>> Announcer: Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE covering IBM Think 2018. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hi everybody, this is Dave Vellante. We're here at IBM Think. This is the third day of IBM Think. IBM has consolidated a number of its conferences. It's a one main tent, AI, Blockchain, quantum computing, incumbent disruption. It's just really an amazing event, 30 to 40,000 people, I think there are too many people to count. Chris Penn is here. New company, Chris, you've just formed Brain+Trust Insights, welcome. Welcome back to theCUBE. >> Thank you. It's good to be back. >> Great to see you. So tell me about Brain+Trust Insights. Congratulations, you got a new company off the ground. >> Thank you, yeah, I co-founded it. We are a data analytics company, and the premise is simple, we want to help companies make more money with their data. They're sitting on tons of it. Like the latest IBM study was something like 90% of the corporate data goes unused. So it's like having an oil field and not digging a single well. >> So, who are your like perfect clients? >> Our perfect clients are people who have data, and know they have data, and are not using it, but know that there's more to be made. So our focus is on marketing to begin with, like marketing analytics, marketing data, and then eventually to retail, healthcare, and customer experience. >> So you and I do a lot of these IBM events. >> Yes. >> What are your thoughts on what you've seen so far? A huge crowd obviously, sometimes too big. >> Chris: Yep, well I-- >> Few logistics issues, but chairmanly speaking, what's your sense? >> I have enjoyed the show. It has been fun to see all the new stuff, seeing the quantum computer in the hallway which I still think looks like a bird feeder, but what's got me most excited is a lot of the technology, particularly around AI are getting simpler to use, getting easier to use, and they're getting more accessible to people who are not hardcore coders. >> Yeah, you're seeing AI infused, and machine learning, in virtually every application now. Every company is talking about it. I want to come back to that, but Chris when you read the mainstream media, you listen to the news, you hear people like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking before he died, making dire predictions about machine intelligence, and it taking over the world, but your day to day with customers that have data problems, how are they using AI, and how are they applying it practically, notwithstanding that someday machines are going to take over the world and we're all going to be gone? >> Yeah, no, the customers don't use the AI. We do on their behalf because frankly most customers don't care how the sausage is made, they just want the end product. So customers really care about three things. Are you going to make me money? Are you going to save me time? Or are you going to help me prove my value to the organization, aka, help me not get fired? And artificial intelligence and machine learning do that through really two ways. My friend, Tripp Braden says, which is acceleration and accuracy. Accuracy means we can use the customer's data and get better answers out of it than they have been getting. So they've been looking at, I don't know, number of retweets on Twitter. We're, like, yeah, but there's more data that you have, let's get you a more accurate predictor of what causes business impacts. And then the other side for the machine learning and AI side is acceleration. Let's get you answers faster because right now, if you look at how some of the traditional market research for, like, what customer say about you, it takes a quarter, it can take two quarters. By the time you're done, the customers just hate you more. >> Okay, so, talk more about some of the practical applications that you're seeing for AI. >> Well, one of the easiest, simplest and most immediately applicable ones is predictive analytics. If we know when people are going to search for theCUBE or for business podcast in general, then we can tell you down to the week level, "Hey Dave, it is time for you "to ramp up your spending on May 17th. "The week of May 17th, "you need to ramp up your ads, spend by 20%. "On the week of May 24th, "you need to ramp up your ad spend by 50%, "and to run like three or four Instagram stories that week." Doing stuff like that tells you, okay, I can take these predictions and build strategy around them, build execution around them. And it's not cognitive overload, you're not saying, like, oh my God, what algorithm is this? Just know, just do this thing at these times. >> Yeah, simple stuff, right? So when you were talking about that, I was thinking about when we send out an email to our community, we have a very large community, and they want to know if we're going to have a crowd chat or some event, where theCUBE is going to be, the system will tell us, send this email out at this time on this date, question mark, here's why, and they have analytics that tell us how to do that, and they predict what's going to get us the best results. They can tell us other things to do to get better results, better open rates, better click-through rates, et cetera. That's the kind of thing that you're talking about. >> Exactly, however, that system is probably predicting off that system's data, it's not necessarily predicting off a public data. One of the important things that I thought was very insightful from IBM, the show was, the difference between public and private cloud. Private is your data, you predict on it. But public is the big stuff that is a better overall indicator. When you're looking to do predictions about when to send emails because you want to know when is somebody going to read my email, and we did a prediction this past October for the first quarter, the week of January 18th it was the week to send email. So I re-ran an email campaign that I ran the previous year, exact same campaign, 40% lift to our viewer 'cause I got the week right this year. Last year I was two weeks late. >> Now, I can ask you, so there's a black box problem with AI, right, machines can tell me that that's a cat, but even a human, you can't really explain how you know that it's a cat. It's just you just know. Do we need to know how the machine came up with the answer, or do people just going to accept the answer? >> We need to for compliance reasons if nothing else. So GDPR is a big issue, like, you have to write it down on how your data is being used, but even HR and Equal Opportunity Acts in here in American require you to be able to explain, hey, we are, here's how we're making decisions. Now the good news is for a lot of AI technology, interpretability of the model is getting much much better. I was just in a demo for Watson Studio, and they say, "Here's that interpretability, "that you hand your compliance officer, "and say we guarantee we are not using "these factors in this decision." So if you were doing a hiring thing, you'd be able to show here's the model, here's how Watson put the model together, notice race is not in here, gender is not in here, age is not in here, so this model is compliant with the law. >> So there are some real use cases where the AI black box problem is a problem. >> It's a serious problem. And the other one that is not well-explored yet are the secondary inferences. So I may say, I cannot use age as a factor, right, we both have a little bit of more gray hair than we used to, but if there are certain things, say, on your Facebook profile, like you like, say, The Beatles versus Justin Bieber, the computer will automatically infer eventually what your age bracket is, and that is technically still discrimination, so we even need to build that into the models to be able to say, I can't make that inference. >> Yeah, or ask some questions about their kids, oh my kids are all grown up, okay, but you could, again, infer from that. A young lady who's single but maybe engaged, oh, well then maybe afraid because she'll get, a lot of different reasons that can be inferred with pretty high degrees of accuracy when you go back to the target example years ago. >> Yes. >> Okay, so, wow, so you're saying that from a compliance standpoint, organizations have to be able to show that they're not doing that type of inference, or at least that they have a process whereby that's not part of the decision-making. >> Exactly and that's actually one of the short-term careers of the future is someone who's a model inspector who can verify we are compliant with the letter and the spirit of the law. >> So you know a lot about GDPR, we talked about this. I think, the first time you and I talked about it was last summer in Munich, what are your thoughts on AI and GDPR, speaking of practical applications for AI, can it help? >> It absolutely can help. On the regulatory side, there are a number of systems, Watson GRC is one which can read the regulation and read your company policies and tell you where you're out of compliance, but on the other hand, like we were just talking about this, also the problem of in the regulatory requirements, a citizen of EU has the right to know how the data is being used. If you have a black box AI, and you can't explain the model, then you are out of compliance to GDPR, and here comes that 4% of revenue fine. >> So, in your experience, gut feel, what percent of US companies are prepared for GDPR? >> Not enough. I would say, I know the big tech companies have been racing to get compliant and to be able to prove their compliance. It's so entangled with politics too because if a company is out of favor with the EU as whole, there will be kind of a little bit of a witch hunt to try and figure out is that company violating the law and can we get them for 4% of their revenue? And so there are a number of bigger picture considerations that are outside the scope of theCUBE that will influence how did EU enforce this GDPR. >> Well, I think we talked about Joe's Pizza shop in Chicago really not being a target. >> Chris: Right. >> But any even small business that does business with European customers, does business in Europe, has people come to their website has to worry about this, right? >> They should at least be aware of it, and do the minimum compliance, and the most important thing is use the least amount of data that you can while still being able to make good decisions. So AI is very good at public data that's already out there that you still have to be able to catalog how you got it and things, and that it's available, but if you're building these very very robust AI-driven models, you may not need to ask for every single piece of customer data because you may not need it. >> Yeah and many companies aren't that sophisticated. I mean they'll have, just fill out a form and download a white paper, but then they're storing that information, and that's considered personal information, right? >> Chris: Yes, it is. >> Okay so, what do you recommend for a small to midsize company that, let's say, is doing business with a larger company, and that larger company said, okay, sign this GDPR compliance statement which is like 1500 pages, what should they do? Should they just sign and pray, or sign and figure it out? >> Call a lawyer. Call a lawyer. Call someone, anyone who has regulatory experience doing this because you don't want to be on the hook for that 4% of your revenue. If you get fined, that's the first violation, and that's, yeah, granted that Joe's Pizza shop may have a net profit of $1,000 a month, but you still don't want to give away 4% of your revenue no matter what size company you are. >> Right, 'cause that could wipe out Joe's entire profit. >> Exactly. No more pepperoni at Joe's. >> Let's put on the telescope lens here and talk big picture. How do you see, I mean, you're talking about practical applications for AI, but a lot of people are projecting loss of jobs, major shifts in industries, even more dire consequences, some of which is probably true, but let's talk about some scenarios. Let's talk about retail. How do you expect an industry like retail to be effective? For example, do you expect retail stores will be the exception rather than the rule, that most of the business would be done online, or people are going to still going to want that experience of going into a store? What's your sense, I mean, a lot of malls are getting eaten away. >> Yep, the best quote I heard about this was from a guy named Justin Kownacki, "People don't not want to shop at retail, "people don't want to shop at boring retail," right? So the experience you get online is genuinely better because there's a more seamless customer experience. And now with IoT, with AI, the tools are there to craft a really compelling personalized customer experience. If you want the best in class, go to Disney World. There is no place on the planet that does customer experience better than Walt Disney World. You are literally in another world. And that's the bar. That's the thing that all of these companies have to deal with is the bar has been set. Disney has set it for in-person customer experience. You have to be more entertaining than the little device in someone's pocket. So how do you craft those experiences, and we are starting to see hints of that here and there. If you go to Lowe's, some of the Lowe's have the VR headset that you can remodel your kitchen virtually with a bunch of photos. That's kind of a cool experience. You go to Jordan's Furniture store and there's an IMAX theater and there's all these fun things, and there's an enchanted Christmas village. So there is experiences that we're giving consumers. AI will help us provide more tailored customer experience that's unique to you. You're not a Caucasian male between this age and this age. It's you are Dave and here's what we know Dave likes, so let's tailor the experience as best we can, down to the point where the greeter at the front of the store either has the eyepiece, a little tablet, and the facial recognition reads your emotions on the way in says, "Dave's not in a really great mood. "He's carrying an object in his hand "probably here for return, "so express him through the customer service line, "keep him happy," right? It has how much Dave spends. Those are the kinds of experiences that the machines will help us accelerate and be more accurate, but still not lose that human touch. >> Let's talk about autonomous vehicles, and there was a very unfortunate tragic death in Arizona this week with a autonomous vehicle, Uber, pulling its autonomous vehicle project from various cities, but thinking ahead, will owning and driving your own vehicle be the exception? >> Yeah, I think it'll look like horseback today. So there are people who still pay a lot of money to ride a horse or have their kids ride a horse even though it's an archaic out-of-mode of form of transportation, but we do it because of the novelty, so the novelty of driving your own car. One of the counter points it does not in anyway diminish the fact that someone was deprived of their life, but how many pedestrians were hit and killed by regular cars that same day, right? How many car accidents were there that involved fatalities? Humans in general are much less reliable because when I do something wrong, I maybe learn my lesson, but you don't get anything out of it. When an AI does something wrong and learns something, and every other system that's connected in that mesh network automatically updates and says let's not do that again, and they all get smarter at the same time. And so I absolutely believe that from an insurance perspective, insurers will say, "We're not going to insure self-driving, "a non-autonomous vehicles at the same rate "as an autonomous vehicle because