The future is faster than you think: how converging technologies are transforming business, industries, and our lives

Shin, Soo Il; Kwon, Miriam Mele

doi:10.1080/15228053.2022.2101088

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, in a recent commentary Dator (2022) aptly noted that not only postnormal times has been hailed multiple times in recent history (albeit with different names), from Boulding to Toffler, but that complexity, chaos, and contradictions have always been there since the beginning of Homo Sapiens . This bias has also been similarly noted by Andy Hines on multiple occasions under the moniker of “The curse of the Futurist”, i.e., the flawed perception that change is fast and unprecedented when in reality it is slower than we think and old news (Hines, 2022). Sure, change may well be faster than a thousand years ago.…”

Section: A Critique Of the Postnormal Times Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 54%

Explaining and critiquing the postnormal: A warning against ideologies in the field of futures and foresight

Fergnani

2023

Futures & Foresight Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract“Postnormal” currents of thought, which are herein used in reference to the post‐normal science and the postnormal times frameworks, have been tremendously useful to help us understand the limits of science and the nature of societal change. Yet a blanket adherence to these frameworks without scrutiny risks falling into an unsubstantiated ideology. In response to and as a prevention of this risk, this article explains and critiques the two frameworks. It explains that post‐normal science is both a description of a recent trend in science applied to policy contexts and a prescriptive response to new conditions of scientific inquiry. It also explains that postnormal times is both description of societal change and expression of subjective feelings elicited by such change. The two frameworks' merits and limitations are also discussed. The article's conclusion is that while the post‐normal science framework can be rescued with some further qualifications, the postnormal times framework is particularly problematic. The discussion of the two frameworks' limitations is used as a warning against ideological positions that prevent fruitful research in the field of futures and foresight, and to encourage a more informed use of the term “postnormal.”

show abstract

Section: A Critique Of the Postnormal Times Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 54%

Explaining and critiquing the postnormal: A warning against ideologies in the field of futures and foresight

Fergnani

2023

Futures & Foresight Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using history as a mirror, these implications are even more relevant now as we experience the Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution (Makridakis, 2017;Diamandis and Kotler, 2020). Just as in the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, and modern globalization over the past 50 years, the AI revolution will increase aggregate productivity while inevitably leading to another major shift in the industrial landscape and composition of the labor market.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The wisdom of crowds versus the madness of mobs: An evolutionary model of bias, polarization, and other challenges to collective intelligence

Zhang

2022

Collective Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its success in financial markets and other domains, collective intelligence seems to fall short in many critical contexts, including infrequent but repeated financial crises, political polarization and deadlock, and various forms of bias and discrimination. We propose an evolutionary framework that provides fundamental insights into the role of heterogeneity and feedback loops in contributing to failures of collective intelligence. The framework is based on a binary choice model of behavior that affects fitness; hence, behavior is shaped by evolutionary dynamics and stochastic changes in environmental conditions. We derive collective intelligence as an emergent property of evolution in this framework, and also specify conditions under which it fails. We find that political polarization emerges in stochastic environments with reproductive risks that are correlated across individuals. Bias and discrimination emerge when individuals incorrectly attribute random adverse events to observable features that may have nothing to do with those events. In addition, path dependence and negative feedback in evolution may lead to even stronger biases and levels of discrimination, which are locally evolutionarily stable strategies. These results suggest potential policy interventions to prevent such failures by nudging the “madness of mobs” towards the “wisdom of crowds” through targeted shifts in the environment.

show abstract

“…This in turn could increase the quality of state-provided public services. It also might provide people living in autocracies with greater cultural, economic, or health-related opportunities (Diamandis & Kotler, 2020;Lee & Quifan, 2021).…”

Section: Artificial Intelligence and The Autocratic Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework

Jungherr

2023

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success and widespread deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) have raised awareness of the technology’s economic, social, and political consequences. Each new step in the development and application of AI is accompanied by speculations about a supposedly imminent but largely fictional artificial general intelligence (AGI) with (super-)human capacities, as seen in the unfolding discourse about capabilities and impact of large language models (LLMs) in the wake of ChatGPT. These far-reaching expectations lead to a discussion on the societal and political impact of AI that is largely dominated by unfocused fears and enthusiasms. In contrast, this article provides a framework for a more focused and productive analysis and discussion of AI’s likely impact on one specific social field: democracy. First, it is necessary to be clear about the workings of AI. This means differentiating between what is at present a largely imaginary AGI and narrow artificial intelligence focused on solving specific tasks. This distinction allows for a critical discussion of how AI affects different aspects of democracy, including its effects on the conditions of self-rule and people’s opportunities to exercise it, equality, the institution of elections, and competition between democratic and autocratic systems of government. This article shows that the consequences of today’s AI are more specific for democracy than broad speculation about AGI capabilities implies. Focusing on these specific aspects will account for actual threats and opportunities and thus allow for better monitoring of AI’s impact on democracy in an interdisciplinary effort by computer and social scientists.

show abstract

The future is faster than you think: how converging technologies are transforming business, industries, and our lives

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Explaining and critiquing the postnormal: A warning against ideologies in the field of futures and foresight

Explaining and critiquing the postnormal: A warning against ideologies in the field of futures and foresight

The wisdom of crowds versus the madness of mobs: An evolutionary model of bias, polarization, and other challenges to collective intelligence

Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About