Author / Nicolle

by Nicolle

Do AI company founders watch Black Mirror?

“Cameras are no longer just for memories but are fundamental to improving our daily lives – both in our personal and professional lives.” – It’s Coming, The Internet of Eyes will allow objects to see, The Next Web

Read the glowing article above where founders gush over a soon-to-be world in which all inanimate objects have tiny cameras that monitor our everyday movements. How does it make you feel? Is this the first time you’ve ever heard of the Internet of Eyes?

“Similar to the Internet of Things, the IoEyes is a network of cameras and visual sensors connected via the internet enabling the collection and exchange of visual data on a scale unimaginable before.”

This was the first time I’ve heard of the Internet of Eyes (IoEyes) and it’s absolutely terrifying. Equally terrifying are the founders who believe “IoEyes will only have a positive effect on society as a whole.” These guys seem to be clueless about the negative impact these technologies will have on society. You’d think there’d be a second thought on the “trillions of frames of potentially actionable data” they’re sucking up when data breaches are happening at record paces. Or maybe the founders just don’t care because profit&brand. And they’re doing it all to give us a better quality of life, to give us things like better data from our toothbrushing experience:

Imagine performing a simple daily task and knowing what’s going on inside your body.A real-time visual feed of you brushing your teeth will generate not just one visual signal but millions of layers of signals, including analyzing heart rates, blood conditions, DNA structure, temperature, and emotional state.”

Regardless, these founders (and maybe tech journalists) need to take a break from building (and reporting on) the future of surveillance for a bit of Netflix and chill with Black Mirror. Black Mirror is notorious for it’s dark take on how technologies affect society. Their episodes stay in your head way beyond episode. The series makes you rethink the impact of technologies in a visceral way. Every time I read an article like the one above it makes me wonder if any of these founders watch the show.

So my Netflix and chill recommendation for the founders is as follows. Start with the episode, The Entire History of You. Then move on to Nosedive followed swiftly by Shut up and Dance. Throw in the Christmas episode for fun.

Then get back to me about how positive these technological advances are for society.

PS: IoEyes also helping to reinforce those pesky gender stereotypes and support controlling personalities:

“The benefits of biometrics and sensors offer invaluable support. From deterring people from driving when they are too intoxicated, to making sure your teenage daughter isn’t bringing home that boy you don’t like when you aren’t around.” 

 

by Nicolle

Do you ever feel like you need to go back to school so you can catch up?

This thirst for AI has pushed all AI-related courses on Stanford to way over their capacity. CS224N: Natural Language Processing with Deep Learning had more than 700 students. CS231N: Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition had the same. According to Justin Johnson, co-instructor of CS231N, the class size is exponentially increasing. At the beginning of the quarter, instructors for both courses desperately scramble to find extra TAs. Even my course, first time offered, taught by an obscure undergraduate student, received 350+ applications for its 20 spots. Many of the students who took these courses aren’t even interested in the subject. They just take those courses because everyone is doing it”

-excerpt from Confession of a so-called AI Expert.

The author, Chip Hyuen, is a third year student and TensorFlow TA at Stanford. She’s got a fab internship at Netflix and a killer writing style. The full article is a must-read, in part so you can fully appreciate the last sentences:

“Maybe one day people would realize that many AI experts are just frauds. Maybe one day students would realize that their time would be better spent learning things they truly care about. Maybe one day I would be out of job and left to die alone on the sidewalk. Or maybe the AI robot that I build would destroy you all. Who knows?”

by Nicolle

Ellen Pao is such a bad ass it makes my head explode

“When I first got the three pages of specs for a chief-of-staff position at Kleiner Perkins in 2005, it was almost as if someone had copied my résumé. The list of requirements was comically long: an engineering degree (only in computer science or electrical engineering), a law degree and a business degree (only from top schools), management-consulting experience (only at Booz Allen or Bain), start-up experience (only at a top start-up), enterprise-software-­company experience (only at a big established player known for training employees) … oh, and fluency in Mandarin.”

That’s Ellen Pao’s career in the elite of the elite from a must-read excerpt of her upcoming book, Resent, which details the intense harassment she experienced at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

The excerpt is worth the read in part because it challenges the assumptions we make about women who speak out on sexual harassment. It’s not just a woman who speaks up, gets fired, goes to court, loses, life goes on. Imagine having this happen to you when you spoke up about wrong-doing in your organization:

In response to my suit, Kleiner hired a powerful crisis-­management PR firm, Brunswick. On their website, they bragged about having troll farms — “integrated networks of influence,” used in part for “reputation management” — and I believe they enlisted one to defame me online. Dozens, then thousands, of messages a day derided me as bad at my job, crazy, an embarrassment. 

