>> Hey welcome back, everybody.
Jeff Frick here with the CUBE.
We're at the Accenture Technology Vision 2018,
actually, the preview event, 'about 200 people.
The actual report comes out in a couple of days.
A lot of interesting conversations
about what are the big trends in 2018 in Accenture.
Surveyed Paul Daugherty and team and really excited.
Just was a panel discussion to get
into a little bit of the not exactly a technology,
but really the trust and ethics conversations.
We're joined by Dr. Shannon Vallor.
She's a professor at Santa Clara University.
Dr. Vallor, great to see you.
>> Great to be here, thank you!
>> So you were just on the panel,
and of course there was a car guy on the panel.
So everybody loves this talk
about cars and autonomous vehicles.
You didn't get enough time. (chuckles)
So we've got a little more time,
which is great. >> Great!
>> But one of the things that you brought up
that I think was pretty interesting is really,
kind of a higher-level view of what role technology plays
in our life before.
And you said before it was ancillary,
it was a toy, it was a gimmick.
It was a cool new car, a status symbol, or whatever.
But now technology is really defining who we are,
what we do, how we interact,
not only with the technology of other people.
It's really taken such a much more fundamental role
with a bunch more new challenges.
>> Yeah, and fundamentally that means
that these new technologies are helping
to determine how our lives go,
not just whether we have the latest gadget or status symbol.
Previously, as I said, we tended to take on technologies
as ornaments to our life, as luxuries to enrich our life.
Increasingly, they are the medium
through which we live our lives, right?
They're the ways that we find the people we want to marry.
They're the ways that we access resources,
capital, healthcare, knowledge.
They're the ways that we participate
as citizens in a democracy.
They are entering our bodies.
They're entering our homes.
And the level of trust that's required
to really welcome technology in this way
without ambivalence or fear,
it's a kind of trust that many technology companies
weren't prepared to earn.
>> Jeff: Right, Right.
>> Because it goes much deeper than simply having to behave
in a lawful manner, or satisfy your shareholders, right?
It means actually having to think about whether
your technologies are helping people live better lives,
and whether you're earning the trust
that your marketing department, your engineers,
your salespeople are out there trying to get
from your customers. >> Right.
And it's this really interesting.
When you talked about a refrigerator,
I just love that example
'cause most people would never let their next door neighbor
look into their refrigerator.
>> Shannon: Or their medicine cabinet, right?
>> Or their medicine cabinet, right.
And now you want to open that up to automatic replenishment.
And it's interesting 'cause I don't think a lot of companies
that came into the business with the idea
that they were going to have this intimate relationship
with their customers to a degree,
and a personal responsibility to that data.
They just want to sell them some good stuff
and move on >> Sure.
>> to the next customer. >> Yes.
>> So it's a very different mindset.
Are they adjusting?
How are the legacy folks dealing with this?
>> Well, the good news is, is that
there are a lot more conversations happening
about technology and ethics within industry circles.
And you even see large organizations
coming together to try to lead
in an effort to develop more ethical approaches
to technology design and development.
So, for example, the big five leaders in AI
have come together to form the partnership
for AI and social good.
And this is a really groundbreaking movement
that could potentially lead other industry participants
to say, "Hey we need to get on board with this,
"and we have to start thinking >> Right.
>> "about what ethical leadership looks like for us,"
as opposed to just a sort of PR kind of thing.
Yeah, we throw the word "ethics"
on a few websites or slides and then we're good, right?
>> Right.
>> It has to go much deeper than that.
And that's going to be a challenge.
But it has to be at a level where rank and file workers
and project managers have procedures
that they know how to go through
that involve ethical analysis, prediction,
and preparing ethical responses to failures
or conflicts that might arise.
>> Right, there's just so many layers to this
that we could go on for a long time.
>> Sure.
>> But the autonomous band has kicked up.
>> Yes, yes!
>> But one of the things is when you're collecting the data
for a specific purpose,
and you put all the efficacy in as to why and how,
and what you're going to treat,
what you don't know is how that data might be used
by someone else next week, >> Yes.
>> next year, >> Yes.
>> ten years from now. >> Absolutely.
>> And you can't really know
because there's maybe things that you aren't aware of.
So a very difficult challenge.
>> And I think we have to just start thinking
in terms of different kinds of metaphors.
So data up until now has been seen as something
that had value and very little risk associated with it.
Now our attitudes are starting to shift,
and we're starting to understand
that data carries not just value,
not just the ability to monetized, but immense power.
And that power can be both constructive or destructive.
Data is like jet fuel, right?
It can do great things. >> Right.
>> But you've got to store it carefully.
You have to make sure that the people handling it
are properly trained.
That they know what can go wrong.
>> Right. >> Right?
That they've got safety regimes in place.
