Mr. von Reventlow, you’re currently developing a household robot. What’s so exciting about it?
Von Reventlow: The robot has to understand what a person’s intention is. It learns to interpret. It registers a person’s angry voice and thus knows what it is doing is wrong. That makes it more like a personal assistant. The robot of the future could be envisioned rather more like a roommate than as a vacuum cleaner.
Will it be shaped like a human being?
Von Reventlow: No! We’ve done extensive research into this and found none of the shapes currently taken by a robot generates a positive recommendation rate (using the Net Promoter Score). We tested 47 different designs that ran the gamut from science fiction movies to Pepper. The best NPS received was +11 percent. This shows us that the question of what robots should look like is still unresolved.
Mr. Thesen, what should a household robot look like?
Thesen: We’ve been working on this at the Human Factor Lab in Darmstadt. In Japan, robots are predominantly designed in humanoid form. They’re endowed with large eyes and a smile so that they look like children. It’s a reflection of the country’s culture, which plays a major role in the Japanese adaptation of technology.
In our culture, however, a design like that would be a fatal mistake. People don't want a roommate in their home; it would blur the lines in regards to intimacy and privacy and lead to conflicts. People want to interact with a machine that also looks like a machine. The misconception that robots must look human-like comes from science fiction movies.
Philipp Thesen
Von Reventlow: One of the most fundamental expectations the next generation has it to have full control over their own data. In conversations with young people, I’ve told them that Google and Facebook know everything about you anyway. The young people reply: No, Google and Facebook know all about YOU. You’re the Google and Facebook generation, we don’t use that.
So how do these young people communicate?
Von Reventlow: They use their own tools, like Snapchat, where they assume that everything they have posted is forgotten. That's not true, but their behavior shows that young people are developing a different attitude toward this topic. In the future, people will want to control what their respective digital twin represents.
Yet I can already protect my data using crypto systems and login providers.
Thesen: Do you know every account that you’ve used online in the last ten years? Passwords are just the tip of the User Experience iceberg. If we think about the digital twin further, it could be a data foundation for personalized experiences. Especially as the virtual and analogue worlds meld further together. That will result in an entire logbook of all experiences, preferences, and interactions.
So a person’s entire experience and behavior encapsulated in a finely-detailed psychological model?
Thesen: Yes. An archive of a person’s interactions with the digital world over the course of their life – but under the control of the user and not in the hands of American corporations. The handling of this archive must be simple and done in a way that I as a human being want it to be done. Already today we are asking ourselves questions like which brand of yogurt the refrigerator will order for us when it notices the last carton is gone.
Von Reventlow: Now we're on the subject of AI+UX. AI recognizes patterns according to which actions are triggered. The AI learns my patterns, those around which I want my life to be designed. As a human, I have to be able to tell it what I want. And as a software, the Al must be safe from outside influences. Otherwise (to use a harmless example), a company will pay to ensure that their brand’s yogurt is purchased by that refrigerator.
So the dashboard between a person and its digital twin, the UX, is the design challenge?
Von Reventlow: That question is unanswered. But it is pressing. The majority of the population is not software programmers. People will not want to and cannot operate complex settings in complex menus.
Thesen: Does it even have to appear as a dashboard? It doesn’t have to be a graphic user interface.
Philipp Thesen
You’re calling for people’s data sovereignty and to apply the formula Personal Intelligence = Artificial Intelligence + User Experience, i.e. PI = AI + UX, for digital twins. Is that not actually a platitude?
Von Reventlow: All things that work are simple. If it is not simple, it does not work. Things must be usable. Until now, AI has been centrally controlled. Google is the AI. Google controls the answers, depending on who pays what.
Thesen: Our formula is about nothing less than the humanization of Artificial Intelligence. It must be accessible to humans, easy to learn, applicable and designable. The technology must be designed in such a way that people find it tolerant, patient, warm and empathetic. Artificial Intelligence can be the basis for a new, different and better life. But it must serve us, not dominate us. This much must be made clear: A dog cannot bite the owner. People have learned over thousands of years that a person makes the world their own, not the other way around. And all inventions over the long history of technology have always been an extension of a human’s own body, their own skills. At the end of every technological development there was always a tool that leveraged human power and provided intelligent solutions to everyday problems. If technology is to be successful on the markets over the long term, it must once again focus on people.
So you are aiming for nothing less than a redefinition of the balance of power in the digital sector?
Von Reventlow: Yes.
Thesen: We are advocating for a democratization of data sovereignty. This is not only a European problem; in the US, too, sensitivity is increasing after the Cambridge scandal. And it is a political failure that people no longer possess their data.
Philipp Thesen
In Germany, citizens have the right to self-determination when it comes to information. Yet no one is claiming this right because convenience is more important than the awareness of being exploited.