Corporate. Troll. Farms. Backed by people who have piles money like this:

That’s terrifying.

Ellen Pao is a fighter. A leader. A storyteller. And she’s a damn strong role model for women, especially those navigating those same elite circles.

by Nicolle

Cutting through the edtech hype

My Stitcher app is crowded. Week after week I watch all the podcasts that could be slip by, unheard. I have too many favorites and not enough time for all of them. But one episode regularly makes the weekly cut: Leading Lines. Here’s how the podcast for edtech in highered describes themselves:

“We explore creative, intentional, and effective uses of technology to enhance student learning, uses that point the way to the future of educational technology in college and university settings. Through interviews with educators, researchers, technologists, and others, we hope to amplify ideas and voices that are (or should be!) shaping how we think about digital learning and digital pedagogy.”

The short version: they provide a much needed perspective on educational technology in higher education. The result is a podcast that dives deeper into how teaching and learning is evolving alongside new technology. It’s positively refreshing. I’ve learned about second-language learning with wikipedia, new technologies for that enhance engagement in the classroom, and designing MOOCs.

I’ve worked on both sides of the edtech sector: as a vendor and client. In 2010, I did business development for an international startup. I worked remotely for an international student recruiting platform which gave students all over the world direct access to universities. My days consisted of scouring websites for university contacts, pitching administrators on email, following up on leads, demoing the platform, and waiting. Lots and lots of waiting. I loved our product and was out to convince the world of higher education how we were going to solve their problems (or at least North and South America, my territory). The job was filled with equal parts rejection and learnings. I didn’t know the term edtech then; we positioned the company as a social tool as social media was all the new rage. Though the term wasn’t around, I embraced the edtech hype. I believed that technology could solve many issues in higher education (ignoring the fact I’d never actually worked in higher ed at that point). The startup eventually folded.

In 2014, when I started work in career services at Yale School of Management, I was on the other side of edtech as a potential client. I was on the receiving end of a lot of pitches in part because of the brand name. The thinking goes like this: if a company can claim Yale SOM as a client and post our public testimonial they can sway other schools to do the same. We did the same when I worked at a startup. I remember trying to close a Notre Dame deal to score a brand name to dangle in front of future clients. The strategy works. At Yale SOM my director always evaluated new tech starting with: Harvard/Booth/Wharton is using it, so we should take a look.

In the beginning I had much empathy for sales teams whose emails I regularly ignored. I was ridiculously busy. The emails and requests for time were competing with ambitious students and a department that loved emails and meetings with equal fervor. Occasionally an email would break through (the power of follow ups!) and I’d chat. But the empathy faded over time as I experienced the worst of edtech sales:

  • Vendors insisting that their dashboard would solve all my problems without actually listening to my problems
  • Vendors who insisted on following their script. Once a person launched into a lengthy explanation on the basic concepts of data collection, ignoring the fact we were an MBA career services office which collects and tracks data on every student for mandatory reporting purposes.
  • Vendors insisting on demos when the product had no fit in our department
  • Vendors pushing to move forward despite my statements that I made zero decisions and didn’t control the budget – I was merely an internal lobbyist and would advocate where possible.
  • Vendors casually ignoring my questions at conference booths until they saw Yale on my badge; then it was all ears and smiles. (I know it happens and I know how boring booth work is but the frequency in which it happened was so disappointing).
  • Vendors ignoring the platform fatigue issue in our department (at one point I had students using 6 platforms and even I was tired of platforms).
  • Vendors with no understanding of UX, a particularly large red flag considering we’re dealing with learning outcomes. If you don’t understand users, how can you support their learning outcomes? Grad Leaders is the worst offender in this case, despite their prominence in the market.

These are the worst offenders of course. To be fair, edtech sales is rough . Decision-making in higher education is opaque. You don’t know who makes the decisions and when. Sales cycles are notoriously long compared to the private sector. Rejection is almost a relief compared to the non-responses. I look back now at some of my sales emails and I cringe. I was definitely a shitty edtech sales person at times (thankfully I’ve improved).

Now I read most edtech coverage with a critical eye. I wonder: did they talk with users before creating their solution? Is their solution based on a real problem? How are users benefiting from this technology? So when I read the edtech news at EdSurge Highered and CB insights I like to balance it with the Leading Lines podcast. I’m also a fan of Hack Education Newsletter, a comprehensive yet critical take on edtech news (and policy).