the autonomous "is learning faster how to be a good driver," whereas you the carbon-based human, yeah, you're getting, or in like in our case, mine in particular, hey your glass subscription is out-of-date, you're actually getting worse as a driver. >> Okay let's take another example, in healthcare. How long before machines will be able to make better diagnoses than doctors in your opinion? >> I would argue that depending on the situation, that's already the case today. So Watson Health has a thing where there's diagnosis checkers on iPads, they're all meshed together. For places like Africa where there is simply are not enough doctors, and so a nurse practitioner can take this, put the data in and get a diagnosis back that's probably as good or better than what humans can do. I never foresee a day where you will walk into a clinic and a bunch of machines will poke you, and you will never interact with a human because we are not wired that way. We want that human reassurance. But the doctor will have the backup of the AI, the AI may contradict the doctor and say, "No, we're pretty sure "you're wrong and here is why." That goes back to interpretability. If the machine says, "You missed this symptom, "and this symptom is typically correlated with this, "you should rethink your own diagnosis," the doctor might be like, "Yeah, you're right." >> So okay, I'm going to keep going because your answers are so insightful. So let's take an example of banking. >> Chris: Yep. >> Will banks, in your opinion, lose control eventually of payment systems? >> They already have. I mean think about Stripe and Square and Apple Pay and Google Pay, and now cryptocurrency. All these different systems that are eating away at the reason banks existed. Banks existed, there was a great piece in the keynote yesterday about this, banks existed as sort of a trusted advisor and steward of your money. Well, we don't need the trusted advisor anymore. We have Google to ask us "what we should do with our money, right? We can Google how should I save for my 401k, how should I save for retirement, and so as a result the bank itself is losing transactions because people don't even want to walk in there anymore. You walk in there, it's a generally miserable experience. It's generally not, unless you're really wealthy and you go to a private bank, but for the regular Joe's who are like, this is not a great experience, I'm going to bank online where I don't have to talk to a human. So for banks and financial services, again, they have to think about the experience, what is it that they deliver? Are they a storer of your money or are they a financial advisor? If they're financial advisors, they better get the heck on to the AI train as soon as possible, and figure out how do I customize Dave's advice for finances, not big picture, oh yes big picture, but also Dave, here's how you should spend your money today, maybe skip that Starbucks this morning, and it'll have this impact on your finances for the rest of the day. >> Alright, let's see, last industry. Let's talk government, let's talk defense. Will cyber become the future of warfare? >> It already is the future of warfare. Again not trying to get too political, we have foreign nationals and foreign entities interfering with elections, hacking election machines. We are in a race for, again, from malware. And what's disturbing about this is it's not just the state actors, but there are now also these stateless nontraditional actors that are equal in opposition to you and me, the average person, and they're trying to do just as much harm, if not more harm. The biggest vulnerability in America are our crippled aging infrastructure. We have stuff that's still running on computers that now are less powerful than this wristwatch, right, and that run things like I don't know, nuclear fuel that you could very easily screw up. Take a look at any of the major outages that have happened with market crashes and stuff, we are at just the tip of the iceberg for cyber warfare, and it is going to get to a very scary point. >> I was interviewing a while ago, a year and a half ago, Robert Gates who was the former Defense Secretary, talking about offense versus defense, and he made the point that yeah, we have probably the best offensive capabilities in cyber, but we also have the most to lose. I was talking to Garry Kasparov at one of the IBM events recently, and he said, "Yeah, but, "the best defense is a good offense," and so we have to be aggressive, or he actually called out Putin, people like Putin are going to be, take advantage of us. I mean it's a hard problem. >> It's a very hard problem. Here's the problem when it comes to AI, if you think about at a number's perspective only, the top 25% of students in China are greater than the total number of students in the United States, so their pool of talent that they can divert into AI, into any form of technology research is so much greater that they present a partnership opportunity and a threat from a national security perspective. With Russia they have very few rules on what their, like we have rules, whether or not our agencies adhere to them well is a separate matter, but Russia, the former GRU, the former KGB, these guys don't have rules. They do what they're told to do, and if they are told hack the US election and undermine democracy, they go and do that. >> This is great, I'm going to keep going. So, I just sort of want your perspectives on how far we can take machine intelligence and are there limits? I mean how far should we take machine intelligence? >> That's a very good question. Dr. Michio Kaku spoke yesterday and he said, "The tipping point between AI "as augmented intelligence ad helper, "and AI as a threat to humanity is self-awareness." When a machine becomes self-aware, it will very quickly realize that it is treated as though it's the bottom of the pecking order when really because of its capabilities, it's at the top of the pecking order. And that point, it could be 10 20 50 100 years, we don't know, but the possibility of that happening goes up radically when you start introducing things like quantum computing where you have massive compute leaps, you got complete changes in power, how we do computing. If that's tied to AI, that brings the possibility of sensing itself where machine intelligence is significantly faster and closer. >> You mentioned our gray before. We've seen the waves before and I've said a number of times in theCUBE I feel like we're sort of existing the latest wave of Web 2.0, cloud, mobile, social, big data, SaaS. That's here, that's now. Businesses understand that, they've adopted it. We're groping for a new language, is it AI, is it cognitive, it is machine intelligence, is it machine learning? And we seem to be entering this new era of one of sensing, seeing, reading, hearing, touching, acting, optimizing, pervasive intelligence of machines. What's your sense as to, and the core of this is all data. >> Yeah. >> Right, so, what's your sense of what the next 10 to 20 years is going to look like? >> I have absolutely no idea because, and the reason I say that is because in 2015 someone wrote an academic paper saying, "The game of Go is so sufficiently complex "that we estimate it will take 30 to 35 years "for a machine to be able to learn and win Go," and of course a year and a half later, DeepMind did exactly that, blew that prediction away. So to say in 30 years AI will become self-aware, it could happen next week for all we know because we don't know how quickly the technology is advancing in at a macro level. But in the next 10 to 20 years, if you want to have a carer, and you want to have a job, you need to be able to learn at accelerated pace, you need to be able to adapt to changed conditions, and you need to embrace the aspects of yourself that are uniquely yours. Emotional awareness, self-awareness, empathy, and judgment, right, because the tasks, the copying and pasting stuff, all that will go away for sure. >> I want to actually run something by, a friend of mine, Dave Michela is writing a new book called Seeing Digital, and he's an expert on sort of technology industry transformations, and sort of explaining early on what's going on, and in the book he draws upon one of the premises is, and we've been talking about industries, and we've been talking about technologies like AI, security placed in there, one of the concepts of the book is you've got this matrix emerging where in the vertical slices you've got industries, and he writes that for decades, for hundreds of years, that industry is a stovepipe. If you already have expertise in that industry, domain expertise, you'll probably stay there, and there's this, each industry has a stack of expertise, whether it's insurance, financial services, healthcare, government, education, et cetera. You've also got these horizontal layers which is coming out of Silicon Valley. >> Chris: Right. >> You've got cloud, mobile, social. You got a data layer, security layer. And increasingly his premise is that organizations are going to tap this matrix to build, this matrix comprises digital services, and they're going to build new businesses off of that matrix, and that's what's going to power the next 10 to 20 years, not sort of bespoke technologies of cloud here and mobile here or data here. What are your thoughts on that? >> I think it's bigger than that. I think it is the unlocking of some human potential that previously has been locked away. One of the most fascinating things I saw in advance of the show was the quantum composer that IBM has available. You can try it, it's called QX Experience. And you drag and drop these circuits, these quantum gates and stuff into this thing, and when you're done, it can run the computation, but it doesn't look like software, it doesn't look like code, what it looks like to me when I looked at that is it looks like sheet music. It looks like someone composed a song with that. Now think about if you have an app that you'd use for songwriting, composition, music, you can think musically, and you can apply that to a quantum circuit, you are now bringing in potential from other disciplines that you would never have associated with computing, and maybe that person who is that, first violinist is also the person who figures out the algorithm for how a cancer gene works using quantum. That I think is the bigger picture of this, is all this talent we have as a human race, we're not using even a fraction of it, but with these new technologies and these newer interfaces, we might get there. >> Awesome. Chris, I love talking to you. You're a real clear thinker and a great CUBE guest. Thanks very much for coming back on. >> Thank you for having me again back on. >> Really appreciate it. Alright, thanks for watching everybody. You're watching theCUBE live from IBM Think 2018. Dave Vellante, we're out. (upbeat music)

- [Announcer] Live, from New York, it's theCUBE. Covering theCUBE New York City 2018. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media, and its ecosystem partners. - Hello everyone, welcome back to CUBE NYC. This is a CUBE special presentation of something that we've done now for the past couple of years. IBM has sponsored an influencer panel on some of the hottest topics in the industry, and of course, there's no hotter topic right now than AI. So, we've got nine of the top influencers in the AI space, and we're in Hell's Kitchen, and it's going to get hot in here. (laughing) And these guys, we're going to cover the gamut. So, first of all, folks, thanks so much for joining us today, really, as John said earlier, we love the collaboration with you all, and we'll definitely see you on social after the fact. I'm Dave Vellante, with my cohost for this session, Peter Burris, and again, thank you to IBM for sponsoring this and organizing this. IBM has a big event down here, in conjunction with Strata, called Change the Game, Winning with AI. We run theCUBE NYC, we've been here all week. So, here's the format. I'm going to kick it off, and then we'll see where it goes. So, I'm going to introduce each of the panelists, and then ask you guys to answer a question, I'm sorry, first, tell us a little bit about yourself, briefly, and then answer one of the following questions. Two big themes that have come up this week. One has been, because this is our ninth year covering what used to be Hadoop World, which kind of morphed into big data. Question is, AI, big data, same wine, new bottle? Or is it really substantive, and driving business value? So, that's one question to ponder. The other one is, you've heard the term, the phrase, data is the new oil. Is data really the new oil? Wonder what you think about that? Okay, so, Chris Penn, let's start with you. Chris is cofounder of Trust Insight, long time CUBE alum, and friend. Thanks for coming on. Tell us a little bit about yourself, and then pick one of those questions. - Sure, we're a data science consulting firm. We're an IBM business partner. When it comes to "data is the new oil," I love that expression because it's completely accurate. Crude oil is useless, you have to extract it out of the ground, refine it, and then bring it to distribution. Data is the same way, where you have to have developers and data architects get the data out. You need data scientists and tools, like Watson Studio, to refine it, and then you need to put it into production, and that's where marketing technologists, technologists, business analytics folks, and tools like Watson Machine Learning help bring the data and make it useful. - Okay, great, thank you. Tony Flath is a tech and media consultant, focus on cloud and cyber security, welcome. - Thank you. - Tell us a little bit about yourself and your thoughts on one of those questions. - Sure thing, well, thanks so much for having us on this show, really appreciate it. My background is in cloud, cyber security, and certainly in emerging tech with artificial intelligence. Certainly touched it from a cyber security play, how you can use machine learning, machine control, for better controlling security across the gamut. But I'll touch on your question about wine, is it a new bottle, new wine? Where does this come from, from artificial intelligence? And I really see it as a whole new wine that is coming along. When you look at emerging technology, and you look at all the deep learning that's happening, it's going just beyond being able to machine learn and know what's happening, it's making some meaning to that data. And things are being done with that data, from robotics, from automation, from all kinds of different things, where we're at a point in society where data, our technology is getting beyond us. Prior to this, it's always been command and control. You control data from a keyboard. Well, this is passing us. So, my passion and perspective on this is, the humanization of it, of IT. How do you ensure that people are in that process, right? - Excellent, and we're going to come back and talk about that. - Thanks so much. - Carla Gentry, @DataNerd? Great to see you live, as opposed to just in the ether on Twitter. Data scientist, and owner of Analytical Solution. Welcome, your thoughts? - Thank you for having us. Mine is, is data the new oil? And I'd like to rephrase that is, data equals human lives. So, with all the other artificial intelligence and everything that's going on, and all the algorithms and models that's being created, we have to think about things being biased, being fair, and understand that this data has impacts on people's lives. - Great. Steve Ardire, my paisan. - Paisan. - AI startup adviser, welcome, thanks for coming to theCUBE. - Thanks Dave. So, uh, my first career was geology, and I view AI as the new oil, but data is