical dilemma. Intel, founded a decade and a half earlier, was slipping in its original businessmemory chipsbut had developed a new product, the 4004 microprocessor. The two leaders remained paralyzed for over a year, unable to make the decision to shift the companys focus to microprocessors because the idea of abandoning memory chips was just too painful. The breakthrough came when Grove asked Moore a pivotal question: If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do? Moore replied instantly, He would get us out of memories. And so thats what they did. No new information, no new market updates, no reprocessing of the data. Just a reframe that dropped the accumulated weight of all the decisions from the past and broke through a year of drift. This sudden clarity emerged because Moore and Grove exited their self-immersed state, where their identity was deeply tied to memory chips. The key to seeing clearly was to look at the situation from the perspective of someone who did not have that accumulated baggage and, even though it was imagined, it worked. Without our awareness, our brains naturally curate what we perceive and encourage us to protect our image, our sense of self, our precious ego. These so-called self-serving biases distort reality, hinder growth, and result in worse decision-making. Taking on a different perspective is a simple way to shed these biases. As a nuclear submarine captain, every once in a while, an officer would come to me with a plan that was optimized for their department but not for the submarine as a whole. I would ask them variations of the following: What would you do if you were me? Id leave them alone for a minute (typically, to get a cup of coffee), and when I came back, they had a new plan. A better plan that was optimized for the submarine as a whole. Again, no new information, no new analysis, just a reframe of the situation from the perspective of someone else. 2. Distance gives better perspective. As we distance ourselves from something, the details blur, and whats left is the essence of the thing. If that thing” is a decision, with distance our brain focuses on whats important in the big picture and doesnt get distracted by details that only seem so important in the here and now. Think about a tree. When standing right next to it, you see ripples in the bark and a beetle crawling up the trunk. You see not just the individual leaves, but the veins in the leaves. Then you start walking back. The bark blurs, and the individual leaves fade. Now you see a tree. You can tell it is an oak tree and discern the shape of its major branches. As you keep moving away, it becomes just a green dot on the horizon. Just a tree. You are down to the essence of the thing. The farther you are from the decision, the more your brain sees what matters most. Now replace the tree with a decision: What should I major in? Should I attend a conference? Should I get a new job? When should I retire? The same thing happens. The farther you are from the decision, the more your brain sees what matters most. Distance works whether you physically change your perspective (as in the tree example) or if you imagine a different one. For example, you can become someone else. It also works if you imagine yourself being somewhere else or sometime else. We explore these three dimensions in the book: be someone else, be somewhere else, or be sometime else. This is psychological distancing. With psychological distance, we think about things, ideas, or decisions differently. Distance changes the way we mentally construe things. The underlying science here is called construal level theory. As things move from closer to farther, our thinking shifts from a lower level of construalthe detailsto a higher level of construalthe essence or purpose. Higher levels of construal and the different forms of psychological distance all go hand in hand. This is why it seems normal to say long ago in a galaxy far, far away, while long ago in a nearby galaxy sounds weird. Another way of saying this is that at lower levels of construal, we are more concerned with the how of the thing, and as we move away toward higher levels of construal, we think more about the what and ultimately the why of the thing. We move from how to make memory chips to what should we even focus on, and why. 3. Be someone else. A great way to get out of our own head is to be someone else. Going back to the Intel story, we see that by asking What would our replacements do?, Moore and Grove invoked the be someone else dimension of psychological distancing. This is particularly effective if you think your attachment to the current situation is making it hard for you to see reality and alternatives in an unbiased way. It does not matter as much who you choose to be so long as it isnt you. Weve seen people imagine themselves as various different others: their replacement, their boss, their grandchildren, their coach, a good friend, and so on. It does not matter as much who you choose to be so long as it isnt you. Almost any distancing will work. So, when you have a decision to make, imagine you are someone else. What would that person say to do? 4. Be somewhere else. We can also mentally teleport to a different location to gain perspective. William Ury is a Distinguished Fellow of the Harvard Negotiation Project and coauthor of the bestselling book Getting to Yes. In it, he describes the problems that arise from becoming overly immersed in a negotiation. Once we take a position, we argue for it and defend it. We identify with the position and assimilate that position into the image we have of ourselves. That position coul be $100 million for a strategic acquisition (and not a penny more!) or the number of inspections a country is allowed to conduct to verify the absence of nuclear weapons. Compromising on our position means giving up a piece of ourselves. Our brains frame it as a personal loss. In addition to, or even replacing, the original objective of the negotiation, we now have a new objective: saving face. This hijacks our focus from completing the task to protecting our image. But Ury has a trick to keep himself focused on the task at hand: go to the balcony. In the heat of the moment, he likes to take a pause mentally and imagine hes on a balcony, looking down at the negotiations, rather than sitting in his chair at the negotiation table. This activates the distancing mechanisms that create a higher construal level, refocusing on the essence of the task. We can mentally teleport to a different location to gain perspective. So, to gain distance, view the situation from the balcony. Do this in preparation for a stressful event or during a pause in the action. This will keep you on task. 5. Be sometime else. Mental time travel is another powerful way to gain perspective. When Moore and Grove became their replacements, they also took on a bit of a future perspectivebecoming both someone else and sometime else. Becoming a future version of ourselves is a powerful reframe for making better decisions. Jeff Bezos had to make a tough decision to leave his job to start Amazon. He had a great job on Wall Street, and he went to his boss with his idea to sell books on the internet. This was in 1994. His boss told him it was a great idea for someone who didnt already have a job, so he should think about it for a couple of days. Bezos then imagined it this way: When Im 80, what am I going to regret more? Trying and failing or not trying? He imagined himself far from the decision, far from this years bonus and next months rent. When you jump to the far side of a decision and look back on it, your brain reframes it in terms of regret, not change. This biases us toward action as opposed to the inertia of the status quo. In the modern world, where change is happening at an unprecedented rate, this reframe often results in better decisions and a more fulfilling life. So, fastforward to the far side of the decision. Imagine youve already made it, and events have already unfolded. How did it turn out? How do you feel about the different likely scenarios? Now, what would you choose? This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