My relationship with edtech is always evolving. I’ve flipped sides again, having launched a company in the edtech space and pitching universities. But having a critical perspective keeps me grounded as I build and pitch. Podcasts like Leading Lines remind me regularly to consider both the learner’s and administrator’s perspective when designing for education.

by Nicolle

Perspective: Job loss to automation and technology in the retail sector

The data in the US, “land of shopping and malls”, is staggering. In 2017, year to date, there have already been more bankruptcies in this sector compared to the data from all of 2016. Employment data in steadily declining, department stores alone reduced more than 100,000 jobs in six months (!) and they now employ one-third the number of employees they had in 2001. For a comparison, that is 18 times the loss of jobs in the coal mining industry over the same period.

– When Robots Take Over Retail

by Nicolle

LinkedIn’s mediocrity is killing me

I’m a LinkedIn power user. At Yale SOM I lived on LinkedIn: reaching out to global employers, training global executives how to be thought leaders, and teaching students how to search alumni and track opportunities. These days I use it only slightly less with more focus on building partnerships and teaching students in my online courses how to use it.

So I say this with much love and experience: LinkedIn is so ridiculously mediocre.

I can’t for the life of me understand how a company with so many users and Microsoft-backing still spends so much time trying to get me to spam my inbox.

Yet when I get those connections, LinkedIn makes it ridiculously hard to organize and keep up with those connections.

My connections are all parked in a feature-poor list. If I’m looking to connect with someone working in fintech in Seattle, the sort feature offers little to help me find them (when’s the last time you remembered a conference contact by their first name?) Even the search feature doesn’t work properly:

Results of my Seattle search, where I’d wager 25% of my professional contacts reside

Yet when I want to search alumni from my school, I get this incredible, visual, search feature.

Why isn’t this feature replicated for contacts? If the point of LinkedIn is to stay connected to your contacts, why don’t they make it as easy as possible to find and visualize your contacts? (side note: What is the point of LinkedIn?)

Also, it’s worth noting that this is the result after they redesigned it to be more user-friendly.

Then there are all the attempts to get you to upgrade.

Not sure that’s the best way to motivate me to use premium.

LinkedIn is also pushing the online learning opportunities. There too I find their suggestions and course-dump lacking.

 I have zero connection to digital arts or animation.

LinkedIn has all the resources, deep data, and millions of users. Yet these are the results.

LinkedIn, hopelessly mediocre.

by Nicolle

AI is going to make your asshole manager even worse

Before you continue reading, reflect on the last bad manager you had. Remember how they made you feel. Remember the things they did that made your life miserable. Remember the incompetence. Remember that managers don’t get promoted to management because they’re good managers.

I know, it’s not pleasant. I’ve have some pretty awful managers too (but I’ve also had a billion jobs so it’s inevitable).

Ok. Now read on.

HR tech is hot. Nearly $2 billion in investment hot. And AI is hotter than bacon. So combining HR tech and AI is a sizzling idea (still with me?).

Enter all the startups ready to make managers lives easier/employees lives more miserable with algorithms to solve all the HR problems. The Wall Street Journal takes a peak into the future of management in How AI is Transforming the Workplace:

“Veriato makes software that logs virtually everything done on a computer—web browsing, email, chat, keystrokes, document and app use—and takes periodic screenshots, storing it all for 30 days on a customer’s server to ensure privacy. The system also sends so-called metadata, such as dates and times when messages were sent, to Veriato’s own server for analysis. There, an artificial-intelligence system determines a baseline for the company’s activities and searches for anomalies that may indicate poor productivity (such as hours spent on Amazon), malicious activity (repeated failed password entries) or an intention to leave the company (copying a database of contacts).Customers can set activities and thresholds that will trigger an alert. If the software sees anything fishy, it notifies management.”

Now remember your asshole manager. Imagine if they had access to this tool. Imagine the micromanagement.

Brutal.

(Side note: I wonder if employees get access to their bosses computer logs. Imagine that!)

Let’s keep going.

Another AI service lets companies analyze workers’ email to tell if they’re feeling unhappy about their job, so bosses can give them more attention before their performance takes a nose dive or they start doing things that harm the company.

Yikes.

It’s hard not to read that as an unhappy worker is somehow a threat to the company. Work isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. We can’t be happy 40 hours a week even in the best of jobs. Throughout our work lives we deal with grief, divorce, strained friendships, children, boredom, indecision, bad coworkers, bad bosses, bad news, financial stress, taking care of parents, etc etc etc. And sometimes that comes out in the course of our days spent buried in emails. The idea of management analyzing your emails on the watch for anything that isn’t rainbows ignores the reality of our work lives.