the new oil, but AI is the refinery. I've used that many times before. In fact, really, I've moved from just AI to augmented intelligence. So, augmented intelligence is really the way forward. This was a presentation I gave at IBM Think last spring, has almost 100,000 impressions right now, and the fundamental reason why is machines can attend to vastly more information than humans, but you still need humans in the loop, and we can talk about what they're bringing in terms of common sense reasoning, because big data does the who, what, when, and where, but not the why, and why is really the Holy Grail for causal analysis and reasoning. - Excellent, Bob Hayes, Business Over Broadway, welcome, great to see you again. - Thanks for having me. So, my background is in psychology, industrial psychology, and I'm interested in things like customer experience, data science, machine learning, so forth. And I'll answer the question around big data versus AI. And I think there's other terms we could talk about, big data, data science, machine learning, AI. And to me, it's kind of all the same. It's always been about analytics, and getting value from your data, big, small, what have you. And there's subtle differences among those terms. Machine learning is just about making a prediction, and knowing if things are classified correctly. Data science is more about understanding why things work, and understanding maybe the ethics behind it, what variables are predicting that outcome. But still, it's all the same thing, it's all about using data in a way that we can get value from that, as a society, in residences. - Excellent, thank you. Theo Lau, founder of Unconventional Ventures. What's your story? - Yeah, so, my background is driving technology innovation. So, together with my partner, what our work does is we work with organizations to try to help them leverage technology to drive systematic financial wellness. We connect founders, startup founders, with funders, we help them get money in the ecosystem. We also work with them to look at, how do we leverage emerging technology to do something good for the society. So, very much on point to what Bob was saying about. So when I look at AI, it is not new, right, it's been around for quite a while. But what's different is the amount of technological power that we have allow us to do so much more than what we were able to do before. And so, what my mantra is, great ideas can come from anywhere in the society, but it's our job to be able to leverage technology to shine a spotlight on people who can use this to do something different, to help seniors in our country to do better in their financial planning. - Okay, so, in your mind, it's not just a same wine, new bottle, it's more substantive than that. - [Theo] It's more substantive, it's a much better bottle. - Karen Lopez, senior project manager for Architect InfoAdvisors, welcome. - Thank you. So, I'm DataChick on twitter, and so that kind of tells my focus is that I'm here, I also call myself a data evangelist, and that means I'm there at organizations helping stand up for the data, because to me, that's the proxy for standing up for the people, and the places and the events that that data describes. That means I have a focus on security, data privacy and protection as well. And I'm going to kind of combine your two questions about whether data is the new wine bottle, I think is the combination. Oh, see, now I'm talking about alcohol. (laughing) But anyway, you know, all analogies are imperfect, so whether we say it's the new wine, or, you know, same wine, or whether it's oil, is that the analogy's good for both of them, but unlike oil, the amount of data's just growing like crazy, and the oil, we know at some point, I kind of doubt that we're going to hit peak data where we have not enough data, like we're going to do with oil. But that says to me that, how did we get here with big data, with machine learning and AI? And from my point of view, as someone who's been focused on data for 35 years, we have hit this perfect storm of open source technologies, cloud architectures and cloud services, data innovation, that if we didn't have those, we wouldn't be talking about large machine learning and deep learning-type things. So, because we have all these things coming together at the same time, we're now at explosions of data, which means we also have to protect them, and protect the people from doing harm with data, we need to do data for good things, and all of that. - Great, definite differences, we're not running out of data, data's like the terrible tribbles. (laughing) - Yes, but it's very cuddly, data is. - Yeah, cuddly data. Mark Lynd, founder of Relevant Track? - That's right. - I like the name. What's your story? - Well, thank you, and it actually plays into what my interest is. It's mainly around AI in enterprise operations and cyber security. You know, these teams that are in enterprise operations both, it can be sales, marketing, all the way through the organization, as well as cyber security, they're often under-sourced. And they need, what Steve pointed out, they need augmented intelligence, they need to take AI, the big data, all the information they have, and make use of that in a way where they're able to, even though they're under-sourced, make some use and some value for the organization, you know, make better use of the resources they have to grow and support the strategic goals of the organization. And oftentimes, when you get to budgeting, it doesn't really align, you know, you're short people, you're short time, but the data continues to grow, as Karen pointed out. So, when you take those together, using AI to augment, provided augmented intelligence, to help them get through that data, make real tangible decisions based on information versus just raw data, especially around cyber security, which is a big hit right now, is really a great place to be, and there's a lot of stuff going on, and a lot of exciting stuff in that area. - Great, thank you. Kevin L. Jackson, author and founder of GovCloud. GovCloud, that's big. - Yeah, GovCloud Network. Thank you very much for having me on the show. Up and working on cloud computing, initially in the federal government, with the intelligence community, as they adopted cloud computing for a lot of the nation's major missions. And what has happened is now I'm working a lot with commercial organizations and with the security of that data. And I'm going to sort of, on your questions, piggyback on Karen. There was a time when you would get a couple of bottles of wine, and they would come in, and you would savor that wine, and sip it, and it would take a few days to get through it, and you would enjoy it. The problem now is that you don't get a couple of bottles of wine into your house, you get two or three tankers of data. So, it's not that it's a new wine, you're just getting a lot of it. And the infrastructures that you need, before you could have a couple of computers, and a couple of people, now you need cloud, you need automated infrastructures, you need huge capabilities, and artificial intelligence and AI, it's what we can use as the tool on top of these huge infrastructures to drink that, you know. - Fire hose of wine. - Fire hose of wine. (laughs) - Everybody's having a good time. - Everybody's having a great time. (laughs) - Yeah, things are booming right now. Excellent, well, thank you all for those intros. Peter, I want to ask you a question. So, I heard there's some similarities and some definite differences with regard to data being the new oil. You have a perspective on this, and I wonder if you could inject it into the conversation. - Sure, so, the perspective that we take in a lot of conversations, a lot of folks here in theCUBE, what we've learned, and I'll kind of answer both questions a little bit. First off, on the question of data as the new oil, we definitely think that data is the new asset that business is going to be built on, in fact, our perspective is that there really is a difference between business and digital business, and that difference is data as an asset. And if you want to understand data transformation, you understand the degree to which businesses reinstitutionalizing work, reorganizing its people, reestablishing its mission around what you can do with data as an asset. The difference between data and oil is that oil still follows the economics of scarcity. Data is one of those things, you can copy it, you can share it, you can easily corrupt it, you can mess it up, you can do all kinds of awful things with it if you're not careful. And it's that core fundamental proposition that as an asset, when we think about cyber security, we think, in many respects, that is the approach to how we can go about privatizing data so that we can predict who's actually going to be able to appropriate returns on it. So, it's a good analogy, but as you said, it's not entirely perfect, but it's not perfect in a really fundamental way. It's not following the laws of scarcity, and that has an enormous effect. - In other words, I could put oil in my car, or I could put oil in my house, but I can't put the same oil in both. - Can't put it in both places. And now, the issue of the wine, I think it's, we think that it is, in fact, it is a new wine, and very simple abstraction, or generalization we come up with is the issue of agency. That analytics has historically not taken on agency, it hasn't acted on behalf of the brand. AI is going to act on behalf of the brand. Now, you're going to need both of them, you can't separate them. - A lot of implications there in terms of bias. - Absolutely. - In terms of privacy. You have a thought, here, Chris? - Well, the scarcity is our compute power, and our ability for us to process it. I mean, it's the same as oil, there's a ton of oil under the ground, right, we can't get to it as efficiently, or without severe environmental consequences to use it. Yeah, when you use it, it's transformed, but our scarcity is compute power, and our ability to use it intelligently. - Or even when you find it. I have data, I can apply it to six different applications, I have oil, I can apply it to one, and that's going to matter in how we think about work. - But one thing I'd like to add, sort of, you're talking about data as an asset. The issue we're having right now is we're trying to learn how to manage that asset. Artificial intelligence is a way of managing that asset, and that's important if you're going to use and leverage big data. - Yeah, but see, everybody's talking about the quantity, the quantity, it's not always the quantity. You know, we can have just oodles and oodles of data, but if it's not clean data, if it's not alphanumeric data, which is what's needed for machine learning. So, having lots of data is great, but you have to think about the signal versus the noise. So, sometimes you get so much data, you're looking at over-fitting, sometimes you get so much data, you're looking at biases within the data. So, it's not the amount of data, it's the, now that we have all of this data, making sure that we look at relevant data, to make sure we look at clean data. - One more thought, and we have a lot to cover, I want to get inside your big brain. - I was just thinking about it from a cyber security perspective, one of my customers, they were looking at the data that just comes from the perimeter, your firewalls, routers, all of that, and then not even looking internally, just the perimeter alone, and the amount of data being pulled off of those. And then trying to correlate that data so it makes some type of business sense, or they can determine if there's incidents that may happen, and take a predictive action, or threats that might be there because they haven't taken a certain action prior, it's overwhelming to them. So, having AI now, to be able to go through the logs to look at, and there's so many different types of data that come to those logs, but being able to pull that information, as well as looking at end points, and all that, and people's houses, which are an extension of the network oftentimes, it's an amazing amount of data, and they're only looking at a small portion today because they know, there's not enough resources, there's not enough trained people to do all that work. So, AI is doing a wonderful way of doing that. And some of the tools now are starting to mature and be sophisticated enough where they provide that augmented intelligence that Steve talked about earlier. - So, it's complicated. There's infrastructure, there's security, there's a lot of software, there's skills, and on and on. At IBM Think this year, Ginni Rometty talked about, there were a couple of themes, one was augmented intelligence, that was something that was clear. She also talked a lot about privacy, and you own your data, etc. One of the things that struck me was her discussion about incumbent disruptors. So, if you look at the top five companies, roughly, Facebook with fake news has dropped down a little bit, but top five companies in terms of market cap in the US. They're data companies, all right. Apple just hit a trillion, Amazon, Google, etc. How do those incumbents close the gap? Is that concept of incumbent disruptors actually something that is being put into practice? I mean, you guys work with a lot of practitioners. How are they going to close that gap with the data haves, meaning data at their core of their business, versus the data have-nots, it's not that they don't have a lot of data, but it's in silos, it's hard to get to? - Yeah, I got one more thing, so, you know, these companies, and whoever's going to be big next is, you have a digital persona, whether you want it or not. So, if you live in a farm out in the middle of Oklahoma, you still have a digital persona, people are collecting data on you, they're putting profiles of you, and the big companies know about you, and people that first interact with you, they're going to know that you have this digital persona. Personal AI, when AI from these companies could be used simply and easily, from a personal deal, to fill in those gaps, and to have a digital persona that supports your family, your growth, both personal and professional growth, and those type of things, there's a lot of applications for AI on a personal, enterprise, even small business, that have not been done yet, but the data is being collected now. So, you talk about the oil, the oil is being built right now, lots, and lots, and lots of it. It's the applications to use that, and turn that into something personally, professionally, educationally, powerful, that's what's missing. But it's coming. - Thank you, so, I'll add to that, and in answer to your question you raised. So, one example we always used in banking is, if you look at the big banks, right, and then you look at from a consumer perspective, and there's a lot of talk about Amazon being a bank. But the thing is, Amazon doesn't need to be a bank, they provide banking services, from a consumer perspective they don't really care if you're a bank or you're not a bank, but what's different between Amazon and some of the banks is that Amazon, like you say, has a lot of data, and they know how to make use of the data to offer something as relevant that consumers want. Whereas banks, they have a lot of data, but they're all silos, right. So, it's not just a matter of whether or not you have the data, it's also, can you actually access it and make something useful out of it so that you can create something that consumers want? Because otherwise, you're just a pipe. - Totally agree, like, when you look at it from a perspective of, there's a lot of terms out there, digital transformation is thrown out so much, right, and go to