Thesen: People want simplicity when they use products and services. That's fine. But it is the task of design to make clear and sincere what the price for it is. This is a similar phenomenon to that of robots: sincere design means that the interaction takes place with a machine and not with a child with big eyes. The price that people pay today for their comfort is hidden. To bring it to light via the UX is the task of design. Sincere design respects people in their entirety and shows them the consequences of their behaviour. The UX makes the individual a free human being, a sovereign citizen.
Daniel Ekdahl, the founder of Spotify, says that people no longer pay for access to music, but pay out of habit and convenience.
Von Reventlow: Convenience is actually a key driver for people. Probably 90 percent of all purchasing decisions are convenience and security decisions. If AI showed me alternatives, then maybe not all people would use these alternatives, but at least they would have more freedom.
Facebook and Google Brain do research with GANs, Generative Adversarial Networks. That means AIs running in competition with each other. A painting was sold at auction had been painted using AI. This painting was considered special because another AI did not recognize it as non-human anymore. AI here verifying AI. But where is the human being?
Thesen: Art also defines itself by introducing new non-linear aspects. Non-linear algorithms bring surprising results. That’s no longer something special. But surprise in art only happens in context. That is the fundamental difference to the actions of a human being. To develop creativity at the appropriate moment, a joke, a punchline, something surprising, only humans can do that. Contextualization remains something deeply human. This is why maintaining the term UX between AI and PI is so important. The formula shows how companies have to produce services, offers, products and experiences in order not to be perceived as dull by humans. After all, companies will have to create personalized offers in order to be relevant. This may be a truism, but many companies are still far from realizing this very simple formula in their organization.
For the future of marketing, this means: The consumer receives an individualized product at an individual price. That’s the end of democracy.
Von Reventlow: On the one hand, it is about optimizing our way of life. But the other question to ask is: Who has sovereignty? Today it is large corporations, not citizens. Now, in the early stages of AI, there is still an opportunity to set the course.
Thesen: Sovereign human beings can sell their data. They are already doing so today, they just don’t realize it. This is the fundamental problem: people are not aware of the value of their data. We need a new economic paradigm.
Interview with Philipp Thesen and Christian von Reventlow
Original text in German by Rolf Schröter
Mr. von Reventlow, you’re currently developing a household robot. What’s so exciting about it?
Von Reventlow: The robot has to understand what a person’s intention is. It learns to interpret. It registers a person’s angry voice and thus knows what it is doing is wrong. That makes it more like a personal assistant. The robot of the future could be envisioned rather more like a roommate than as a vacuum cleaner.
Will it be shaped like a human being?
Von Reventlow: No! We’ve done extensive research into this and found none of the shapes currently taken by a robot generates a positive recommendation rate (using the Net Promoter Score). We tested 47 different designs that ran the gamut from science fiction movies to Pepper. The best NPS received was +11 percent. This shows us that the question of what robots should look like is still unresolved.
Mr. Thesen, what should a household robot look like?
Thesen: We’ve been working on this at the Human Factor Lab in Darmstadt. In Japan, robots are predominantly designed in humanoid form. They’re endowed with large eyes and a smile so that they look like children. It’s a reflection of the country’s culture, which plays a major role in the Japanese adaptation of technology.
In our culture, however, a design like that would be a fatal mistake. People don't want a roommate in their home; it would blur the lines in regards to intimacy and privacy and lead to conflicts. People want to interact with a machine that also looks like a machine. The misconception that robots must look human-like comes from science fiction movies.
Philipp Thesen
Von Reventlow: One of the most fundamental expectations the next generation has it to have full control over their own data. In conversations with young people, I’ve told them that Google and Facebook know everything about you anyway. The young people reply: No, Google and Facebook know all about YOU. You’re the Google and Facebook generation, we don’t use that.
So how do these young people communicate?
Von Reventlow: They use their own tools, like Snapchat, where they assume that everything they have posted is forgotten. That's not true, but their behavior shows that young people are developing a different attitude toward this topic. In the future, people will want to control what their respective digital twin represents.
Yet I can already protect my data using crypto systems and login providers.
Thesen: Do you know every account that you’ve used online in the last ten years? Passwords are just the tip of the User Experience iceberg. If we think about the digital twin further, it could be a data foundation for personalized experiences. Especially as the virtual and analogue worlds meld further together. That will result in an entire logbook of all experiences, preferences, and interactions.
So a person’s entire experience and behavior encapsulated in a finely-detailed psychological model?
Thesen: Yes. An archive of a person’s interactions with the digital world over the course of their life – but under the control of the user and not in the hands of American corporations. The handling of this archive must be simple and done in a way that I as a human being want it to be done. Already today we are asking ourselves questions like which brand of yogurt the refrigerator will order for us when it notices the last carton is gone.
