The Future Olympics - in 3028.

​

That date isn't wrong - this innovative video provides a glimpse of what the Games might look like one thousand years ahead; it's less than 90 seconds long and you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaTC6AgKeI​

​
Paris 2024 has just finished, with Los Angeles next holding the next Summer Olympiad in four years time.
​
This will be the third time that L.A. will be hosting the event, having done so previously in 1932 and 1984 (Paris and London have also held it 3 times).
​
This short clip, created by production company MYLES, is interesting when we consider the future in two primary ways.
​
Firstly, it was created by using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) software Runway Gen-3 Alpha.
​
Producing video via AI works in a similar fashion to creating an image via generative AI: a user enters in what they want (a prompt), and the algorithm interprets it to synthesise output.
​
Each shot here was created with a single prompt, so whilst produced quickly and cheaply (in relative terms compared to conventional Computer Generated Imagery (CGI)), it likely wasn't easy nor linear.
​
Being non-deterministic means that generative AI tools will not always give you what you want (one prompt does not equal one output), so lot's of trial-and-error iterations are required.
​
Though the fidelity is commendable, we can see limitations remain in what these tools can do - continuity and cohesion is challenging to achieve.
​
One may also note an absence of people (athletes, spectators) in the piece - as these are an area where generative tools have work to do to get nuances correct.
​
Secondly and far more strategically, this paints a vision of what the future might look like many years from now.
​
Less of a plan or blueprint, it's creative and thought-provoking content.
​
Applying a Strategic Foresight lens, where we project the possible implications of Trends, Signals, Vectors, Patterns, and Forecasts to potential futures, there's some fascinating tidbits here.
​
For example, the impact of global warming and climate change is clear: sea levels have risen, causing stadia to be constructed high above ground level, some on top of high-rise buildings - or in the middle of a harbour.
​
Furthermore, some venues have some sort of protective bubble enveloping them - perhaps to keep the temperature inside manageable.
​
Ultimately, it's a great visual way to use the contemporary technology of today to instigate thought, debate, and action around what our future may look like tomorrow.
​
Your thoughts on how this content was produced - and what it projects about the speculative future - are welcome.

A generation ago, how many goods or services did you pay for every month - effectively as a rental?

​
Perhaps your landline telephone, dial-up Interweb, or Cable TV subscription on a recurring basis.
​
Maybe other less common items - musical equipment, or a P.O. Box - but the list was typically relatively short 20-30 years ago.
​
Today, we rent many day-to-day things; although, of course, the name has been sexed-up with marketing and it's now <NAME>-as-a-Service.
​
What started with software now extends to streamed entertainment, bank accounts, data storage, in-car functionality, and priority deliveries of goods and food.
​
Many businesses have shifted towards this model as it means up-front costs for customers can be lower, it provides scalability, and predictable recurring revenue.
​
These services are nearly always positioned as giving customers the latest updates, convenience, choice, and flexibility.
​
The downsides for customers include limited ownership, the potential of dependency, and longer long-term outlays over the lifecycle.
​
So if the CEO of a large product company was planning on shifting to such a model, but let the proverbial mouse out of the house prematurely...that might be a PR problem.
​
A few days ago the CEO of tech peripherals - think headsets, webcams - maker Logitech, Hanneke Faber, was on a podcast with The Verge.
​
During the session Faber mentioned that workers in the Irish innovation centre of the firm had demonstrated a "forever mouse".
​
Faber was asked: "I’m going to ask this very directly. Can you envision a subscription mouse?"
​
The answer: "Possibly".
​
She also made reference to the fact that the company already has its Logitech Select subscription for B2B videoconferencing, which gives customers access to 24/7 customer support and more memory.
​
Cue the Internet going into meltdown at the possibility.
​
The mouse you use today - if you do use one at all - has likely changed extensively compared to 20 or 30 years ago; so the concept makes little sense.
​
The subsequent stance of Logitech PR is that “...the mouse mentioned is not an actual or planned product but a peek into provocative internal thinking on future possibilities for more sustainable consumer electronics.”
​
So, nothing to see here, move along...
​
Others are dabbling wherever they can; HP is trying a similar idea with rentable printers that require a monthly fee (the company retains hardware ownership in this model).
​
Subscription fatigue is a real thing.
​
That said, it's a product (pun-intended) of our own actions - if we are not willing to pay for services, companies can't sell them.
​
Perhaps in a few years we'll look back and, as Salesforce were pioneers in software, see Logitech as leading another big shift.
​
A generation into the future, maybe we won't own anything (at least not physical) at all, merely renting for all our needs and wants.

Addictive Intelligence.

​
Dependence and anthropomorphism; falling in love with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) voice is not a sound course of action.
​
During testing of its latest AI chatbot (GPT-4o), OpenAI observed that users could form a psychological attachment to the generated voice.
​
Surely these instances are exceptional outliers, and nothing to be seriously worried about though for emotionally rational users...right?
​
Well, the Chief Technology Officer of the company has stated otherwise when it comes to designing chatbots equipped with a voice mode.
​
Mira Murati has said there is “...the possibility that we design them in the wrong way and they become extremely addictive and we sort of become enslaved to them”.
​
The GPT-4o scorecard has a section titled "Anthropomorphization and emotional reliance".
​
Here it states "...users might form social relationships with the AI, reducing their need for human interaction—potentially benefiting lonely individuals but possibly affecting healthy relationships".
​
The scorecard was also recently explored here: https://lnkd.in/gKd2xhXR​
​
Separately, MIT Media Lab researchers point out “Our research has shown that those who perceive or desire an AI to have caring motives will use language that elicits precisely this behavior. This creates an echo chamber of affection that threatens to be extremely addictive”.
​
Their analysis of a million ChatGPT interaction logs revealed that the second most popular use of AI is sexual role-playing.
​
We give dummies to young babies to soothe and comfort them, and it may help them sleep - but after a time children are weaned off of them, as they can cause dental issues or stunt language development.
​
We need regulation by design, and fast.
​
Lest we forget that the Big Tech industries are highly adept at creating addictive products and services.
​
Whether it's via voice or written words, chatbots may make it seem like they understand us - but let's be clear that they absolutely do not.
​
Previous post related to this topic: https://lnkd.in/g-XHjbKy​
​
In the future, some might make a deliberate choice that they prefer the company of interactive artificial chatbots to the company of other mammals; be that humans, or pets.
​
For others, that choice may be unconscious as they slip towards physical isolation - a much wider social and ethical conundrum.
​
There's a much bigger picture here: AI could change us as a species in the future if we're not careful (NB: we are not currently being careful).
​
Before long we'll see relationship break-ups and marital divorces citing "AI cheating" as the reason - you heard it here first!

