Leah Herman

This is an excellent topic. I know a number of older individuals as my mom lives in a 55+ community and one of their biggest fears is being unable to take care of themselves and being alone and unable to get help if they need it. This sort of AI would be perfect for that sort of situation. I do worry though about that socioeconomic divide. I feel that none of the people in my mom’s community could afford this sort of thing. Perhaps health care can step in and help fund it as AI treatment and assistance could likely reduce severity of health care claims in a big way.

This was a very interesting article you provided, especially because it is something I can relate to, having been a Project Manager in 3535 for the Memory Lane 3506 project last semester. One of the major concerns with that project in particular was exactly the question you have posed, if the elderly will be able to overcome the AI learning curve. I think part of the beauty of AI, especially in the forms in which you have mentioned the elderly population would mostly be consuming it, is that there is not actually much of a learning curve at all. For example, with virtual assistants, mostly it involves just speaking in a natural language, and the device can recognize what you are saying because of AI. That being said, I do recognize that it will probably take a bit more time for the elderly population in general to get used to the idea of virtual assistants and similar technologies, but I definitely think they have the capability to overcome that learning curve. While these technologies can enhance the lives of the elderly specifically, I do not think caregivers will totally be replaced by AI in terms of technological advances, because – at least as far as I can tell – there are certain things that require human contact and skill. While AI can enhance the job of caregivers tremendously, there are some aspects of the position that could not be replaced by AI. Lastly, I do see the value of AI in other age brackets as well, so in reference to your last question I do think AI will advance in the future to aid the younger population. AI is present in the lives of the younger population in many ways already, and perhaps AI in a caregiver sense is the next step.

Leah, I think you bring up a good idea of bringing a new technology into a not so “tech savvy” generation. The elderly generation is growing and will hit an drastic increase as there are approximately 76.4 baby boomers currently entering the elderly generation. Companies are currently being challenged to come up with AI uses for this growing generation. Like Bridgette stated we got to see a first-hand example of AI in the elderly generation, through SoundMind intelligence. What they are doing using Alexa to enable elderly people is something I have experience seeing at my internship over the summer. At Merck pharmaceuticals we were experimenting with way Alexa can interact with our patients. We were trial running different features like daily pill reminders to make sure medication was being taken to Alexa asking them how they felt that day. I think what a lot of companies are doing is building on the assistant feature of AI and there won’t be a reduction is personnel as they will always need to be there for the elderly. AI for the elderly has big potential, if companies can properly utilize it.

Leah,

You bring up an excellent point about the challenge for the elderly to overcome the AI learning curve. I do think that this is possible, due to the natural interaction that takes place between users and the technologies, like speaking to a virtual assistant, that enable quick adaptation to the piece of technology. However, while this technology is easy to use, I do not think it has the capability of replacing the personnel who take care of the elderly. Many of these individuals are medically trained or have specialties to fit the individual needs of their patient that may not be replaceable by AI technology.

I think there is so much room for growth and improvement in terms of how technology can help elderly people. I do not think present day elderly people will overcome the AI learning curve because technology has advanced so fast that they have struggled to keep up with technologies that seem basic to millennials. They did not grow up with the technology that we did, so AI is probably too foreign of a concept for many of them to grasp. I also do not think caregivers will ever be completely replaced by technology because people will not be comfortable with a robot being the only thing taking care of them. However, I do think robotics can be a huge help to human caregivers. There are a lot of everyday tasks robots can help with so that elderly people who are capable of caring for themselves, but need assistance with some things can continue living in their homes. This will allow them to keep a sense of independence and hold off having to move into assisted living.

Hi Leah,

This is a really interesting topic and I think you made a lot of good points. I think with the learning curve and high costs currently this will not be a technology that has an immediate impact. But I would imagine 10-20 years from now this will shape the way elders are cared for because we will have an elderly population who is used to using technology and I am sure costs will be able to be brought down a little bit by then. On a personal note, I do find it a little frightening that technology like this might enable many to not have to personally care for and spend time with their parents/grandparents as they become sick. I feel like this might not be a great path ethically but the business need definitely is there.

Hi Leah,
I think something else to consider is the elderly’s willingness to adopt this technology. I think you will find a lot of resistance from this demographic, especially in a field where, traditionally, a human touch is valued. I think this is something that could be impactful in the close future, however right now there may be quite a bit of backlash. Many elderly people fear technology and are often the main demographic inhibiting major technological growth in our society.

Hi Leah, Bitcoin is a fascinating topic of discussion and I’m glad you wrote about it. While bitcoin is an innovation, I don’t believe that it is necessarily a disruptive innovation. Bitcoin depending on the time of day, is most often more expensive than other types of currency which makes it mainly accessible for high end consumers. Additionally, the Bitcoin Blockchain is so slow, it can only validate about 7 transactions per minute, thus not make it easier for consumers to more effectively carry out transactions.

