Phil Smeeton's Tech Thinking Blog

Evolutionary principles combined with our human needs tends to favour indoor pursuits at this time of year in the western part of the world. There is a good amount of evidence that we spend more time indoors near our computers at this time of year. So the lack of motivation to be outdoors during colder weather combined with the excitement of a new computer game equals more screen time. I think it is often worth reviewing users screen habits in general, the study of how much screen time on what device is of value to us and the ratios between devices are sure to change as time goes by. However, we can assume that screen time each day is several hours, some of which will be playing console games for those that own the equipment. The psychology of purchasing of big games titles at this time of year falls into environmental circumstances combined with the want of the user to be current and fashionable. The challenge of completing the game can provide satisfaction and status in the gamer com...

I think Apple has at least another decade of tremendous success ahead with their wonderful iPhone product, however I think that the Vision Pro could well become the iPhone replacement with a few minor changes. Firstly the software on the vision Pro has to enable very quick and high quality Virtual Meeting communication calls, the next generation of FaceTime in fact, using the spacial capabilities of Vision Pro. Second, the Vision Pro has to be developed hardware-wise to allow very quick wearing and un-wearing up to 100 times per day and maybe more often, this is to accomodate the habits that have formed in the human users with the iPhone. Thirdly, the Apple Payments systems have to be adjusted to use a visual approach using the Vision Pro the user 'looks at the payment reader' and performs the transaction this new way. In fact visual confirmation of all the current wallet activities is recommended. Finally, the success of these features is dependant on routine and habit forming...

The human brain as an IO device participating in super computing. As computation ability of computers increases and with the introduction of technologies like chat gpt, we are seeing a potential rival (or alternative) to human thought. I thought about what this might mean for us in the future as I think that as the computers become more capable we will ask them to simplify the output so we can understand it sufficiently.  So for example, if an AI application solves a problem like: How do we colonise Mars? It has to be able to solve the problem and then explain it to us in a way that we understand. This principal reveals an interesting limit to the silicon/human brain interconnectedness, if we presuppose that the AI is more capable then we are asking the AI to simplify output. This seems to hint that in the future we will be limited to a brain's ability to interact with AI. The human brain in effect will be the limited I/O device. The AI must continually work on better ways of makin...

We are now in a generative AI era. LLMs can be a potential source of privacy concerns. Using co-pilots that leverage generative AI like Chat GPT can increase on-the-job abilities significantly making workers and companies more capable. Generative AIs like chat GPT can sometimes produce hallucinations in the results.

I think in psychology terms users are getting used to their tech products doing more for them than ever before, which makes the idea of a windows co-pilot a good one An assistant that empowers the user to do more with fewer mistakes and more confidence. I think that users will appreciate the extra work they can get done with co-pilot, it might be worth reminding them of the time they have saved using co-pilot. I think some of the reservations users will have about using co-pilot are the uniqueness of the results for example in the case of writing some text and appropriateness of co-pilots actions. So will co-pilot be genuinely useful or another automation type of tool producing cookie cutter solutions? It will be interesting to see how the capabilities of co-pilot evolve in windows, how intrusive users think co-pilot is and whether the users genuinely prefer the results over the regular way of doing things.

 A big win of virtual meetings is a significant reduction in the production of C02: What would be the impact on the planet if every distanced meeting could be done virtually with no travel/or carbon emission? The philosophy I think is of use for software developers is: You have met them in person but just wait until you meet them virtually. What needs adding to virtual meetings to make them more like in-person ones (this could be a goal of a specific virtual meeting application, use application x for the most in-person-like meeting experience) The opportunity to read body language and gestures and the ability to interact with objects physically in the same room.

I was chatting to a health professional recently about virtual meetings. One point they made was that they felt in-person meetings should (always!) be the preferred option over virtual, that in-person meetings were important opportunities for examining body language and this is currently missing from video calls. The more I talk to people about virtual vs in-person the more the issue of reading body postures appears. Maybe this part of meetings is too important to omit from future video calls, we would probably be talking about full length cameras of some kind. Maybe the solution to reading body gestures is a separate 2 nd  window that has another view and also maybe controllable by the viewer. It was obvious in the discussion that there are big travel savings when using virtual meetings, a big win for the planet. I find it is interesting talking to people about virtual vs in-person meetings, usually it is not long before the conversation moves to the stuff you can't do in virtual ...