Last week, I participated in a panel at the World Talent Economy Forum to talk about consensus building in the metaverse. While this virtual world has potential, it's far from ready to replace tools like Zoom or in-person meetings. In fact, it falls far short of current alternatives in one important respect: Because it's avatar-based, there's a higher risk of identity theft and fraud.
Generally, when seeking consensus, people like to look each other in the eye and use body language and personality to get others to agree. This is true for both video and in-person calls. Even then, the loudest (or best connected) person in a meeting, not the most knowledgeable or informed, wins.
But what if a combination of blockchain (for security) and artificial intelligence (for better decision-making) could be added to the mix? So the metaverse, or even Zoom calls, could become much more efficient, even more effective, tools than in-person meetings.
Let me explain.
Blockchain and identity
One problem with any form of remote collaboration is making sure the person you're collaborating with is who they say they are. Whether it's industrial or political espionage, outright fraud, or just an incredible prank, how can you be sure the person you're communicating with remotely is genuine?
Initially used as a distributed ledger for cryptocurrency transactions (many of which were illicit), the blockchain could be used to verify who it is working with. It uses trusted third-party sources to validate identities globally, and while it's possible to fool you for a very short time, it's unlikely that someone will be able to fool you for an extended period of time, which could make communications and collaboration much more secure . .
AI for better decisions
If, like me, you attend a lot of collaborative meetings where consensus is required, you've probably noticed that the most influential (or loudest) voice in the room usually drives the decision. This is due to a concept called "argumentative theory." This suggests that people are genetically preconditioned to want to win arguments rather than to find the right path to follow. In other words, winning an argument is more important than doing the right thing.
I've been in meetings where people who knew I was right argued, just to make sure I didn't win an argument. But winning arguments shouldn't be as important as making the right decision.
For example, when I worked as a competitive analyst at Siemens, Siemens doctors would visit us regularly and literally yell at us and tell us we were idiots. In the latter case, we discussed with three of these executives a matter of strategic management; after we won the debate, they disbanded us, did what they wanted to do, and the split fell through, as we predicted. It cost the company billions of dollars, but getting rid of people who disagreed with them was more important than ensuring success.
But what if you could use AI in these kinds of discussions to rank people around the table based on their experience, knowledge of the topic, track record of hits or misses, and their understanding of the unit's capabilities? This data could be used to rank reviews regardless of position, volume, mismatched skills, or company relationships.
AI could then be used to bring the issue to the people most qualified to answer it, ensuring they have the loudest voice. That doesn't mean others can't be heard, but it would ensure that the less qualified are no longer in the best position to make an intelligent decision.
With blockchain verification in the metaverse and AI helpers in the real world, the technology can ensure collaborative efforts have the best chance of success. Instead of worrying about false "colleagues" deep or know-it-alls, people could work together to find the best solutions available.
Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.