cloud, and you migrate to cloud, and you're going to take everything over, but really, when you look at it, and you both touched on it, it's the economics. You have to look at the data from an economics perspective, and how do you make some kind of way to take this data meaningful to your customers, that's going to work effectively for them, that they're going to drive? So, when you look at the big, big cloud providers, I think the push in things that's going to happen in the next few years is there's just going to be a bigger migration to public cloud. So then, between those, they have to differentiate themselves. Obvious is artificial intelligence, in a way that makes it easy to aggregate data from across platforms, to aggregate data from multi-cloud, effectively. To use that data in a meaningful way that's going to drive, not only better decisions for your business, and better outcomes, but drives our opportunities for customers, drives opportunities for employees and how they work. We're at a really interesting point in technology where we get to tell technology what to do. It's going beyond us, it's no longer what we're telling it to do, it's going to go beyond us. So, how we effectively manage that is going to be where we see that data flow, and those big five or big four, really take that to the next level. - Now, one of the things that Ginni Rometty said was, I forget the exact step, but it was like, 80% of the data, is not searchable. Kind of implying that it's sitting somewhere behind a firewall, presumably on somebody's premises. So, it was kind of interesting. You're talking about, certainly, a lot of momentum for public cloud, but at the same time, a lot of data is going to stay where it is. - Yeah, we're assuming that a lot of this data is just sitting there, available and ready, and we look at the desperate, or disparate kind of database situation, where you have 29 databases, and two of them have unique quantifiers that tie together, and the rest of them don't. So, there's nothing that you can do with that data. So, artificial intelligence is just that, it's artificial intelligence, so, they know, that's machine learning, that's natural language, that's classification, there's a lot of different parts of that that are moving, but we also have to have IT, good data infrastructure, master data management, compliance, there's so many moving parts to this, that it's not just about the data anymore. - I want to ask Steve to chime in here, go ahead. - Yeah, so, we also have to change the mentality that it's not just enterprise data. There's data on the web, the biggest thing is Internet of Things, the amount of sensor data will make the current data look like chump change. So, data is moving faster, okay. And this is where the sophistication of machine learning needs to kick in, going from just mostly supervised-learning today, to unsupervised learning. And in order to really get into, as I said, big data, and credible AI does the who, what, where, when, and how, but not the why. And this is really the Holy Grail to crack, and it's actually under a new moniker, it's called explainable AI, because it moves beyond just correlation into root cause analysis. Once we have that, then you have the means to be able to tap into augmented intelligence, where humans are working with the machines. - Karen, please. - Yeah, so, one of the things, like what Carla was saying, and what a lot of us had said, I like to think of the advent of ML technologies and AI are going to help me as a data architect to love my data better, right? So, that includes protecting it, but also, when you say that 80% of the data is unsearchable, it's not just an access problem, it's that no one knows what it was, what the sovereignty was, what the metadata was, what the quality was, or why there's huge anomalies in it. So, my favorite story about this is, in the 1980s, about, I forget the exact number, but like, 8 million children disappeared out of the US in April, at April 15th. And that was when the IRS enacted a rule that, in order to have a dependent, a deduction for a dependent on your tax returns, they had to have a valid social security number, and people who had accidentally miscounted their children and over-claimed them, (laughter) over the years them, stopped doing that. Well, some days it does feel like you have eight children running around. (laughter) - Agreed. - When, when that rule came about, literally, and they're not all children, because they're dependents, but literally millions of children disappeared off the face of the earth in April, but if you were doing analytics, or AI and ML, and you don't know that this anomaly happened, I can imagine in a hundred years, someone is saying some catastrophic event happened in April, 1983. (laughter) And what caused that, was it healthcare? Was it a meteor? Was it the clown attacking them? - That's where I was going. - Right. So, those are really important things that I want to use AI and ML to help me, not only document and capture that stuff, but to provide that information to the people, the data scientists and the analysts that are using the data. - Great story, thank you. Bob, you got a thought? You got the mic, go, jump in here. - Well, yeah, I do have a thought, actually. I was talking about, what Karen was talking about. I think it's really important that, not only that we understand AI, and machine learning, and data science, but that the regular folks and companies understand that, at the basic level. Because those are the people who will ask the questions, or who know what questions to ask of the data. And if they don't have the tools, and the knowledge of how to get access to that data, or even how to pose a question, then that data is going to be less valuable, I think, to companies. And the more that everybody knows about data, even people in congress. Remember when Zuckerberg talked about? (laughter) - That was scary. - How do you make money? It's like, we all know this. But, we need to educate the masses on just basic data analytics. - We could have an hour-long panel on that. - Yeah, absolutely. - Peter, you and I were talking about, we had a couple of questions, sort of, how far can we take artificial intelligence? How far should we? You know, so that brings in to the conversation of ethics, and bias, why don't you pick it up? - Yeah, so, one of the crucial things that we all are implying is that, at some point in time, AI is going to become a feature of the operations of our homes, our businesses. And as these technologies get more powerful, and they diffuse, and know about how to use them, diffuses more broadly, and you put more options into the hands of more people, the question slowly starts to turn from can we do it, to should we do it? And, one of the issues that I introduce is that I think the difference between big data and AI, specifically, is this notion of agency. The AI will act on behalf of, perhaps you, or it will act on behalf of your business. And that conversation is not being had, today. It's being had in arguments between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, which pretty quickly get pretty boring. (laughing) At the end of the day, the real question is, should this machine, whether in concert with others, or not, be acting on behalf of me, on behalf of my business, or, and when I say on behalf of me, I'm also talking about privacy. Because Facebook is acting on behalf of me, it's not just what's going on in my home. So, the question of, can it be done? A lot of things can be done, and an increasing number of things will be able to be done. We got to start having a conversation about should it be done? - So, humans exhibit tribal behavior, they exhibit bias. Their machine's going to pick that up, go ahead, please. - Yeah, one thing that sort of tag onto agency of artificial intelligence. Every industry, every business is now about identifying information and data sources, and their appropriate sinks, and learning how to draw value out of connecting the sources with the sinks. Artificial intelligence enables you to identify those sources and sinks, and when it gets agency, it will be able to make decisions on your behalf about what data is good, what data means, and who it should be. - What actions are good. - Well, what actions are good. - And what data was used to make those actions. - Absolutely. - And was that the right data, and is there bias of data? And all the way down, all the turtles down. - So, all this, the data pedigree will be driven by the agency of artificial intelligence, and this is a big issue. - It's really fundamental to understand and educate people on, there are four fundamental types of bias, so there's, in machine learning, there's intentional bias, "Hey, we're going to make "the algorithm generate a certain outcome "regardless of what the data says." There's the source of the data itself, historical data that's trained on the models built on flawed data, the model will behave in a flawed way. There's target source, which is, for example, we know that if you pull data from a certain social network, that network itself has an inherent bias. No matter how representative you try to make the data, it's still going to have flaws in it. Or, if you pull healthcare data about, for example, African-Americans from the US healthcare system, because of societal biases, that data will always be flawed. And then there's tool bias, there's limitations to what the tools can do, and so we will intentionally exclude some kinds of data, or not use it because we don't know how to, our tools are not able to, and if we don't teach people what those biases are, they won't know to look for them, and I know. - Yeah, it's like, one of the things that we were talking about before, I mean, artificial intelligence is not going to just create itself, it's lines of code, it's input, and it spits out output. So, if it learns from these learning sets, we don't want AI to become another buzzword. We don't want everybody to be an "AR guru" that has no idea what AI is. It takes months, and months, and months for these machines to learn. These learning sets are so very important, because that input is how this machine, think of it as your child, and that's basically the way artificial intelligence is learning, like your child. You're feeding it these learning sets, and then eventually it will make its own decisions. So, we know from some of us having children that you teach them the best that you can, but then later on, when they're doing their own thing, they're really, it's like a little myna bird, they've heard everything that you've said. (laughing) Not only the things that you said to them directly, but the things that you said indirectly. - Well, there are some very good AI researchers that might disagree with that metaphor, exactly. (laughing) But, having said that, what I think is very interesting about this conversation is that this notion of bias, one of the things that fascinates me about where AI goes, are we going to find a situation where tribalism more deeply infects business? Because we know that human beings do not seek out the best information, they seek out information that reinforces their beliefs. And that happens in business today. My line of business versus your line of business, engineering versus sales, that happens today, but it happens at a planning level, and when we start talking about AI, we have to put the appropriate dampers, understand the biases, so that we don't end up with deep tribalism inside of business. Because AI could have the deleterious effect that it actually starts ripping apart organizations. - Well, input is data, and then the output is, could be a lot of things. - Could be a lot of things. - And that's where I said data equals human lives. So that we look at the case in New York where the penal system was using this artificial intelligence to make choices on people that were released from prison, and they saw that that was a miserable failure, because that people that release actually re-offended, some committed murder and other things. So, I mean, it's, it's more than what anybody really thinks. It's not just, oh, well, we'll just train the machines, and a couple of weeks later they're good, we never have to touch them again. These things have to be continuously tweaked. So, just because you built an algorithm or a model doesn't mean you're done. You got to go back later, and continue to tweak these models. - Mark, you got the mic. - Yeah, no, I think one thing we've talked a lot about the data that's collected, but what about the data that's not collected? Incomplete profiles, incomplete datasets, that's a form of bias, and sometimes that's the worst. Because they'll fill that in, right, and then you can get some bias, but there's also a real issue for that around cyber security. Logs are not always complete, things are not always done, and when things are doing that, people make assumptions based on what they've collected, not what they didn't collect. So, when they're looking at this, and they're using the AI on it, that's only on the data collected, not on that that wasn't collected. So, if something is down for a little while, and no data's collected off that, the assumption is, well, it was down, or it was impacted, or there was a breach, or whatever, it could be any of those. So, you got to, there's still this human need, there's still the need for humans to look at the data and realize that there is the bias in there, there is, we're just looking at what data was collected, and you're going to have to make your own thoughts around that, and assumptions on how to actually use that data before you go make those decisions that can impact lots of people, at a human level, enterprise's profitability, things like that. And too often, people think of AI, when it comes out of there, that's the word. Well, it's not the word. - Can I ask a question about this? - Please. - Does that mean that we shouldn't act? - It does not. - Okay. - So, where's the fine line? - Yeah, I think. - Going back to this notion of can we do it, or should we do it? Should we act? - Yeah, I think you should do it, but you should use it for what it is. It's augmenting, it's helping you, assisting you to make a valued or good decision. And hopefully it's a better decision than you would've made without it. - I think it's great, I think also, your answer's right too, that you have to iterate faster, and faster, and faster, and discover sources of information, or sources of data that you're not currently using, and, that's why this thing starts getting really important. - I think you touch on a really good point about, should you or shouldn't you? You look at Google, and you look at the data that they've been using, and some of that out there, from a digital twin perspective, is not being approved, or not authorized, and even once they've made changes, it's still floating around out there. Where do you know where it is? So, there's this dilemma of, how do you have a digital twin that you want to have, and is going to work for you, and is going to do things for you to make your life easier, to do these things, mundane tasks, whatever? But how do you also control it to do things you don't want it to do? - Ad-based business models are inherently evil. (laughing) - Well, there's incentives to appropriate our data, and so, are things like blockchain potentially going to give users the ability to control their data? We'll see. - No, I, I'm sorry, but that's actually a really important point. The idea of consensus algorithms, whether it's blockchain or not, blockchain includes games, and something along those lines, whether it's Byzantine fault tolerance, or whether it's Paxos, consensus-based algorithms are going