220117

Today

  • Launched the new contact centre product
  • Planning for upcoming sprints
  • Product manager interview
  • Walked along the coast in the light of a peaceful full moon and sat on a secluded beach to drink a diet coke.
  • Wrote up a Twitter thread about ways of thinking strategically

Tomorrow

  • More recruitment
  • More planning
  • More walking

220116

Today

  • Wrote the 13th edition of Irregular Ideas
  • Walked along the coastline and wrote lots of notes.

Tomorrow

  • Go live for the customer contact product
  • Future Skills email

The clock ticks down to doomsday

The Doomsday Clock reaches it’s seventy-fifth anniversary this week. Designed by Martyl Langsdorf in 1947, the minute hand of the clock is positioned near to the number twelve and on this clock, 12 o’clock is midnight. And midnight is the end of humanity. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set the clock to show, at any given time, how close humanity is to ending.

The clock started at seven minutes to midnight. In 1947 the threat of nuclear Armageddon following the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima just two years before felt very real. In 1991, with the end of the cold war, the hands of the clock were set back to seventeen minutes to midnight, the furthest the clock has shown us from destruction. Today, the clock is set at 100 seconds to midnight. The closest it’s ever been.

The clock is symbolic. It was never intended to be, and shouldn’t be taken as, an objective measure of how likely or how close we actually are to obliteration. It’s a warning and sign of hope. The clock doesn’t only tick towards midnight, the hands can move away from midnight too, showing us that at least in the short term, our destruction doesn’t have to be inevitable. Just as the Stoics kept their memento mori close at hand to serve as a constant reminder of the inevitability of death and the importance of appreciating life, perhaps the Doomsday clock is meant to do the same for our entire civilization.

But let’s not forget… the existential risk is real. It was real in 1947 when the only perceived threat to humanity was nuclear weapons, and it’s just as real now when we’re aware of potential threat from asteroids, climate change, bio-weapons, pandemics, cyber security attacks, and an artificial intelligence takeover. Of all these threats, perhaps artificial intelligence is unique in it’s potential.

Our lives are inexorably interwoven with our technology. Ours is a technologically advanced future. There’s no turning back that clock. And even if we could, would we want to? For all our complaints about the negative effects social media has on our mental heath and cars have on climate change, technology has been instrumental in raising the quality of life across the globe.

Nuclear weapons, although obviously catastrophically destructive, are extremely difficult to produce, creating a natural limiting factor to the risk they pose. If anyone could knock up an A bomb in their garage it would be very unlikely that you’d still be around to read this. Similarly, bio-weapons and other intentionally destructive technologies are all contained by the limiting factor of how difficult they are to produce. Artificial intelligence is vastly different because it isn’t being created and deployed as a weapon. We’ll welcome it into our homes, offices, cars and even our bodies, and so how we imagine that we might apply general artificial intelligence in the future does not have such a limiting factor. So, excluding some yet-to-be invented technology, artificial intelligence seems the most likely of our technologies to lead to our demise.

Whilst there are many who believe the creation of a general artificial intelligence will never come to pass, there are those, such as the futurist Ray Kurzweil who expect ‘the singularity’ to occur as soon as 2045. It is possible, even plausible, that within our lifetime computers will think for themselves rather than simply processing instructions we give them.

Once AI exists, we’ll come to expect it to be in everything, from self-driving cars to kitchen appliances, to medical diagnosis systems, and yes, in control of nuclear weapons. We’ll expect AI to be benign and to do as we say. Whereas nuclear weapons have an inherent limiting factor, AI will have an inherent growth factor that will lead it to have an inevitably large impact on the likelihood of a future for humanity.

Now, it’s important for us to know that a general AI, whilst super-intelligent, wouldn’t be self-aware in the same way humans are. Whether we argue that our self-awareness is a chemically-induced hallucination as a result of our nervous systems interacting with the world, or a uniquely human gift bestowed on us from a heavenly power, we can be fairly confident that no machine would experience self-awareness in the same way we do. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have its own version of a sense of self-preservation and its own perspective on the usefulness of the continued existence of humanity.