However, I do think that Blockchain is a disruptive innovation. A private Blockchain, such as Hyperledger Fabric, can cut out costly middlemen for financial services industries and save significant amounts of money. Blockchain also helps with fraud protection due to it’s immutable ledger, which makes this process more efficient and effective than their current fraud protection processes. Blockchain, at this point in time, also lacks key functionalities compared to legacy processes, specifically transaction speeds. Blockchain’s current transaction model relies on proof of work, which is a time consuming process and slows down the validation process for transactions. For these reasons, I think that Blockchain contains some elements of a disruptive innovation, specifically in the financial services industry and will disrupt the industry within 10 years.

I agree with your point that bitcoin could be considered new-market disruption because of the intangible nature of it. Bitcoin cannot be reversed, as all transactions are authenticated cryptographically, and there is no risk accepting payments. This is something that is not true of traditional financial networks. I also thought it was an interesting point you brought up about block-chain technology. I do think bitcoin and block-chain technology have the power to fundamentally transform the business models of banks and other financial institutions. Block-chain and bitcoin together create an unforgeable record of asset ownership. This, combined with the open source code allows it to be widely distributed, and therefore decentralized and nearly impossible to change. Because of the security of bitcoin and block-chain, I do think it has the ability to transform the banking industry, despite the current barriers to entry.

I believe the underlying blockchain technology that Bitcoin is built on will change the financial industry. Even though the technology in relatively new, it has the ability to reduce fraud which 45% of financial intermediaries like stock exchanges and money transfer services suffer from each year. Most banking systems are built on a centralized database that is vulnerable to a cyber attack. This could be solved with blockchain, which is essentially a distributed ledger where each block contains a timestamp and holds batches of individual transactions which are linked to the previous block. These transactions are shared and confirmed by computers in the system that are running algorithms to confirm the accuracy of the ledger. If one ledger is incorrectly changed or hacked, the other computers on the network would deny that ledger, ensuring the security of the data in the blockchain. Financial institutions like banks are slow to adopt this technology because it eliminated the need for a middle man for transactions, which could essentially hurt their business.

I think C-V2X could work in the near future. We have the ability to connect all sorts of devices today and these devices can share an incredible amount of data with one another. If cars can share data with one another and with other devices around them, this will increase safety and decrease traffic especially in large cities. The superblock idea that Barcelona introduced is a great way to make cities more pedestrian friendly. I also believe this idea is feasible and something cities in the United States should implement. Cities that have limited car traffic on certain streets have seen an increase in commerce and decrease in air pollution. These two ideas can complement one another and ideally, in the future cities can implement both of them. C-V2X will be able to detect which streets are blocked off to through traffic and direct the driver accordingly. I have attached a video that explains the superblock idea and argues why cities in the United States should implement it.

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12342806/barcelona-superblocks

I think both ideas can be very viable in the real world scenario, especially when worked together. Today, we have depended so much on cars to get us from point A to point B, but their safety has become a concern. Adding on to safety, cars also pose a serious risks for pedestrians in many large urban cities, with numerous pedestrians accidents happening every year. What Ford is proposing with the C-V2X, can help redefine safety among both passengers and pedestrians. By having cars talk to each other, you will be able to increase safety and efficiency among your commute. I don’t think the data can stop there as cars can be able to adjust routes according to any issues that were to arise. To help support cities looking to go towards a superblock perspective, data from these car can help them analyze what roads are heavily used by cars and what areas of their city are heavily used by pedestrians. These two theories can go hand-in-hand too because autonomous cars can make sure traffic is often never used in the blocks focused more on pedestrians, and when needed use sensors to avoid any pedestrians related causes. I think both ideas are very realistic, but we have a better chance of seeing a superblock before we see cars sharing data with each other.

I think both of these ideas are definitely a viable future to be seen in the next handful of years. The interconnectivity of all the devices that exist today could easily portray a holistic view of the driving environment around us as a “digital view” in order to communicate best with drivers on the road. I assume the greatest issue at this point would be working out the kinks and simply getting an effective rollout of such a grand-scale project. The idea in Barcelona is another that definitely seems possible, but I definitely think this will be met with resistance. The typical difficulty of “organizational change” would be present here, with the city acting as the organization. Getting the businesses of the area on board along with the people will be problematic due to the humanly inherent attitude towards change.That being said, I know there are people/organizations with the ability to best guide these types of fundamental changes and would likely be able to do so with the best acceptance methods available. Thanks for sharing this, Leah, very interesting!