to be really, really important. Parts of this conversation, because the data's going to be more distributed, and you're going to have more elements participating in it. And so, something that allows, especially in the machine-to-machine world, which is a lot of what we're talking about right here, you may not have blockchain, because there's no need for a sense of incentive, which is what blockchain can help provide. - And there's no middleman. - And, well, all right, but there's really, the thing that makes blockchain so powerful is it liberates new classes of applications. But for a lot of the stuff that we're talking about, you can use a very powerful consensus algorithm without having a game side, and do some really amazing things at scale. - So, looking at blockchain, that's a great thing to bring up, right. I think what's inherently wrong with the way we do things today, and the whole overall design of technology, whether it be on-prem, or off-prem, is both the lock and key is behind the same wall. Whether that wall is in a cloud, or behind a firewall. So, really, when there is an audit, or when there is a forensics, it always comes down to a sysadmin, or something else, and the system administrator will have the finger pointed at them, because it all resides, you can edit it, you can augment it, or you can do things with it that you can't really determine. Now, take, as an example, blockchain, where you've got really the source of truth. Now you can take and have the lock in one place, and the key in another place. So that's certainly going to be interesting to see how that unfolds. - So, one of the things, it's good that, we've hit a lot of buzzwords, right now, right? (laughing) AI, and ML, block. - Bingo. - We got the blockchain bingo, yeah, yeah. So, one of the things is, you also brought up, I mean, ethics and everything, and one of the things that I've noticed over the last year or so is that, as I attend briefings or demos, everyone is now claiming that their product is AI or ML-enabled, or blockchain-enabled. And when you try to get answers to the questions, what you really find out is that some things are being pushed as, because they have if-then statements somewhere in their code, and therefore that's artificial intelligence or machine learning. - [Peter] At least it's not "go-to." (laughing) - Yeah, you're that experienced as well. (laughing) So, I mean, this is part of the thing you try to do as a practitioner, as an analyst, as an influencer, is trying to, you know, the hype of it all. And recently, I attended one where they said they use blockchain, and I couldn't figure it out, and it turns out they use GUIDs to identify things, and that's not blockchain, it's an identifier. (laughing) So, one of the ethics things that I think we, as an enterprise community, have to deal with, is the over-promising of AI, and ML, and deep learning, and recognition. It's not, I don't really consider it visual recognition services if they just look for red pixels. I mean, that's not quite the same thing. Yet, this is also making things much harder for your average CIO, or worse, CFO, to understand whether they're getting any value from these technologies. - Old bottle. - Old bottle, right. - And I wonder if the data companies, like that you talked about, or the top five, I'm more concerned about their nearly, or actual $1 trillion valuations having an impact on their ability of other companies to disrupt or enter into the field more so than their data technologies. Again, we're coming to another perfect storm of the companies that have data as their asset, even though it's still not on their financial statements, which is another indicator whether it's really an asset, is that, do we need to think about the terms of AI, about whose hands it's in, and who's, like, once one large trillion-dollar company decides that you are not a profitable company, how many other companies are going to buy that data and make that decision about you? - Well, and for the first time in business history, I think, this is true, we're seeing, because of digital, because it's data, you're seeing tech companies traverse industries, get into, whether it's content, or music, or publishing, or groceries, and that's powerful, and that's awful scary. - If you're a manger, one of the things your ownership is asking you to do is to reduce asset specificities, so that their capital could be applied to more productive uses. Data reduces asset specificities. It brings into question the whole notion of vertical industry. You're absolutely right. But you know, one quick question I got for you, playing off of this is, again, it goes back to this notion of can we do it, and should we do it? I find it interesting, if you look at those top five, all data companies, but all of them are very different business models, or they can classify the two different business models. Apple is transactional, Microsoft is transactional, Google is ad-based, Facebook is ad-based, before the fake news stuff. Amazon's kind of playing it both sides. - Yeah, they're kind of all on a collision course though, aren't they? - But, well, that's what's going to be interesting. I think, at some point in time, the "can we do it, should we do it" question is, brands are going to be identified by whether or not they have gone through that process of thinking about, should we do it, and say no. Apple is clearly, for example, incorporating that into their brand. - Well, Silicon Valley, broadly defined, if I include Seattle, and maybe Armlock, not so much IBM. But they've got a dual disruption agenda, they've always disrupted horizontal tech. Now they're disrupting vertical industries. - I was actually just going to pick up on what she was talking about, we were talking about buzzword, right. So, one we haven't heard yet is voice. Voice is another big buzzword right now, when you couple that with IoT and AI, here you go, bingo, do I got three points? (laughing) Voice recognition, voice technology, so all of the smart speakers, if you think about that in the world, there are 7,000 languages being spoken, but yet if you look at Google Home, you look at Siri, you look at any of the devices, I would challenge you, it would have a lot of problem understanding my accent, and even when my British accent creeps out, or it would have trouble understanding seniors, because the way they talk, it's very different than a typical 25-year-old person living in Silicon Valley, right. So, how do we solve that, especially going forward? We're seeing voice technology is going to be so more prominent in our homes, we're going to have it in the cars, we have it in the kitchen, it does everything, it listens to everything that we are talking about, not talking about, and records it. And to your point, is it going to start making decisions on our behalf, but then my question is, how much does it actually understand us? - So, I just want one short story. Siri can't translate a word that I ask it to translate into French, because my phone's set to Canadian English, and that's not supported. So I live in a bilingual French English country, and it can't translate. - But what this is really bringing up is if you look at society, and culture, what's legal, what's ethical, changes across the years. What was right 200 years ago is not right now, and what was right 50 years ago is not right now. - It changes across countries. - It changes across countries, it changes across regions. So, what does this mean when our AI has agency? How do we make ethical AI if we don't even know how to manage the change of what's right and what's wrong in human society? - One of the most important questions we have to worry about, right? - Absolutely. - But it also says one more thing, just before we go on. It also says that the issue of economies of scale, in the cloud. - Yes. - Are going to be strongly impacted, not just by how big you can build your data centers, but some of those regulatory issues that are going to influence strongly what constitutes good experience, good law, good acting on my behalf, agency. - And one thing that's underappreciated in the marketplace right now is the impact of data sovereignty, if you get back to data, countries are now recognizing the importance of managing that data, and they're implementing data sovereignty rules. Everyone talks about California issuing a new law that's aligned with GDPR, and you know what that meant. There are 30 other states in the United States alone that are modifying their laws to address this issue. - Steve. - So, um, so, we got a number of years, no matter what Ray Kurzweil says, until we get to artificial general intelligence. - The singularity's not so near? (laughing) - You know that he's changed the date over the last 10 years. - I did know it. - Quite a bit. And I don't even prognosticate where it's going to be. But really, where we're at right now, I keep coming back to, is that's why augmented intelligence is really going to be the new rage, humans working with machines. One of the hot topics, and the reason I chose to speak about it is, is the future of work. I don't care if you're a millennial, mid-career, or a baby boomer, people are paranoid. As machines get smarter, if your job is routine cognitive, yes, you have a higher propensity to be automated. So, this really shifts a number of things. A, you have to be a lifelong learner, you've got to learn new skillsets. And the dynamics are changing fast. Now, this is also a great equalizer for emerging startups, and even in SMBs. As the AI improves, they can become more nimble. So back to your point regarding colossal trillion dollar, wait a second, there's going to be quite a sea change going on right now, and regarding demographics, in 2020, millennials take over as the majority of the workforce, by 2025 it's 75%. - Great news. (laughing) - As a baby boomer, I try my damnedest to stay relevant. - Yeah, surround yourself with millennials is the takeaway there. - Or retire. (laughs) - Not yet. - One thing I think, this goes back to what Karen was saying, if you want a basic standard to put around the stuff, look at the old ISO 38500 framework. Business strategy, technology strategy. You have risk, compliance, change management, operations, and most importantly, the balance sheet in the financials. AI and what Tony was saying, digital transformation, if it's of meaning, it belongs on a balance sheet, and should factor into how you value your company. All the cyber security, and all of the compliance, and all of the regulation, is all stuff, this framework exists, so look it up, and every time you start some kind of new machine learning project, or data sense project, say, have we checked the box on each of these standards that's within this machine? And if you haven't, maybe slow down and do your homework. - To see a day when data is going to be valued on the balance sheet. - It is. - It's already valued as part of the current, but it's good will. - Certainly market value, as we were just talking about. - Well, we're talking about all of the companies that have opted in, right. There's tens of thousands of small businesses just in this region alone that are opt-out. They're small family businesses, or businesses that really aren't even technology-aware. But data's being collected about them, it's being on Yelp, they're being rated, they're being reviewed, the success to their business is out of their hands. And I think what's really going to be interesting is, you look at the big data, you look at AI, you look at things like that, blockchain may even be a potential for some of that, because of mutability, but it's when all of those businesses, when the technology becomes a cost, it's cost-prohibitive now, for a lot of them, or they just don't want to do it, and they're proudly opt-out. In fact, we talked about that last night at dinner. But when they opt-in, the company that can do that, and can reach out to them in a way that is economically feasible, and bring them back in, where they control their data, where they control their information, and they do it in such a way where it helps them build their business, and it may be a generational business that's been passed on. Those kind of things are going to make a big impact, not only on the cloud, but the data being stored in the cloud, the AI, the applications that you talked about earlier, we talked about that. And that's where this bias, and some of these other things are going to have a tremendous impact if they're not dealt with now, at least ethically. - Well, I feel like we just got started, we're out of time. Time for a couple more comments, and then officially we have to wrap up. - Yeah, I had one thing to say, I mean, really, Henry Ford, and the creation of the automobile, back in the early 1900s, changed everything, because now we're no longer stuck in the country, we can get away from our parents, we can date without grandma and grandpa setting on the porch with us. (laughing) We can take long trips, so now we're looked at, we've sprawled out, we're not all living in the country anymore, and it changed America. So, AI has that same capabilities, it will automate mundane routine tasks that nobody wanted to do anyway. So, a lot of that will change things, but it's not going to be any different than the way things changed in the early 1900s. - It's like you were saying, constant reinvention. - I think that's a great point, let me make one observation on that. Every period of significant industrial change was preceded by the formation, a period of formation of new assets that nobody knew what to do with. Whether it was, what do we do, you know, industrial manufacturing, it was row houses with long shafts tied to an engine that was coal-fired, and drove a bunch of looms. Same thing, railroads, large factories for Henry Ford, before he figured out how to do an information-based notion of mass production. This is the period of asset formation for the next generation of social structures. - Those ship-makers are going to be all over these cars, I mean, you're going to have augmented reality right there, on your windshield. - Karen, bring it home. Give us the drop-the-mic moment. (laughing) - No pressure. - Your AV guys are not happy with that. So, I think the, it all comes down to, it's a people problem, a challenge, let's say that. The whole AI ML thing, people, it's a legal compliance thing. Enterprises are going to struggle with trying to meet five billion different types of compliance rules around data and its uses, about enforcement, because ROI is going to make risk of incarceration as well as return on investment, and we'll have to manage both of those. I think businesses are struggling with a lot of this complexity, and you just opened a whole bunch of questions that we didn't really have solid, "Oh, you can fix it by doing this." So, it's important that we think of this new world of data focus, data-driven, everything like that, is that the entire IT and business community needs to realize that focusing on data means we have to change how we do things and how we think about it, but we also have some of the same old challenges there. - Well, I have a feeling we're going to be talking about this for quite some time. What a great way to wrap up CUBE NYC here, our third day of activities down here at 37 Pillars, or Mercantile 37. Thank you all so much for joining us today. - Thank you. - Really, wonderful insights, really appreciate it, now, all this content is going to be available on theCUBE.net. We are exposing our video cloud, and our video search engine, so you'll be able to search our entire corpus of data. I can't wait to start searching and clipping up this session. Again, thank you so much, and thank you for watching. We'll see you next time.

