Stay informed with free updates
Simply register Artificial intelligence Myft Digest – delivered directly to your inbox.
A threat note is involved in the otherwise optimistic language of those who work for the introduction of artificial intelligence.
You can hear it in the rhetoric of the British technology secretary Peter Kyle, who this month said to the employees and companies: “Act now and you will thrive into the future. Not, and I think that some people will be left behind.” You can hear it in the marketing game that is used by software companies like Salesforce: “Companies that do not use the AI in their business risk will remain behind those who do so.” And you can hear it as some managing directors begin to communicate with the employees. “Ai comes for your jobs,” wrote Micha Kaufman, managing director of FIVERR, to the employees in a memo last month. “Are we all doomed to fail? Not all of us, but those who do not wake up quickly and quickly understand the new reality are unfortunately doomed to fail.”
But is it true that the only available two options are available to be “acted now” or “left behind (and/or to fail)?
Of course Is Something like a first-mover advantage, and you can see why this can result for some companies that are used for new AI systems such as autonomous agents. If these investments lead to lower costs and higher productivity, a pioneer could offer a lower price or better service for customers and capture more market share. First-Movers also have a better chance of working with technology providers to form new systems related to their own needs. And for customer-oriented companies such as consulting companies, the reputation as a first mover will likely help you sell your AI specialist knowledge to customers.
But there is also something like a “second MoverVorteil” self in sectors that depend on powerful network effects. Facebook overtook MySpace. Google overtook itself with Jeeves. And how a senior business manager recently found in a round table discussion found that the Agentic-KI could prove to be an instance in which the second MoverVorteil is quite strong.
Being a second suit is particularly useful if the advantages of a new technology are uncertain and the risks are high, because what you lose speed that you gain information. You can see what the first fashions do, make their blind alleys and their mistakes aware and then take a more effective course. It is more likely that you avoid to commit to technology providers who link your work processes, but whose products prove to be inadequate. A newer report Von McKinsey, which is committed to agents -KI, also warns of a large number of other risks, such as “uncontrolled autonomy, fragmented system access, lack of observability and traceability, expanding surface of the attack as well as spread and duplication of agents”.
My argument here is not against the idea that some companies should move quickly (as they do, of course and), but also simply that it can also be a valid strategy to be temporarily “left”. It does not necessarily mean that you will be a loser in the long term. One study The introduction of technology through British microbussing in the 2010s (although this was an earlier generation of pretentative AI technologies) showed that companies that introduced AI enjoyed a higher subsequent innovation capacity, regardless of whether it was initial fashions or second research.
In fact, the message that you should now “act or miss” has more common with high print sales techniques as the business strategy. Use online retailers “Urgency claims” Like countdown watches because they work: Academic literature indicates that consumers use mental short cuts under time pressure to make decisions. Urgency claims can also give a fear of loss, a feeling of competition with others and a “bandwagon effect”, in which people give the impression that everyone else is already doing or buying something.
It should not be a surprise that technology companies use these known marketing strategies: they have something to sell and a large amount Capital investment to which you have to return. However, there is no need for politicians and managing directors to repeat them, in particular not by expanding the threat to employees. In neuroscience, it is known that if the brain’s anxiety system is active to be able to research, innovate and take risks. If you want the staff to experiment with the effective implementation of AI, it is not the best way to fear you for your work. They are also less likely to be honored about emerging risks, for fear of looking like a no.
It is fair enough that technology companies are sold with products to repeat the world repeatedly, “act or lose now”. But the rest of us does not have to confuse a sales technique with a little deeper.
