What’s Next for the App Economy 2017

Post by alex_hirner » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 12:29 PM UTC

sanswork wrote: post #9

alex_hirner wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about using "the blockchain" doesn't qualify. Rather the opposite. The real value will be on the fringes of that ecosystem and has little or nothing to do with chaining blocks: secure multiparty computation, testing the potential of synergies in data with bloom filters and differential privacy. Source: running an ethereum meetup since 2014 and (very likely) writing the world's first crowdfunding contract in L…

Are you planning something like Lighthouse?

No. The trust you need for a central curator is trivial compared to what's needed toward fundees. Anonymity aggravates problems with accountability. Thus, I don't find crowdsourcing to be a particular good example where blockchain-ideas help to create and coordinate collective action. Yet, I think there are two areas where value can be added to kickstarter: 1) scheduled payouts where funders vote to cut project funds in absence of progress and 2) make the curation process more transparent.

However, I figured that what's holding all the blockchain collaboration platforms back are not only scalability and cost issues. More importantly, people don't want to broadcast their data for very uncertain returns. You can see that in haggling parties for when and who gets access to aggregate data in the connected car, health care and scientific research.

Therefore, I focus to find meaningful ways around data-sharing tensions, specifically in battery R&D [1]. One way is to align academic and commercial interests better. The other way is to objectively measure what a data donor's synergistic effect was on the platform as a whole. This kind of computable attribution is hard, but I think doable at some point and in some narrow domains earlier.

Some infrastructure that allows to selectively reveal and collaborate on data is put forward by guys at MIT [2].

[1] http://openbatt.org [2] http://www.enigma.co

Post by candiodari » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #7

spartanatreyu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chatbots are awesome for two reasons 1. Moves away from emailing a company. Just think how many people today are messaging the facebook pages of companies instead of writing these long formal emails to get something. Conversational explaining just ends up being much faster and more convenient for many people. Look at the overall shift between phone calls -> text and internal business emails -> im/slack 2. Most non-te…

>> if it works right this is the crux. Current-era chatbots, and chatbots for the forseeable future (barring some radical breakthroughs in the understanding of intelligence and natural language), are all the same terrible APIs people grapple with now, with an added layer of indirection because at least you can look up an API spec. Just because you can type out full sentences doesn't mean it's a conversation; it's sti…

Have you ever been to a company helpdesk ? They are basically humans that provide phone(/chat in some cases) -> webfrontend functionality. Those humans are as locked to those "dialog trees" as you are.

There may be an escalation path, but that can be done in chatbots as well. But yeah, needs to work well enough for it to be useful, and we're definitely not there yet.

But part of the problem is like the RPG's in the text adventure games of the 90s. There's a few good ones, but everyone and their dog thinks they can just make something like that, and ... the results are less than pretty.

Re: What’s Next for the App Economy 2017

Re: What’s Next for the App Economy 2017