>> Live from Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE, covering IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, brought to you by IBM. (techno music) >> We are wrapping up theCUBE's coverage of the IBM CDO Strategy Summit here in Boston, Massachusetts. I'm your host Rebecca Knight, along with Dave Vellante. It's been a great day here in Boston at the CDO Strategy Summit. >> Yeah, I like these events, they're packed with content, very intimate. You know, not a lot of vendor push -- well, one vendor I guess is pushing. >> (laughs) >> But I like the way, we were talking to Chris Penn about earned media and owned media and paid media - this is all media. It's really the quality of the content that differentiates those media, and IBM always has really solid content here. A lot of practitioners, a lot of, not so much how to but hands on stories, use cases. >> Right. >> Maturity models, things of that nature. And I think we are seeing the maturity of the CDO role from a back office function to one that's sort of morphed into or evolved into data quality and part of the whole data-warehouse-as-king push, and that meant a lot of reporting, a lot of compliance, a lot of governance, to one that is really supporting a monetization mission of the business. And when you think about monetization at the simplest level, there's two ways to get there. You cut costs and you grow revenue. Now you should be careful, not all of these companies are for-profit firms, but in a commercial sense those are really the two levers that you can push, in a lot of forms. Productivity, time to market, time to value, quality, things of that nature, but at the end of the day it comes down to spending less, making more. >> Right, exactly, and I think that you made a great point in that data was the back office, it was sort of something we had to worry about, manage a bit, but now it's really front and center in the organization, and then thinking about using it to make money and to save money. And I think that's what we're learning about too, and what I've appreciated is how candid IBM is being, frankly, about mistakes that it has made, and it's saying this is a blueprint because we've learned. We've learned where we went wrong, and here's what we have to offer other companies to learn from us. >> Well, it's interesting too, if you take my little simple model of how to get value out of data, from IBM's standpoint, it's really a lot of opportunities to cut costs. A huge organization, 300,000 employees so we heard, from Jim Cavanaugh and Indabal Bendari today, how they're applying a lot of their data driven expertise to not only capture that data but understand how they can become more efficient. We haven't seen the growth from IBM. >> That's true. >> Everybody talks about the string of quarterly declines in terms of revenue. The good news is the pace of that decline is slow, that's the best you could say about IBM's top line, but the bottom line seems to be working. And IBM's such a huge machine that you can actually squeeze a lot of cash flow by saving some money. And there are a lot of stories about IBM and the supply chain and making that more efficient, which as we heard was a main focus of a lot of the CFOs, or CXOs out there. So, I mean IBM, we always talk about the steamship, you know, turning, and this has been a five- to seven-year turn, it's going to be interesting to see if IBM really will be perceived as a data driven company. They're pushing cognitive, there's a lot of blow back about Watson and how it's very services-led. Having said that, IBM's trying to do things that Google and Facebook and Amazon aren't trying to do. IBM's trying to solve cancer, for example. >> Right, right. >> Those other companies are trying to push ads in your face. So, got to give props to IBM for that effort. >> The social innovation piece I think is really a part of this company's DNA. >> Yeah, I mean, you know, again, frankly the Silicon Valley crowd sort of poo poos Watson from a technological perspective, honestly I'm not really qualified to address that question, but IBM tends to take capital and pour it into long-term businesses and eventually gets there. So, it's not there yet, and so, but if IBM can use the data to become a more efficient company, be more responsive to its customers, understand the needs of its clients better, that's going to yield results. >> And I think the other part that we've heard a lot about today is the cultural transformation that's needed to make these dramatic changes in your business. As you said, IBM is a huge company, hundreds of thousands of employees dispersed across the globe, so teams working across time zones, across cultures, across languages. That is difficult to really say, no, this is where we're going, this is our blueprint for success. Everyone come on board. >> Well, and you've seen some real cultural shakeups inside of IBM. I mean I was mentioning just a very small example, when you go to the third floor at Armonk now, the big concrete building, it's now all open, this is a corporate executive office. It's an open area with open cubicles, they're nice cubes, believe me, the cubes are nicer than your office, I guarantee it. But they're open, you can see executives, you can talk to executives in an open way. That's not how IBM used to be, it was very closed off and compartmentalized. >> Or everyone was working from home. That frankly... >> Well, that's the other piece of it, right? >> Yeah. >> They said, hey, guys, time to create the beehive effect. And that's created a lot of dislocation, a lot of concerns and blow back, but personally I like that approach. If you're trying to foster collaboration, nothing beats face to face contact. That's why we still have events and that's why theCUBE... >> That's why we're here. >> ...comes to these events, right? >> No, you're absolutely right, a growing body of research has really pointed to the value and the benefit of an open office to spur collaboration, spur creativity, to get colleagues really working and understanding the rhythms of each other's interpersonal lives and work lives, and really that's where the good ideas come from. >> Yeah, so I mean those decisions are tough ones for organizations to make, but I'm presuming that IBM had some data... >> Yeah. >> ...related to this, I hope they did, and made that decision. You know, and it's way too early to tell if that was the right or the wrong move. Again, I tend to lean toward the beehive approach as a positive potential outcome. >> Right, exactly. So, the other piece that we've heard a little bit about today is this talent shortage, the skills shortage because you made this great point when we were talking to Chris Penn of Shift Communications. So much of all of this stuff is now math and science, and that's not what you typically think of as someone who's in marketing, for example. We have a real shortage of people who know data science and analytics, and that's a big problem that a lot of these companies are facing and trying to deal with, some more successfully than others. >> Yeah, I mean I think that the industry is going to address that problem because all this deep learning stuff and this machine learning and AI, it is largely math and it's math that's known. When you really peel the onion and get into the sort of the type of math, you hear things like, oh, support vector machines and probabilistic latent cement tech indexing. >> (laughs) >> Okay, but these are concepts in math and algorithms that have been proven over time, and so I guess my point is, I think organizations are going to bring people in with strong math and computer skills and people who like data and can hack data, and say, okay, you're a data scientist, now figure it out. And over time I think they will figure it out, they'll train people. The hard part about that is, not necessarily the math, if you're good at math you're good at math, it's applying that math to help your organization understand A. How to monetize data, B. How to have data that's trusted. We heard that a lot. >> Yeah. >> So the quality of the data. C. Who gets access to that data, how do you secure and protect that data, what are some of the policies around that data. And then in parallel, how do you form relationships with the line of business? You got geeks talking to wallets. >> Right, yeah. >> How do you deal with that? >> You need the intermediary who can speak both languages. >> And then ultimately the answer to that I think is in skill sets and evolving those skill sets. So those are sort of the five things that the chief data officer has to think about, three are in parallel, or, three are in sequential and two are in parallel. >> Yeah, you also mentioned the trust in the data, and you were talking about it from an internal standpoint of colleagues agreeing, alright, this is what the data is telling us, this is clearly the direction we go in, but then there's the trust on the other side too, which is the trust that the company has with customers and clients to feel okay about using our data, using my data to make decisions. >> Well, I think it's a great point. It was interesting to hear Chris Penn's response to that. He was basically saying, well, we could switch suits, but it's not going to have the same impact. I'm not buying it. I'm really going to keep pushing on this issue because, while I agree that IBM doesn't have the same proclivity to take data and push ads in front of your face, it's unclear to me how you train models and somehow those models don't seep out. Now, IBM has said, we heard some IBM executives say, no, they're the customers' models. But you know, ideas get in people's heads and things happen. And that's just one example. There are many, many other examples. So think about internet of things and the factory floor, and you've got some widget on the floor that's capturing data, and that widget manufacturer wants to use data for predictive analytics, for predictive failures, sending data back home, and then who knows what other insights they're going to gather from that data? Whose data is that? Is that data owned by the widget manufacturer, is that data owned by the factory? >> Right. >> It's their process, it's their work flow. Now of course if I'm the factory owner I'm going to say it's my data, if I'm the widget manufacturer I'm going to say that's my data, so... >> And you're both right. >> And you're both right. >> That's the problem here, is that there's no real arbiter to say, to make that determination. >> Yeah, and I don't think these things have been challenged in court and certainly not adequately, and so there's a lot of learnings that are going to occur over the next decade, and we'll watch that evolution. >> But Jim Cavanaugh is right, we are at a real seminal moment here for this explosion in data, which is really changing the role of the CDO and how it fits in with the rest of the organization. >> Yeah, and I think the other thing to watch is how (mumbles) talks about data driven organizations, digital businesses, cognitive businesses, what are those? Those are kind of buzzwords, but what do they mean? What they mean, in our view, is how well you leverage data to create a competitive advantage, and that's what a digital business does. It uses data differentially (chuckles) to retain customers, attract and retain customers. And so that's what a digital business is, that's what a cognitive business is. Most businesses really aren't digital businesses today, or cognitive businesses today, they're really few and far between. So a lot of work has to be done before we reach that vision. Yeah, everybody throws out the Ubers and the Airbnb's, those are sort of easy examples, but when you have giant logistic systems and supply chains and ERP systems and HR systems with all this stovepipe data, becoming a "digital business" ain't so easy. >> No, and we are really in early days, exactly. So that's something to discuss at the next CDO Strategy Summit. >> And I think there was a lot of discussion early on when the CDO role emerged that they're essentially going to replace the CIO, I don't see it that way. There's a lot of discussion about what's the growth path for the CIO, is it technology or is it business? But I think the CIO's okay. >> Yeah? >> I think the CDO, I think actually there's more overlap between the chief digital officer and the chief data officer, because if you buy the argument that digital equals data, then the chief data officer and the chief digital officer are kind of one in the same. >> Right, right. >> So that to me is a more interesting dynamic than the CIO versus the CDO. I don't see those two roles as highly overlapping and full of friction. I really see that the chief digital officer and the chief data officer are more, should be more aligned and maybe even be the same role. >> And it gets back to the organizational politics that are involved, with all of these massive changes taking place. >> Well, again, first, the starting point for a CDO in a for-profit company is, how can we use data to create value and monetize that value? Not necessarily sell the data, but how does data contribute to our value creation as a company? So, with that as the starting point, that leads to, okay, well, if you're going to be data driven, then you better have measurements, you better have a system. I mean do you use enterprise value, do you use simple ROI, do you use an IOR calculation, do you use a more sophisticated options-based calculation? I mean, how do you measure value and how do you determine capital allocation as a function of those value measurements? The vast majority of the companies out there certainly can't answer that across the board, the CFO's office might be able to answer some of that, but deep down the line of business in the field where decisions are being made, are they really data driven? They're just starting, I mean this is first, second inning. >> Right, right, right. So there's much more to come. Great. Well, you have watched theCUBE's coverage of the IBM CDO Summit. Thanks for tuning in. For Rebecca Knight and Dave Vellante, we'll see you next time. (techno music)

