Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to transform the way that marketing professionals work, and how organizations target, engage and connect with customers and prospects. Just like how marketing automation created new tasks and job functions, AI will revolutionize the way marketing is performed – and dictate a new set of job needs and skills.
We’ve discussed how the term artificial intelligence (AI) covers a wide array of applications; just like many of these functionalities, affective computing is beginning to see some growth in the market. Spanning across computer science, behavioral psychology, and cognitive science, affective computing uses hardware and software to identify human feelings, behaviors, and cognitive states through the detection and analysis of facial, body language, biometric, verbal and/or vocal signals.
Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption is at a tipping point, as more and more organizations develop their AI strategies for implementing the revolutionary technology within their organizations. However, there are still major challenges to AI adoption; in fact, cost of the solution and lack of skilled resources are cited as the top inhibitors of adopting AI.
While we’ve discussed the disruptive power that artificial intelligence (AI) applications bring to enterprise organizations, the truth is that AI adoption is still low for these businesses. However, adoption level is at a tipping point; investment in AI has tripled, and recent technical innovations promise to make AI not just an underlying technology capability, but a fundamental business tool. Here are just three of the technical innovations that enterprises can use to better leverage the disruptive power of AI:
As artificial intelligence’s (AI’s) potential grows, so does the need for a cohesive AI strategy to leverage AI to prioritize and execute the enterprise’s goals. Aside from articulating business goals and mapping out the ways organizations can use AI to achieve those goals, there is another extremely important element that every AI strategy needs: a code of ethics.
For companies that are committed to creating Digital Transformation (DX) within their organizations, artificial intelligence (AI) is a critical component. The data that is created in DX initiatives has limited value if an organization can’t extract valuable, accurate, and timely insights from it. That’s why enterprise organizations are using AI technologies to pull actionable value from its data; in fact, by the end of 2019, 40% of all DX initiatives will be related to AI.
In October 2018, a Reuters article informed the world that Amazon had scrapped an AI–based recruitment application that turned out to be biased against women. Most headlines about this story highlighted the company’s failure in developing an actionable and fair solution for one of the most important processes of the HR team.
However, what this and similar examples of today’s AI “failures” neglect to acknowledge is the complexity of end-to-end process automation based on AI technology. This complexity stems not only from current technical limitations but also from the immaturity of corporate policies, government regulations, and legal systems to deal with machines that automatically analyze, decide, and act.
With PTC’s $70M acquisition of generative design software vendor Frustum announced today, and the continued focus on expanding generative design capabilities by Autodesk, Dassault Systèmes, and Siemens, manufacturers have multiple options for AI and machine learning-infused CAD and CAE (i.e. simulation).
As the market for intelligent applications and the software platforms used to build them has emerged, nomenclature confusion has grown. What should we call these applications, and what should we call the platforms, libraries and software tools used to build them?
The terminology matters. Vendors need to differentiate their products from the business intelligence and predictive analytics software that has existed for decades. ‘Intelligent applications’ and ‘business intelligence’ software provide two very different sets of functionality. For technology buyers who need to justify new solutions to budget holders, the terminology matters too.