No one who handles jet fuel treats it the way
that some companies treat data today.
But today, data can cause disasters
on a scale similar to a chemical explosion.
People can die, lives can be ruined,
and people can lose their life savings
over a breach or a misuse of data
that causes someone to be unjustly accused
of fraud or a crime.
So we have to start thinking about data
as something much more powerful than we have in the past.
>> Jeff: Right.
>> And you have the responsibility
to handle it appropriately.
>> Right, but we're still so far away, right?
We're still sending money to the Nigerian prince
who needs help getting out of the airport at Newark Airport.
I mean, even just the social, >> Yes.
>> the social factors still haven't caught up.
And then you've got this kind of whole API economy
where so many apps are connected
to so many apps. >> Right.
>> So even, where is the data? >> Yeah.
>> And that's before you even get into a plane flying
over international borders while you send an email, I mean.
>> Right, yes. >> The complexity is crazy!
>> Yep, and we're never going to get a handle on all of it.
So one of the things I like to tell people is,
it's important not to let the perfect
become the enemy of the good, right?
>> Jeff: Right.
>> So the idea is, yes, the problem is massive.
Yes, it's incredibly complex.
Can we address every possible risk?
Can we forestall every possible disaster?
No.
Can we do much better than we're doing now?
Absolutely.
So, I think, the important thing is not to focus
on how massive the problem or the complexities are,
but think about how can we move forward from here
to get ourselves in a better and more responsible position.
And there's lots of ways to do that.
Lots of companies are already leading the way
in that direction.
So I think that there's so much progress to be made
that we don't have to worry too much about the progress
that we might never get around to making.
>> Right, right.
But then there's this other interesting thing
that's going on that we've seen
with kind of the whole "fake news," right?
Which is algorithms are determining what we see.
>> Shannon: Yes.
>> And if you look at the ad tech model as kind of where
the market has taken over the way that that operates,
>> Shannon: Yep.
>> there's no people involved.
So then you have things happen
like what happened with YouTube,
where advertisers' stuff is getting put into places
where they don't want it. >> Yeah.
>> But there's really no people, there's no monitoring.
>> Yes.
>> So how do you see that kind of evolving?
'Cause on one hand, you want more social responsibility
and keeping track of things.
On the other hand, so much is moving to software,
automation, and giving people more of what they want,
not necessarily what they need.
>> Well, and that means that we have to do a much better job
of investing in human intelligence.
We have to, for every new form of artificial intelligence,
we need an even more powerful provision
of human intelligence to guide it, to provide oversight.
So what I like to say is,
AI is not ready for solo flight, right?
And a lot of people would like that to be the case
because, of course, you can save money
if you can put an automated adjudication system in there
and take the people out.
But we've seen over and over again
that that leads again and again to disaster
and to huge reputational losses to companies,
often huge legal liabilities, right?
So we have to be able to get companies to understand
that they are really protecting themselves
and their long-term health if they invest
in human expertise and human intelligence to support AI,
to support data, to support all of the technologies
that are giving these companies
greater competitive advantage and profitability.
>> But does the delta in the machine scale
versus human scale just become unbearable?
Or can we use the machine scale to filter out
the relatively small number of things
that need a person to get involved.
I mean. >> Yeah, and the--
>> How do you see some kind of some best practices?
>> Yeah, so the answer depends on the industry,
depends upon the application.
So there's no one size fits all solution.
But what we can often do is recognize
that typically human and AI function best together, right?
So we can figure out the ways in which the AI can amplify
the human expertise and wisdom,
and the human expertise can fill in some of the gaps
that still exist in artificial intelligence.
Some of the things that AIs just don't see,
just don't recognize, just aren't able to value or predict.
And so when we figure out the ways
that human and artificial intelligence
can compliment each other in a particular stetting,
then we can get the most reliable results,
and often the fairest and safest results.
They might not always be the most efficient
from the narrow standpoint of speed and profit, right?
>> Jeff: Right, right.
>> So they have able to step back and say
at the end of the day, quality matters, trust matters.
And just as if we put together a shoddy project
on the cheap and put it out there,
it's going to come back to bite us.
If we put shoddy AI in place of important human decisions
that affect human lives,
it's going to come back to bite us.
So we need to invest in the human expertise
and the human wisdom, which has that ethical insight
to round out what AI still lacks.
>> So do you think the execution of that trust building
becomes the next great competitive advance?
I mean, >> Yeah.
>> nobody talks about that right?
Data's the new oil, >> Sure!
And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And software defined, AI driven automation,
but that's not necessarily only to the goal in road, right?
There's issues. >> Right.
>> So is trust, you think? >> Absolutely.
>> The next great competitive differentiator?
>> Absolutely.
I think in the long run it will be.
