Caro – thanks for a super interesting article. I must admit I had NEVER heard of 3D organs as an effective alternative transplants. I am very curious to see what the long term effects of having 3D printing. It seems that this is a fantastic option for people who are in rural areas, who are on long lists for organ transplants, or who otherwise wouldn’t be able to access a human organ transplant. While this is a totally new concept to me, it does seem that 3D printing could drastically change the medical transplant field across the world. However, as I said by concern is that we still do not know the risks of the long term outcomes. In order to save lives and also save costs, this seems like a fascinating option and I am happy to hear that it is being pursued. Thanks again for opening my eyes to something completely new!
Thanks for a great article, Alex. I think you make a really great point when you write about how Optum Labs focuses on patients who do not suffer from chronic conditions, so are only interacting with the health care system a few times a year. For this reason, partnerships with Samsung, Apple and companies like Fitbit makes a lot of sense. In other words, how can Optum Labs work on early diagnosis by meeting patients where they are in their day to day lives, instead of in the doctors office. OL will need to put a huge focus on making sure that there IS a control systems to ensure that there are not inaccurate AI insights (or at least as few as possible). As we see with AI in other industries, like in autonomous vehicles, the public reacts VERY strongly to any issues in automation, even though human error if often much more common than machine error. This means that there will need to be intensive training for staff and experts on how to use these tools, and also the tools shouldn’t be administered until they are completely ready, because as you said, when used in clinical scenarios the controls must be even tighter to protect clinicians and also patients. Awesome work!
Sophia – this is fantastically informative! I think you’re right on with your point that the public expects more our of machine learning than they do out of humans, so any small errors will result in horrible press, which is truly unfortunate. I think that what’s needed here is a culture shift. Right now people are very attached to the pill because it’s what they’re used to. But as we know, the pill is only around 93% effective (or less). Not to mention it has possible side effects that can be dangerous. People are often afraid of change, but with a societal shift – led by doctors and experts – can really change the industry and people’s lives. While I think it’s unfair, I do believe that learning-based digital health products will need a higher standard for efficacy to start. The reason I say this is because people need time to get used to this shift, and and negative press around it may scare people off. However, over time, I think these types of use of contraception will prove to be much more accurate, useful, and healthier. Thanks for an awesome article!
Thank you for this article – it is something that I hadn’t thought much about, but I am really happy I had the chance to learn more through this article. I think your long term questions are especially interesting. Maintaining a competitive advantage will definitely pose a challenge. I think that the first step is to move quickly but safely. Safety needs to come first when it comes to autonomous driving, the brand can be severely damaged by negative reputation issues, such as something going wrong with the safety aspect. In order to keep a competitive advantage, safety must come first. Jobs will unfortunately be lost as this automation becomes more popular, but some jobs will also be gained in terms of creating the technology and materials needed to build this automation. Opening up these job opportunities to those who are losing their jobs at Suncor to automation, could be key. Overall, thank you for this awesome article!
Awesome article. I think you pose some really interesting questions around Nike’s next steps. I personally believe that Nike should move fast with this technology. They should not perfect their footwear capabilities across sports before moving to 3D printing on equipment mainly because the competition is just on their tails and will catch up quickly. The faster they can move into the market of 3D printing on equipment like balls, rackets, golf clubs, and more – the further ahead of their competition they will push. I definitely see your point about how moving quickly may spread them too think and slow down innovation, but I actually think that moving quickly could have the opposite effect. What I mean by that is that perhaps moving quickly into equipment could help Nike to innovate faster, as they will be able to test as they go and adjust as they realize what is and isn’t working. Overall, I think this is really fantastic and I am excited to see what happens next!
Stefan — this is a fantastic article, and thank you for posing such thoughtful questions. While I think the positive feedback loop can be really beneficial for Netflix, I also believe that Netflix should work to cut through the biases in creative ways. If Netflix is not offering enough new themes to a viewer, then the viewer is losing out on watching things in a different category that they may love. There is huge value in shared viewing experiences, but I think that viewers want to also have shared experiences around content that they may not have chosen on their own. So, perhaps Netflix could continue this positive feedback loop while also sprinkling in content that is unrelated to what they have been watching, but could prove to introduce the viewer to a new category they may love. In terms of your stated risks of racial bias, I do think that this is something that could be very dangerous. There are ways for Netflix to know and collect this information, while also ensuring that their algorithms aren’t making suggestions solely based on that information. In fact, perhaps they could use that data to actually suggest content that is typically less viewed “within that race, etc.” as a way to continue to introduce new content to different people. Again, this was awesome. Thanks!
Allison — really great article. I think your point about raising competition is especially important to note. How can Under Armor ensure that they are keeping ahead of the competitors in a way that differentiates them, as competitors begin to use the same technology? Your comments on how UA is acquiring many other digital fitness apps may be the answer. Perhaps as competition grows, it is unrealistic to think that they can keep differentiated from their competitors solely by their footwear (pun intended) and other apparel. In that case, focusing on your idea of using other forms of technology to track fitness performance and better customize footwear and apparel could be a great path. Thank you for writing on this topic – I’m excited to see how UA and the industry continue to innovate!