At many companies, the minimum viable product (MVP) mindset has become gospel. Two-week sprints and move fast, break things slogans keep teams iterating, but they can also trap organizations in a cycle of incrementalismproducing updates that are safe but forgettable. No surprise, then, that the Product Development and Management Association reports roughly 40% of product launches still flopusually because they half-solve the problem or under-delight the user. In study after study, executives acknowledge a frustrating gap: many of their offerings are just good enough to compete, even though they recognize that true differentiation is what drives long-term profit and loyalty. We approach this challenge from both the studio and the boardroom, and weve learned from artists that good enough is an efficiency metric; its great enough, an emotional metric, that we should be measuring instead. Artists know the human reaction is the real brief we are shipping. Businesses that adopt this mindset transform productivity into resonance. The best founders already practice this form of disciplined obsession. Just look at iconic leaders like Walt Disney, Dr. Edwin Land at Polaroid, Steve Jobs at Apple, or Brian Chesky at Airbnb, for example. All of them echo what light-and-space pioneer artist Robert Irwin demanded of his own work: it must read all the way throughfront, back, and the parts no one sees.” Thats the leap from MVP to masterpiece. The antidote to good enough isnt reckless perfectionism or feature bloat: its disciplined obsession. The resolve to push beyond 80% because the final 20% is where usefulness becomes wonder, and customers become fans. Obsession in action Across industries, from consumer electronics to rock concert logistics, breakthroughs consistently appear where teams refuse to settle for almost. Just take these cases where disciplined focus can reshape markets, protect lives, and even rewrite scientific understanding. James Dyson cycled through 5,127 prototypes before perfecting cyclone suction. Each failure exposed a flaw that a good-enough model would have hidden, and today Dyson dominates the premium vacuum segment. Apples Power Mac G4 Cube failed to gain traction at retail, but its fanless cooling and transparent shell laid the groundwork for the design DNA of future iMacs and Mac minis. A costly misstep became a down payment on aesthetic leadership. Van Halens no brown M&Ms clause signaled whether promoters read every line of the safety rider. When the candies showed up, the crew insisted on reinspecting the rigging, an obsessive detail that likely averted catastrophe. In Tonys biotech career, a Phase II trial that missed its endpoint was celebrated, not buried. Mining the data exposed a biomarker that later earned breakthrough-therapy statusproof that failure can be the fastest route to discovery. Different domains, same lesson: the last mile, pursued with rigor, create the leap from adequate to iconic. How to Decide When Obsession Might Pay Off Obsession can fuel excellence or waste months in blind alleys. Heres a litmus test you can apply to see if you are on the right track: Mission-critical or cosmetic? Suction loss in a vacuum is core; the bevel on a handle may not be. Learning or polishing? Each iteration should teach something new; if youre merely burnishing vanity, stop. Will customers notice and pay for the difference? Leica buyers pay for 1% sharper images; paper-towel shoppers wont. Answer yes to all three, and you have a case for a disciplined obsession. How the FOCUS Framework Can Help Creative Breakthroughs In his work with clients, Nir often begins by asking them to bring an object they love, such as a vintage camera, a jazz record, or a battered field watch. Then, he asks them to unpack it: Why does it move you? The answers go beyond function. It’s the heft of the lens, the warmth of analog tone, the weathered patina that tells a story. What surfaces is a powerful insight: the things we love most are often engineered with invisible care. The quality we feel isnt polishits integrity. Once thats understood, good enough begins to feel like a meaningful personal compromise. With this emotional imprint anchored, we introduce FOCUS, our five-part framework for transforming passion into disciplined progress. Frame the nonnegotiable. Name the hill youre willing to die onzero suction loss, five-minute onboarding, or sub-four-second load. This clarity prevents perfectionism from becoming misdirection. Observe edge failures early. Dont wait for scale to see what breaks. Stress-test assumptions with chaos monkeys, red teaming, or real-world extremes from the outset. Capture lessons continuously. Log everything. Iterations that fail one product might spark another. Dysons abandoned cyclone sketches now power its hand-dryers and hair toolsproof that diligent note-keeping multiplies value. Use guardrails. Time-box your obsessions. Define a success metric, test threshold, or insight plateau that signals when to pivot or ship. Share openly. Make learnings public. At Etsy, engineers write postmortems with vulnerability and clarity, turning setbacks into shared wisdom. When Good Enough Really Is Enough Obsession is a scalpel, not a hammer. During the COVID-19 pandemic, good-enough vaccine doses saved millions; waiting for perfect data would have cost lives. In fintech for the unbanked, accessibility beats interface polish. The art is knowing when incremental gains change outcomes and when speed or reach matter more. So pose this question at your next sprint review: Where are we settling for workable when users crave wonderful? If the gap solves a pivotal pain point, grant a Dyson-level runwaythen let FOCUS guardrails protect timelines and morale. When organizations combine disciplined obsession with artistic intent, they dont just out-iterate competitors; they create visceral, memorable experiences that define business artistry. In a sea of sameness, passable products vanish. The obsessively honed few become unforgettable. When the problem matters and each iteration deepens insight, disciplined obsession isnt wasteful; its the fastest route to extrordinary.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||