What data is the algorithm built on? What are the signs of unhappiness? Bitching about a coworker? Complaining about an unreasonable deadline? Micromanaging managers? What’s the time frame? One day of complaints or three weeks? Since algorithms take time to tweak and learn, what happens to employees (and their relationships with management) who are incorrectly flagged as unhappy while the algorithm learns?

Moreover, what do those conversations look like when “unhappy” employees are being called into management’s office?

Manager: Well we’ve called you in because our Algorithm notified me that you’re unhappy in your role.

Employee:

Manager: Right… so … can you tell me what’s making you so unhappy?

Employee: I’m fine.

Manager:

Not according to The Algorithm. It’s been analyzing all your emails. I noticed you used the word “asshat” twice in one week to describe your cubicle mate. Your use of the f word is off the charts compared to your peers on the team. You haven’t used an exclamation point to indicate anything positive in at least three weeks. The sentiment analysis shows you’re an 8 out of 10 on the unhappy chart. Look, here’s the emoji the algorithm assigned to help you understand your unhappiness level.

Employee: It’s creepy you’re reading my emails.

Manager:

Now remember, you signed that privacy agreement at the beginning of your employment and consented to this. You should never write anything in a company email that you don’t want read.

Employee:

And do companies who purchase this technology even ask the hard questions?

The issue I have with this tech, apart from it being ridiculously creepy, is that it makes some seriously bad assumptions. They assume:

  • All managers have inherently good intentions
  • All managers are competent
  • All organizations train their managers on how to be effective managers
  • All organizations train their managers on appropriate use of technology
  • Managers embrace new technology

Those are terrible assumptions. Here’s a brief, non-exhaustive list of issues I’ve had with managers over the past ten years:

  • Managers who can’t define what productivity looks like (beyond DO ALL THE THINGS)
  • Managers who can’t set and communicate goals
  • Managers who can’t listen to concerns voiced by the team (big egos)
  • Managers who can’t understand lead scoring and Google analytics (from the CEO and VP of sales and marketing no doubt)
  • Managers who can’t use a conference call system (technology-am-I-right?!)
  • Managers with no interpersonal communication skills and lack of self-awareness

Maybe we can all save ourselves by adding a new question when it’s our turn to ask questions in the interview:

“Tell me about your approach to management. What data do you use to ensure your AI technology accurately assesses employee happiness?”

Maybe I’m just cynical. Maybe it’s because I’ve had a few too many bad managers (as have my peers.). Maybe I just feel sorry for good employees struggling under bad management. And maybe organizations should get better about promoting people who can manage (i.e. people with soft skills) instead of those who can’t before this technology is adapted.

Anyhow, to wrap up, this whole post has my feeling so grateful for the good managers I’ve had. The ones who got it right. Who listened, encouraged, and provided constructive feedback on all my work. And though I’m sure they’re not reading this post, a shout out to my favorite, amazing managers from two very different jobs: Kirsten and Cathy. They didn’t need an algorithm to understand their team performance and employee happiness. They had communication skills, empathy, and damn good skills that made working for them a delight.

by Nicolle

Basecamp perks are next level

My fav podcast, Gameplan, is back at it again with a fab episode on employee benefits. In Your Company Could Be Tricking You with Perks, the hosts speak with CEO and Founder of Basecamp Jason Friend to get his take on employee perks. In this episode you can forget ping pong tables and unlimited vacation, because Basecamp is killing it with employee perks that encourage employees to get out of the office and have a life.

“I don’t like benefits that encourage people to stay at work. Many companies have a lot of perks that are about keeping you in the office. It’s actually kind of a subversive effect. They’ll have an on-staff chef and they’ll make dinner for people. That to me, you shouldn’t be eating dinner at work. That’s the wrong place to eat dinner. So we do stuff that’s go home and do stuff.”

Among the many many many perks they offer:

  • Charity match
  • $100/month for massages offsite
  • Fresh fruits and veggie CSA share at home
  • Pay for hobbies that aren’t related to your job

On top of that, they offer summer hours: a 4 day, 32 hour work week. And they do it without reducing pay.

It’s worth listening to the whole episode to hear more about Jason’s take on what it means to be an employee, not offering equity, and not using perks as a recruiting tool.

The biggest perk according to Jason: having your full work day for yourself without coworkers “stealing” time.

Swoon.