Von Reventlow: Now we're on the subject of AI+UX. AI recognizes patterns according to which actions are triggered. The AI learns my patterns, those around which I want my life to be designed. As a human, I have to be able to tell it what I want. And as a software, the Al must be safe from outside influences. Otherwise (to use a harmless example), a company will pay to ensure that their brand’s yogurt is purchased by that refrigerator.
So the dashboard between a person and its digital twin, the UX, is the design challenge?
Von Reventlow: That question is unanswered. But it is pressing. The majority of the population is not software programmers. People will not want to and cannot operate complex settings in complex menus.
Thesen: Does it even have to appear as a dashboard? It doesn’t have to be a graphic user interface.
Philipp Thesen
You’re calling for people’s data sovereignty and to apply the formula Personal Intelligence = Artificial Intelligence + User Experience, i.e. PI = AI + UX, for digital twins. Is that not actually a platitude?
Von Reventlow: All things that work are simple. If it is not simple, it does not work. Things must be usable. Until now, AI has been centrally controlled. Google is the AI. Google controls the answers, depending on who pays what.
Thesen: Our formula is about nothing less than the humanization of Artificial Intelligence. It must be accessible to humans, easy to learn, applicable and designable. The technology must be designed in such a way that people find it tolerant, patient, warm and empathetic. Artificial Intelligence can be the basis for a new, different and better life. But it must serve us, not dominate us. This much must be made clear: A dog cannot bite the owner. People have learned over thousands of years that a person makes the world their own, not the other way around. And all inventions over the long history of technology have always been an extension of a human’s own body, their own skills. At the end of every technological development there was always a tool that leveraged human power and provided intelligent solutions to everyday problems. If technology is to be successful on the markets over the long term, it must once again focus on people.
So you are aiming for nothing less than a redefinition of the balance of power in the digital sector?
Von Reventlow: Yes.
Thesen: We are advocating for a democratization of data sovereignty. This is not only a European problem; in the US, too, sensitivity is increasing after the Cambridge scandal. And it is a political failure that people no longer possess their data.
Philipp Thesen
In Germany, citizens have the right to self-determination when it comes to information. Yet no one is claiming this right because convenience is more important than the awareness of being exploited.
Thesen: People want simplicity when they use products and services. That's fine. But it is the task of design to make clear and sincere what the price for it is. This is a similar phenomenon to that of robots: sincere design means that the interaction takes place with a machine and not with a child with big eyes. The price that people pay today for their comfort is hidden. To bring it to light via the UX is the task of design. Sincere design respects people in their entirety and shows them the consequences of their behaviour. The UX makes the individual a free human being, a sovereign citizen.
Daniel Ekdahl, the founder of Spotify, says that people no longer pay for access to music, but pay out of habit and convenience.
Von Reventlow: Convenience is actually a key driver for people. Probably 90 percent of all purchasing decisions are convenience and security decisions. If AI showed me alternatives, then maybe not all people would use these alternatives, but at least they would have more freedom.
Facebook and Google Brain do research with GANs, Generative Adversarial Networks. That means AIs running in competition with each other. A painting was sold at auction had been painted using AI. This painting was considered special because another AI did not recognize it as non-human anymore. AI here verifying AI. But where is the human being?
Thesen: Art also defines itself by introducing new non-linear aspects. Non-linear algorithms bring surprising results. That’s no longer something special. But surprise in art only happens in context. That is the fundamental difference to the actions of a human being. To develop creativity at the appropriate moment, a joke, a punchline, something surprising, only humans can do that. Contextualization remains something deeply human. This is why maintaining the term UX between AI and PI is so important. The formula shows how companies have to produce services, offers, products and experiences in order not to be perceived as dull by humans. After all, companies will have to create personalized offers in order to be relevant. This may be a truism, but many companies are still far from realizing this very simple formula in their organization.
For the future of marketing, this means: The consumer receives an individualized product at an individual price. That’s the end of democracy.
Von Reventlow: On the one hand, it is about optimizing our way of life. But the other question to ask is: Who has sovereignty? Today it is large corporations, not citizens. Now, in the early stages of AI, there is still an opportunity to set the course.
Thesen: Sovereign human beings can sell their data. They are already doing so today, they just don’t realize it. This is the fundamental problem: people are not aware of the value of their data. We need a new economic paradigm.
Interview with Philipp Thesen and Christian von Reventlow
Original text in German by Rolf Schröter
Do you have questions about my consulting services or about working together? You can contact me with press and publication inquiries as well as general requests by phone or email:
Mail: office@philippthesen.com
Do you have questions about my consulting services or about working together? You can contact me with press and publication inquiries as well as general requests by phone or email:
Mail: office@philippthesen.com