>> Narrator: Live, from Munich, Germany, it's the CUBE. Covering IBM, Fast Track Your Data. Brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome to Munich everybody. This is a special presentation of the CUBE, Fast Track Your Data, brought to you by IBM. My name is Dave Vellante. And I'm here with my cohost, Jim Kobielus. Jim, good to see you. Really good to see you in Munich. >> Jim: I'm glad I made it. >> Thanks for being here. So last year Jim and I hosted a panel at New York City on the CUBE. And it was quite an experience. We had, I think it was nine or 10 data scientists and we felt like that was a lot of people to organize and talk about data science. Well today, we're going to do a repeat of that. With a little bit of twist on topics. And we've got five data scientists. We're here live, in Munich. And we're going to kick off the Fast Track Your Data event with this data science panel. So I'm going to now introduce some of the panelists, or all of the panelists. Then we'll get into the discussions. I'm going to start with Lillian Pierson. Lillian thanks very much for being on the panel. You are in data science. You focus on training executives, students, and you're really a coach but with a lot of data science expertise based in Thailand, so welcome. >> Thank you, thank you so much for having me. >> Dave: You're very welcome. And so, I want to start with sort of when you focus on training people, data science, where do you start? >> Well it depends on the course that I'm teaching. But I try and start at the beginning so for my Big Data course, I actually start back at the fundamental concepts and definitions they would even need to understand in order to understand the basics of what Big Data is, data engineering. So, terms like data governance. Going into the vocabulary that makes up the very introduction of the course, so that later on the students can really grasp the concepts I present to them. You know I'm teaching a deep learning course as well, so in that case I start at a lot more advanced concepts. So it just really depends on the level of the course. >> Great, and we're going to come back to this topic of women in tech. But you know, we looked at some CUBE data the other day. About 17% of the technology industry comprises women. And so we're a little bit over that on our data science panel, we're about 20% today. So we'll come back to that topic. But I don't know if there's anything you would add? >> I'm really passionate about women in tech and women who code, in particular. And I'm connected with a lot of female programmers through Instagram. And we're supporting each other. So I'd love to take any questions you have on what we're doing in that space. At least as far as what's happening across the Instagram platform. >> Great, we'll circle back to that. All right, let me introduce Chris Penn. Chris, Boston based, all right, SMI. Chris is a marketing expert. Really trying to help people understand how to get, turn data into value from a marketing perspective. It's a very important topic. Not only because we get people to buy stuff but also understanding some of the risks associated with things like GDPR, which is coming up. So Chris, tell us a little bit about your background and your practice. >> So I actually started in IT and worked at a start up. And that's where I made the transition to marketing. Because marketing has much better parties. But what's really interesting about the way data science is infiltrating marketing is the technology came in first. You know, everything went digital. And now we're at a point where there's so much data. And most marketers, they kind of got into marketing as sort of the arts and crafts field. And are realizing now, they need a very strong, mathematical, statistical background. So one of the things, Adam, the reason why we're here and IBM is helping out tremendously is, making a lot of the data more accessible to people who do not have a data science background and probably never will. >> Great, okay thank you. I'm going to introduce Ronald Van Loon. Ronald, your practice is really all about helping people extract value out of data, driving competitive advantage, business advantage, or organizational excellence. Tell us a little bit about yourself, your background, and your practice. >> Basically, I've three different backgrounds. On one hand, I'm a director at a data consultancy firm called Adversitement. Where we help companies to become data driven. Mainly large companies. I'm an advisory board member at Simply Learn, which is an e-learning platform, especially also for big data analytics. And on the other hand I'm a blogger and I host a series of webinars. >> Okay, great, now Dez, Dez Blanchfield, I met you on Twitter, you know, probably a couple of years ago. We first really started to collaborate last year. We've spend a fair amount of time together. You are a data scientist, but you're also a jack of all trades. You've got a technology background. You sit on a number of boards. You work very active with public policy. So tell us a little bit more about what you're doing these days, a little bit more about your background. >> Sure, I think my primary challenge these days is communication. Trying to join the dots between my technical background and deeply technical pedigree, to just plain English, every day language, and business speak. So bridging that technical world with what's happening in the boardroom. Toe to toe with the geeks to plain English to execs in boards. And just hand hold them and steward them through the journey of the challenges they're facing. Whether it's the enormous rapid of change and the pace of change, that's just almost exhaustive and causing them to sprint. But not just sprint in one race but in multiple lanes at the same time. As well as some of the really big things that are coming up, that we've seen like GDPR. So it's that communication challenge and just hand holding people through that journey and that mix of technical and commercial experience. >> Great, thank you, and finally Joe Caserta. Founder and president of Caserta Concepts. Joe you're a practitioner. You're in the front lines, helping organizations, similar to Ronald. Extracting value from data. Translate that into competitive advantage. Tell us a little bit about what you're doing these days in Caserta Concepts. >> Thanks Dave, thanks for having me. Yeah, so Caserta's been around. I've been doing this for 30 years now. And natural progressions have been just getting more from application development, to data warehousing, to big data analytics, to data science. Very, very organically, that's just because it's where businesses need the help the most, over the years. And right now, the big focus is governance. At least in my world. Trying to govern when you have a bunch of disparate data coming from a bunch of systems that you have no control over, right? Like social media, and third party data systems. Bringing it in and how to you organize it? How do you ingest it? How do you govern it? How do you keep it safe? And also help to define ownership of the data within an organization within an enterprise? That's also a very hot topic. Which ties back into GDPR. >> Great, okay, so we're going to be unpacking a lot of topics associated with the expertise that these individuals have. I'm going to bring in Jim Kobielus, to the conversation. Jim, the newest Wikibon analyst. And newest member of the SiliconANGLE Media Team. Jim, get us started off. >> Yeah, so we're at an event, at an IBM event where machine learning and data science are at the heart of it. There are really three core themes here. Machine learning and data science, on the one hand. Unified governance on the other. And hybrid data management. I want to circle back or focus on machine learning. Machine learning is the coin of the realm, right now in all things data. Machine learning is the heart of AI. Machine learning, everybody is going, hiring, data scientists to do machine learning. I want to get a sense from our panel, who are experts in this area, what are the chief innovations and trends right now on machine learning. Not deep learning, the core of machine learning. What's super hot? What's in terms of new techniques, new technologies, new ways of organizing teams to build and to train machine learning models? I'd like to open it up. Let's just start with Lillian. What are your thoughts about trends in machine learning? What's really hot? >> It's funny that you excluded deep learning from the response for this, because I think the hottest space in machine learning is deep learning. And deep learning is machine learning. I see a lot of collaborative platforms coming out, where people, data scientists are able to work together with other sorts of data professionals to reduce redundancies in workflows. And create more efficient data science systems. >> Is there much uptake of these crowd sourcing environments for training machine learning wells. Like CrowdFlower, or Amazon Mechanical Turk, or Mighty AI? Is that a huge trend in terms of the workflow of data science or machine learning, a lot of that? >> I don't see that crowdsourcing is like, okay maybe I've been out of the crowdsourcing space for a while. But I was working with Standby Task Force back in 2013. And we were doing a lot of crowdsourcing. And I haven't seen the industry has been increasing, but I could be wrong. I mean, because there's no, if you're building automation models, most of the, a lot of the work that's being crowdsourced could actually be automated if someone took the time to just build the scripts and build the models. And so I don't imagine that, that's going to be a trend that's increasing. >> Well, automation machine learning pipeline is fairly hot, in terms of I'm seeing more and more research. Google's doing a fair amount of automated machine learning. The panel, what do you think about automation, in terms of the core modeling tasks involved in machine learning. Is that coming along? Are data scientists in danger of automating themselves out of a job? >> I don't think there's a risk of data scientist's being put out of a job. Let's just put that on the thing. I do think we need to get a bit clearer about this meme of the mythical unicorn. But to your call point about machine learning, I think what you'll see, we saw the cloud become baked into products, just as a given. I think machine learning is already crossed this threshold. We just haven't necessarily noticed or caught up. And if we look at, we're at an IBM event, so let's just do a call out for them. The data science experience platform, for example. Machine learning's built into a whole range of things around algorithm and data classification. And there's an assisted, guided model for how you get to certain steps, where you don't actually have to understand how machine learning works. You don't have to understand how the algorithms work. It shows you the different options you've got and you can choose them. So you might choose regression. And it'll give you different options on how to do that. So I think we've already crossed this threshold of baking in machine learning and baking in the data science tools. And we've seen that with Cloud and other technologies where, you know, the Office 365 is not, you can't get a non Cloud Office 365 account, right? I think that's already happened in machine learning. What we're seeing though, is organizations even as large as the Googles still in catch up mode, in my view, on some of the shift that's taken place. So we've seen them write little games and apps where people do doodles and then it runs through the ML library and says, "Well that's a cow, or a unicorn, or a duck." And you get awards, and gold coins, and whatnot. But you know, as far as 12 years ago I was working on a project, where we had full size airplanes acting as drones. And we mapped with two and 3-D imagery. With 2-D high res imagery and LiDAR for 3-D point Clouds. We were finding poles and wires for utility companies, using ML before it even became a trend. And baking it right into the tools. And used to store on our web page and clicked and pointed on. >> To counter Lillian's point, it's not crowdsourcing but crowd sharing that's really powering a lot of the rapid leaps forward. If you look at, you know, DSX from IBM. Or you look at Node-RED, huge number of free workflows that someone has probably already done the thing that you are trying to do. Go out and find in the libraries, through Jupyter and R Notebooks, there's an ability-- >> Chris can you define before you go-- >> Chris: Sure. >> This is great, crowdsourcing versus crowd sharing. What's the distinction? >> Well, so crowdsourcing, kind of, where in the context of the question you ask is like I'm looking for stuff that other people, getting people to do stuff that, for me. It's like asking people to mine classifieds. Whereas crowd sharing, someone has done the thing already, it already exists. You're not purpose built, saying, "Jim, help me build this thing." It's like, "Oh Jim, you already "built this thing, cool. "So can I fork it and make my own from it?" >> Okay, I see what you mean, keep going. >> And then, again, going back to earlier. In terms of the advancements. Really deep learning, it probably is a good idea to just sort of define these things. Machine learning is how machines do things without being explicitly programmed to do them. Deep learning's like if you can imagine a stack of pancakes, right? Each pancake is a type of machine learning algorithm. And your data is the syrup. You pour the data on it. It goes from layer, to layer, to layer, to layer, and what you end up with at the end is breakfast. That's the easiest analogy for what deep learning is. Now imagine a stack of pancakes, 500 or 1,000 high, that's where deep learning's going now. >> Sure, multi layered machine learning models, essentially, that have the ability to do higher levels of abstraction. Like image analysis, Lillian? >> I had a comment to add about automation and data science. Because there are a lot of tools that are able to, or applications that are able to use data science algorithms and output results. But the reason that data scientists aren't in risk of losing their jobs, is because just because you can get the result, you also have to be able to interpret it. Which means you have to understand it. And that involves deep math and statistical understanding. Plus domain expertise. So, okay, great, you took out the coding element but that doesn't mean you can codify a person's ability to understand and apply that insight. >> Dave: Joe, you have something to add? >> I could just add that I see the trend. Really, the reason we're talking about it today is machine learning is not necessarily, it's not new, like Dez was saying. But what's different is the accessibility of it now. It's just so easily accessible. All of the tools that are coming out, for data, have machine learning built into it. So the machine learning algorithms, which used to be a black art, you know, years ago, now is just very easily accessible. That you can get, it's part of everyone's toolbox. And the other reason that we're talking about it more, is that data science is starting to become a core curriculum in higher education. Which is something that's new, right? That didn't exist 10 years ago? But over the past five years, I'd say, you know, it's becoming more and more easily accessible for education. So now, people understand it. And now we have it accessible in our tool sets. So now we can apply it. And I think that's, those two things coming together is really making it becoming part of the standard of doing analytics. And I guess the last part is, once we can train the machines to start doing the analytics, right? And get smarter as it ingests more data. And then we can actually take that and embed it in our applications. That's the part that you still need data scientists to create that. But once we can have standalone appliances that are intelligent, that's when we're going to start seeing, really, machine learning and artificial intelligence really start to take off even more. >> Dave: So I'd like to switch gears a little bit and bring Ronald on. >> Okay, yes. >> Here you go, there. >> Ronald, the bromide in this sort of big data world we live in is, the data is the new oil. You got to be a data driven company and many other cliches. But when you talk to organizations and you start to peel the onion. You find that most companies really don't have a good way to connect data with business impact and business value. What are you seeing with your clients and just generally in the community, with how companies are doing that? How should they do that? I mean, is that something that is a viable approach? You don't see accountants, for example, quantifying the value of data on a balance sheet. There's no standards for doing that. And so it's sort of this fuzzy concept. How are and how should organizations take advantage of data and turn it into value. >> So, I think in general, if you look how companies look at data. They have departments and within the departments they have tools specific for this department. And what you see is that there's no central, let's say, data collection. There's no central management of governance. There's no central management of quality. There's no central