Until Artificial Intelligence comes into existence, humans are the only species on the planet with the intelligence to understand what extinction actually means. We understand that it doesn’t just affect those that die in an extinction event, it also prevents the potential for any others to follow. When humans become extinct it will prevent the existence of trillions upon trillions of future humans. In 2000, when the Pyrenean ibex was declared extinct, it wasn’t just Celia, the last ibex, that had died, it was the millions of ibex that could have existed in the future. When the last polar bear, the last rhino, the last gorilla dies, the billions of animals that could have existed no longer can.

The Doomsday clock doesn’t just tick for us.

220115

Today

  • Went for walk along the cliffs around Solva
  • Wrote The Ethical Product Decision-making Collection and added to Gumroad

Tomorrow

  • Walk on the beach
  • Irregular Ideas newsletter
  • Future Skills email

220114

Today

  • Got a new product ready for launch next week.
  • Went for a nice walk to a beach.
  • Wrote my Weeknotes.

Tomorrow

  • Write some blog posts about product management.

Weeknotes 285

Photo of the week:

Looking west off the Pembrokeshire coast

This week I did:

Go time

This week has been super-focused on a single product that is launching next week. In four days we set up the product, configured all the options, tested it, learned how to use it, did training sessions for other users, got all the content in, and came up with the go live plan. I don’t mind admitting that I really enjoy this kind of time pressure, and I’m really looking forward to getting into figuring out how we should do continuous improvement for this and other product over the next few months.

Existential risk

Next week is the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Doomsday Clock so I made a little website to let people check whether the world has been taken over by AI. Other than perhaps a technology we haven’t invented yet, artificial intelligence is the technology most likely to pose an existential risk to humanity. As with most of the things I do, the website is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek and it was a chance for me to learn a bit of javascript, but it’s going on my list of projects to iterate on over time so who knows what might happen with it.

In progress projects

I had an idea for a personal learning management system that holds all the online courses that you do and helps you complete them. I set myself a challenge of getting from idea to landing page that could help validate the idea in three hours and to tweet about it in a #BuildInPublic kinda way.

Sent the 12th edition of Irregular Ideas.

Added more wise sayings to my #MakeMeWise Twitter Bot.

Reached 1,600 products in ultimatedigital.tools.

I didn’t finish the future skills email I’ve been working on because of all that stuff above.

And read:

Sinking ship

This brilliant article uses the metaphor of a ship to discuss different definitions of improving the world. and how people in different camps disagree about it. The five activities of rowing, steering, anchoring, equity, and mutiny to suggest five different ways to approach making the world a better place, and calls out how difficult it is to know which is the right approach without knowing where the world is heading. What it doesn’t mention is, what if the ship is sinking. Let’s just hope it isn’t.

Effective People Think Simply

And thought about:

Skillz

The internet-era/agile/digital ways of working place a greater need of people to be more multi-skilled. The traditional/hierarchical ways of organising teams might have included a specific role of project manager who would have been responsible for coordination and communication, but in the shift from a project approach to a product approach for cross-functional teams those roles often get subsumed into being a part of everyone’s work. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing but in order for those teams to be successful everyone needs to develop those communication and coordination skills.

Being human is going great

When anything new comes along, doesn’t matter if it’s Tamagotchi, Agile, or NFTs, it creates four groups of people. The biggest group of people is those how don’t know or don’t care about the new thing. The smallest group of people is those that find the new thing intellectually or creatively curious and explore it. And in between there are groups of people who try to make money from the new thing and those that hate on the new thing. This kind of behaviour has nothing to do with NFT’s, it’s just what humans do.

Wicked problems in product

I’ve been doing some work this week using Theory of Change and thinking about the approach of causally linking activities to outcomes to impacts. I completely believe that no product ever achieves an outcome for anyone using it. If success, a product achieves a behaviour change and a person might achieve an outcome from that behaviour change. An inclusive society is a wicked problem. There is no step-by-step guide for achieving it, so from a product point-of-view the questions are ‘what outcomes might achieve the impact’, ‘what behaviours might achieve those outcomes’, ‘what products might cause those behaviour changes’, ‘what activities could we do to create those products’?