Great insight, Mo. The government of Vietnam recently launched a similar technology, but instead of relying on Bluetooth, the app uses QR code to track people who have been in proximity (i.e. instead of shaking hands, now people scan QR codes when meeting each other). The app is warmly welcomed by the general public in Vietnam, quickly climbing to the top downloaded list on app store. The key success seems to rely on how much people are willing to adopt the app (in this case, the act of scanning QR when meeting other people) and where the emphasis on collectivism outweighs individualism (or the benefit of the community is superior to self interest). I imagine this tech will not work so well in a “free” society where no one can monitor and tell anyone what to do.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter, Katherine. I fully agree that highlighting both the patterns and the lack of patterns is crucial to taking full advantage of AI. After all, these two boxes are mutually exclusive, so by considering both, we are being completely exhaustive. That said, being exhaustive comes with costs as well (resources, money, time, etc.). An open question I have is how do we draw guidelines on what patterns or what “lack of patterns” to consider before running the risk of boiling the ocean.
Thanks for posting a great article, Haerin. The success of this AI-isation concept seems to rest upon how accurately it can predict consumer taste and preferences. The pre-requisite or underlying assumption is then everyone’s taste or preference (at least in a group with critical) will converge at some point. Creativity aside, I wonder if this idea will fly nowadays given our emphasis on celberating differences and individuality. Maybe after all we are all the same, with similar fear, joy, concern, and interests.