Share data or die.

​

For publishers, you are absolutely free to block your content from the Artificial Intelligence (AI) features of Google - but then you won’t show up in their search results.
​
The most powerful data tool in the world (apart from Excel): Google Search.
​
Over the last couple of years this has seen a series of algorithm and functional updates, including recently an "AI Overviews" feature which is displayed first at the top of any results.
​
When AI Overviews was announced in May 2024, the CEO stated: "Google Search is generative AI at the scale of human curiosity."
​
This is the same service that then advised people to keep up their daily intake of rocks, and telling them to use wood glue on pizza.
​
This summary feature does though result in some users receiving an answer (accurate or otherwise) to their search query, meaning they don't click through to a subsequent website.
​
In effect, Google wants to be a one-stop search-and-answer engine, rather than just a mechanism for help you merely find stuff that's elsewhere.
​
This is a direct result of the fear that a conversational and interactive generative AI Large Language Model (LLM) like ChatGPT could become the new standard for searching for and finding information.
​
Site publishers typically only get paid when people land on their page to consume content.
​
If that traffic slows down or goes away, so do their revenue streams from advertisers who are paying for users to see their marketing messages.
​
So if publishers prohibit the crawler bots, their site may not appear in search results (meaning less traffic).
​
if they do allow them, then Google comes up with its own answers and so click-through traffic may atrophy anyway.
​
The search giant is now using the same tool (Googlebot crawler) which keeps track of web pages for search results in an additional role: sifting through web content to come up with its AI answers.
​
Note that Google's Gemini chatbot uses a different crawler.
​
In the end, it's all about quality data for incumbents and challengers alike - to keep feeding into their bots, models, and algorithms.
​
This is why we have seen fledgling firms striking deals to pay publishers to license content, or in the case of gorilla OpenAI doing so to pre-empt massive future lawsuits.
​
Google has legitimate reasons for tweaking its algorithm and tools - new advancements come along, plus eventually people work out the best way to gamify it and take advantage via Search Engine Optimisation (SEO).
​
This results in your search return containing sites that contain little of use or value, save for seemingly infinite ads and links.
​
Google has been dominant in search for a long time, but has come under increasing heat recently.
​
In August the US District Court of the District of Columbia ruled it had an illegal monopoly on the online search market, violating USA antitrust legislation.
​
Do you think Google is saving the web here - or breaking it?

Bums on seats - at a price.

​

When it comes to the future of watching football (soccer), one thing seems certain - it will continue to get even more expensive.
​
Spanish top-flight club Valencia has announced it will implement the system of 'dynamic pricing' for home matches.
​
Dynamic pricing (also referred to as surge pricing) is a revenue management pricing strategy in which businesses set flexible prices for products or services based on current market demands.
​
Think trying to get ride-hail transport like Uber at peak-hour in a busy locale on a rainy day; demand increases, so prices rise.
​
This controversial topic was previously explored around fast food here: https://lnkd.in/gxj9pTBd​
​
"Following the global trend in shows, sporting events and entertainment, Valencia will join this practice, which has the support and technology of La Liga" the club announced.
​
Dynamic pricing for sports events is not uncommon in other geographies, notably the National Football League (NFL)​ and ​National Basketball Association (NBA)​ in the US.
​
Needless to say that fans are not impressed, and feel exploited.
​
Yes, it might be technically possible for them to buy tickets at the lowest prices early - but only if they can afford to do so at that time (especially difficult if attending as a family).
​
Valencia is the third-largest city in Spain, with a population of ~800,000 inhabitants.
​
It supports - literally - three top football clubs: Valencia, Villarreal, and Levante.
​
The city is famous for being the cradle of paella, Las Fallas festival, and the City of Arts and Sciences.
​
With living costs around €650 (excl. rent) a month, Valencia is a very affordable city to live in - much cheaper than other Spanish cities such as Barcelona and Madrid.
​
The average "working Joe" in Valencia annually makes ~€35,000 according to estimates.
​
By contrast, in the top division of Spanish football where Valencia play, the lowest annual salary a player can receive is €182,000 ($198,500).
​
According to Deloitte, matchday takings account for only 18% of revenue for the world’s 20 richest clubs, far less than commercial (42%) and broadcast (40%) areas, with ticket prices an even smaller fraction of that.
​
Supporters and spectators at an event are not necessarily the same thing, especially when it comes to creating atmosphere.
​
Top-tier football is now big business but, ultimately, any sports team is really nothing without passionate fans.
​
In the future, we're likely to see the dynamic pricing model for goods and services becoming more prevalent in a wider variety of settings.
​
What do you think about this - a savvy business decision, or is it an own-goal (pun-intended) which may further alienate the average loyal supporter?