If you look at, for example, the way that companies
like Facebook and Equifax have really damaged,
in pretty profound ways,
the public perception of them as trustworthy actors
in, not just the corporate space, right?
But in the political space for Facebook,
in the economic space for Equifax.
And we have to be able to recognize
that those associations of a major company
with that level of failure are really lasting, right?
Those things don't get forgotten in one news cycle.
So I think we have to recognize
that today people don't know who to trust, right?
It used to be that you could trust the big names,
the big Fortune 500 companies.
>> The blue chips, right. >> The blue chips, right.
>> Right.
>> And then it was the little fly by night companies
that you didn't really know whether you could trust,
and maybe you'd be more cautious in dealing with them.
Now the public has no way of understanding
which companies will genuinely fulfill the trust
in the relationship >> Right.
>> that the customer gives them.
And so there's a huge opportunity
from a competitive standpoint for companies to step up
and actually earn that trust and say,
in a way that can be backed up by action and results,
"Your data's safe with us," right?
"Your property's safe with us.
"Your bank account is safe with us.
"Your personal privacy is safe with us.
"Your votes are safe with us.
"Your news is safe with us." >> Right.
>> Right?
And that's the next step.
>> But everyone is so cynical that,
unfortunately Walter Cronkite is dead, right?
>> Sure.
>> We don't trust politicians anymore.
We don't trust news anymore.
We don't trust, now more and more, the companies.
So it's a really kind of rough world
in the trust space. >> Yeah!
>> So do you see any kind of (chuckles) silver lining?
I mean, how do we execute in this kind of crazy world
where you just don't know?
>> Well, what I like to say is that
you have to be cautiously optimistic about this
because society simply doesn't keep going
without some level of trust, right?
Markets depend on trust.
Democracy depends on trust.
Neighborhoods depend on trust, right?
>> Jeff: Right.
>> So either trust comes back into our lives
at some deep level or everything falls apart.
Frankly, those are the only choices.
So if nature abhors a vacuum,
and right now we have a vacuum of trust,
then there's a huge opportunity
for people to start stepping into that space
and filling that void.
So I'd like to focus on the positive potential here
rather than the worst case scenario, right?
The worst case scenario is,
we keep going as things have been going
and trust in our most important institutions
continues to crumble.
Well, that just ends in societal collapse
>> Right, right. >> one way or the other.
If we don't want to do that,
and I presume that if there's anything we can all agree on,
it's that that's not where we want to go.
>> Right.
>> Then now is the time for companies,
if need be, to come together and say,
"We have to step into this space
"and create new trusted institutions and practices
"that will help stabilize society and drive progress
"in ways that aren't just reflected in GDP
"but are reflected in human wellbeing,
"happiness, a sense of security, a sense of hope.
"A sense that technology actually does gives us a future
"that we want to to be happy about moving into."
>> Right, right. >> Right?
>> So I'll give you the last word.
>> Sure.
>> We'll end on a positive note.
What are some examples of companies or practices
that you see out there as kind of shining lights
that other people should be either aware of, emulate.
Let's talk about the positive before we
>> Sure. cut you lose.
>> Well, one thing that I mentioned already is
the AI partnership that has come together
with companies that are really leading the conversation
along with a lot of other organizations like AI Now,
which is an organization
on the East Coast that's doing a lot of fantastic work.
There are a lot of companies supporting research
into ethical development, design, and implementation
of new technologies.
That's something we haven't seen before, right?
This is something that's only happened
in the last two or three years.
It's an incredibly positive development.
Now we just have to make sure that the recommendations
that are developed by these groups are actually
taken onboard and implemented.
And it'll be up to many of the industry leaders
to set an example of how that can be done
because they have the resources
>> Right.
>> and the ability to lead in that way.
I think one of the other things that we can look at is
that people are starting to become less naive
about technology.
Perhaps the silver lining of the loss of trust is
the ability of consumers to be a little wiser,
a little more appropriately critical and skeptical,
and to figure out ways that they can,
in fact, protect their interests.
That they can actually seek out and determine
who earns their trust. >> Right.
>> Where their data is safest.
And so I'm optimistic that there will be a sort of meeting,
if you will, of the public interest
and the interests of technology developers
who really need the public to be on board, right?
>> Jeff: Right.
>> You can't make a better world
if society doesn't want to come along with you.
>> Jeff: Right, right.
>> So my hope is, and I'm cautiously optimistic about that,
that these forces will come together and create a future
for us that we actually want to move into.
>> All right, good.
I don't want to leave on a sad note!
>> Great, yes.
>> Dr. Shannon Vallor, she's positive about the future.
It's all about trust.
Thanks for taking a few minutes.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm Jeff Frick, she's Dr. Shannon.
Thanks for watching.
We'll catch you next time.
(upbeat techno music)