I was pleasantly surprised when I read you couldn’t tell GA’s courses were crowd-sourced; the quality and rigor of courses were my biggest worry as more name-brand schools move content into online curricula. My next concern would be overall market size for these specific, but fun/interesting, courses that their contributors help build. Customer base may be limited if the scope of classes remain limited while expanding to more basic and less interesting topics encroaches on territory easily dominated by existing online course providers.
I believe Nestle’s goals would be best served if it was a passive, but open, approach to working with startups as it would do the most to reduce R&D costs. Open innovation tries to harness that good ideas may come from anywhere; a dedicated team aimed at spotting “the next big thing” would likely run into the same internal barriers to open thinking an organization wanted to circumvent. Nestle did the right thing by putting their passive collaboration tools where many start-ups would look anyway.
NASA may consider crowdsourcing some of the analysis, like you mentioned in the final paragraph, in a similar manner as the SETI@home program out of UC Berkeley. Idle computer power from volunteers throughout the world can be used to run machine learning algorithms on data sets for which NASA has neither the funding or the computer power to analyze. Of course, this will still require humans to build appropriate data sets for the distributed system to prevent “garbage in, garbage out.”
Another possible application for AI in the gaming industry is cheat detection. With the acceptance of e-sports as professional entertainment and higher prize money at stake, the need to enforce fair play will become more important. The same capabilities of AI to develop suggestions for players or learn to play complex games can be used to find gameplay patterns of online cheaters, just as blood and urine tests check for physical doping in traditional sports.
If prosthetic implants produced using traditional methods are able to be produced using 3D printing with the same material composition, it would help mitigate the introduction of custom products into the body, assuming the fusing process does not change the materials in some way. We must also weigh alternatives when considering risk: if a sick child’s choice is between a custom, 3D-printed organ or none, how should parents or doctors decide? I imagine the markets for donated and compatible organs are small and not easily accessible when needed most.
Thanks for the post. As an aviation enthusiast, I agree the benefits of additive manufacturing would be most easily seen in GE’s aviation division. If the usable space within a 3D printer is used to maximum capacity, each “print run” can be used to create multiple custom parts for a variety of products, which is one way to help scale the process. The ability to form complex, supportive structures while using less material and reducing weight would benefit GE Renewables and their design of wind turbine components.