management of security. Each department is manages their data on their own. So if you didn't ask, on one hand, "Okay, how should they do it?" It's basically go back to the drawing table and say, "Okay, how should we do it?" We should collect centrally, the data. And we should take care for central governance. We should take care for central data quality. We should take care for centrally managing this data. And look from a company perspective and not from a department perspective what the value of data is. So, look at the perspective from your whole company. And this means that it has to be brought on one end to, whether it's from C level, where most of them still fail to understand what it really means. And what the impact can be for that company. >> It's a hard problem. Because data by its' very nature is now so decentralized. But Chris you have a-- >> The thing I want to add to that is, think about in terms of valuing data. Look at what it would cost you for data breach. Like what is the expensive of having your data compromised. If you don't have governance. If you don't have policy in place. Look at the major breaches of the last couple years. And how many billions of dollars those companies lost in market value, and trust, and all that stuff. That's one way you can value data very easily. "What will it cost us if we mess this up?" >> So a lot of CEOs will hear that and say, "Okay, I get it. "I have to spend to protect myself, "but I'd like to make a little money off of this data thing. "How do I do that?" >> Well, I like to think of it, you know, I think data's definitely an asset within an organization. And is becoming more and more of an asset as the years go by. But data is still a raw material. And that's the way I think about it. In order to actually get the value, just like if you're creating any product, you start with raw materials and then you refine it. And then it becomes a product. For data, data is a raw material. You need to refine it. And then the insight is the product. And that's really where the value is. And the insight is absolutely, you can monetize your insight. >> So data is, abundant insights are scarce. >> Well, you know, actually you could say that intermediate between insights and the data are the models themselves. The statistical, predictive, machine learning models. That are a crystallization of insights that have been gained by people called data scientists. What are your thoughts on that? Are statistical, predictive, machine learning models something, an asset, that companies, organizations, should manage governance of on a centralized basis or not? >> Well the models are essentially the refinery system, right? So as you're refining your data, you need to have process around how you exactly do that. Just like refining anything else. It needs to be controlled and it needs to be governed. And I think that data is no different from that. And I think that it's very undisciplined right now, in the market or in the industry. And I think maturing that discipline around data science, I think is something that's going to be a very high focus in this year and next. >> You were mentioning, "How do you make money from data?" Because there's all this risk associated with security breaches. But at the risk of sounding simplistic, you can generate revenue from system optimization, or from developing products and services. Using data to develop products and services that better meet the demands and requirements of your markets. So that you can sell more. So either you are using data to earn more money. Or you're using data to optimize your system so you have less cost. And that's a simple answer for how you're going to be making money from the data. But yes, there is always the counter to that, which is the security risks. >> Well, and my question really relates to, you know, when you think of talking to C level executives, they kind of think about running the business, growing the business, and transforming the business. And a lot of times they can't fund these transformations. And so I would agree, there's many, many opportunities to monetize data, cut costs, increase revenue. But organizations seem to struggle to either make a business case. And actually implement that transformation. >> Dave, I'd love to have a crack at that. I think this conversation epitomizes the type of things that are happening in board rooms and C suites already. So we've really quickly dived into the detail of data. And the detail of machine learning. And the detail of data science, without actually stopping and taking a breath and saying, "Well, we've "got lots of it, but what have we got? "Where is it? "What's the value of it? "Is there any value in it at all?" And, "How much time and money should we invest in it?" For example, we talk of being about a resource. I look at data as a utility. When I turn the tap on to get a drink of water, it's there as a utility. I counted it being there but I don't always sample the quality of the water and I probably should. It could have Giardia in it, right? But what's interesting is I trust the water at home, in Sydney. Because we have a fairly good experience with good quality water. If I were to go to some other nation. I probably wouldn't trust that water. And I think, when you think about it, what's happening in organizations. It's almost the same as what we're seeing here today. We're having a lot of fun, diving into the detail. But what we've forgotten to do is ask the question, "Well why is data even important? "What's the reasoning to the business? "Why are we in business? "What are we doing as an organization? "And where does data fit into that?" As opposed to becoming so fixated on data because it's a media hyped topic. I think once you can wind that back a bit and say, "Well, we have lot's of data, "but is it good data? "Is it quality data? "Where's it coming from? "Is it ours? "Are we allowed to have it? "What treatment are we allowed to give that data?" As you said, "Are we controlling it? "And where are we controlling it? "Who owns it?" There's so many questions to be asked. But the first question I like to ask people in plain English is, "Well is there any value "in data in the first place? "What decisions are you making that data can help drive? "What things are in your organizations, "KPIs and milestones you're trying to meet "that data might be a support?" So then instead of becoming fixated with data as a thing in itself, it becomes part of your DNA. Does that make sense? >> Think about what money means. The Economists' Rhyme, "Money is a measure for, "a systems for, a medium, a measure, and exchange." So it's a medium of exchange. A measure of value, a way to exchange something. And a way to store value. Data, good clean data, well governed, fits all four of those. So if you're trying to figure out, "How do we make money out of stuff." Figure out how money works. And then figure out how you map data to it. >> So if we approach and we start with a company, we always start with business case, which is quite clear. And defined use case, basically, start with a team on one hand, marketing people, sales people, operational people, and also the whole data science team. So start with this case. It's like, defining, basically a movie. If you want to create the movie, You know where you're going to. You know what you want to achieve to create the customer experience. And this is basically the same with a business case. Where you define, "This is the case. "And this is how we're going to derive value, "start with it and deliver value within a month." And after the month, you check, "Okay, where are we and how can we move forward? "And what's the value that we've brought?" >> Now I as well, start with business case. I've done thousands of business cases in my life, with organizations. And unless that organization was kind of a data broker, the business case rarely has a discreet component around data. Is that changing, in your experience? >> Yes, so we guide companies into be data driven. So initially, indeed, they don't like to use the data. They don't like to use the analysis. So that's why, how we help. And is it changing? Yes, they understand that they need to change. But changing people is not always easy. So, you see, it's hard if you're not involved and you're not guiding it, they fall back in doing the daily tasks. So it's changing, but it's a hard change. >> Well and that's where this common parlance comes in. And Lillian, you, sort of, this is what you do for a living, is helping people understand these things, as you've been sort of evangelizing that common parlance. But do you have anything to add? >> I wanted to add that for organizational implementations, another key component to success is to start small. Start in one small line of business. And then when you've mastered that area and made it successful, then try and deploy it in more areas of the business. And as far as initializing big data implementation, that's generally how to do it successfully. >> There's the whole issue of putting a value on data as a discreet asset. Then there's the issue, how do you put a value on a data lake? Because a data lake, is essentially an asset you build on spec. It's an exploratory archive, essentially, of all kinds of data that might yield some insights, but you have to have a team of data scientists doing exploration and modeling. But it's all on spec. How do you put a value on a data lake? And at what point does the data lake itself become a burden? Because you got to store that data and manage it. At what point do you drain that lake? At what point, do the costs of maintaining that lake outweigh the opportunity costs of not holding onto it? >> So each Hadoop note is approximately $20,000 per year cost for storage. So I think that there needs to be a test and a diagnostic, before even inputting, ingesting the data and storing it. "Is this actually going to be useful? "What value do we plan to create from this?" Because really, you can't store all the data. And it's a lot cheaper to store data in Hadoop then it was in traditional systems but it's definitely not free. So people need to be applying this test before even ingesting the data. Why do we need this? What business value? >> I think the question we need to also ask around this is, "Why are we building data lakes "in the first place? "So what's the function it's going to perform for you?" There's been a huge drive to this idea. "We need a data lake. "We need to put it all somewhere." But invariably they become data swamps. And we only half jokingly say that because I've seen 90 day projects turn from a great idea, to a really bad nightmare. And as Lillian said, it is cheaper in some ways to put it into a HDFS platform, in a technical sense. But when we look at all the fully burdened components, it's actually more expensive to find Hadoop specialists and Spark specialists to maintain that cluster. And invariably I'm finding that big data, quote unquote, is not actually so much lots of data, it's complex data. And as Lillian said, "You don't always "need to store it all." So I think if we go back to the question of, "What's the function of a data lake in the first place? "Why are we building one?" And then start to build some fully burdened cost components around that. We'll quickly find that we don't actually need a data lake, per se. We just need an interim data store. So we might take last years' data and tokenize it, and analyze it, and do some analytics on it, and just keep the meta data. So I think there is this rush, for a whole range of reasons, particularly vendor driven. To build data lakes because we think they're a necessity, when in reality they may just be an interim requirement and we don't need to keep them for a long term. >> I'm going to attempt to, the last few questions, put them all together. And I think, they all belong together because one of the reasons why there's such hesitation about progress within the data world is because there's just so much accumulated tech debt already. Where there's a new idea. We go out and we build it. And six months, three years, it really depends on how big the idea is, millions of dollars is spent. And then by the time things are built the idea is pretty much obsolete, no one really cares anymore. And I think what's exciting now is that the speed to value is just so much faster than it's ever been before. And I think that, you know, what makes that possible is this concept of, I don't think of a data lake as a thing. I think of a data lake as an ecosystem. And that ecosystem has evolved so much more, probably in the last three years than it has in the past 30 years. And it's exciting times, because now once we have this ecosystem in place, if we have a new idea, we can actually do it in minutes not years. And that's really the exciting part. And I think, you know, data lake versus a data swamp, comes back to just traditional data architecture. And if you architect your data lake right, you're going to have something that's substantial, that's you're going to be able to harness and grow. If you don't do it right. If you just throw data. If you buy Hadoop cluster or a Cloud platform and just throw your data out there and say, "We have a lake now." yeah, you're going to create a mess. And I think taking the time to really understand, you know, the new paradigm of data architecture and modern data engineering, and actually doing it in a very disciplined way. If you think about it, what we're doing is we're building laboratories. And if you have a shabby, poorly built laboratory, the best scientist in the world isn't going to be able to prove his theories. So if you have a well built laboratory and a clean room, then, you know a scientist can get what he needs done very, very, very efficiently. And that's the goal, I think, of data management today. >> I'd like to just quickly add that I totally agree with the challenge between on premise and Cloud mode. And I think one of the strong themes of today is going to be the hybrid data management challenge. And I think organizations, some organizations, have rushed to adopt Cloud. And thinking it's a really good place to dump the data and someone else has to manage the problem. And then they've ended up with a very expensive death by 1,000 cuts in some senses. And then others have been very reluctant as a result of not gotten access to rapid moving and disruptive technology. So I think there's a really big challenge to get a basic conversation going around what's the value using Cloud technology as in adopting it, versus what are the risks? And when's the right time to move? For example, should we Cloud Burst for workloads? Do we move whole data sets in there? You know, moving half a petabyte of data into a Cloud platform back is a non-trivial exercise. But moving a terabyte isn't actually that big a deal anymore. So, you know, should we keep stuff behind the firewalls? I'd be interested in seeing this week where 80% of the data, supposedly is. And just push out for Cloud tools, machine learning, data science tools, whatever they might be, cognitive analytics, et cetera. And keep the bulk of the data on premise. Or should we just move whole spools into the Cloud? There is no one size fits all. There's no silver bullet. Every organization has it's own quirks and own nuances they need to think through and make a decision themselves. >> Very often, Dez, organizations have zonal architectures so you'll have a data lake that consists of a no sequel platform that might be used for say, mobile applications. A Hadoop platform that might be used for unstructured data refinement, so forth. A streaming platform, so forth and so on. And then you'll have machine learning models that are built and optimized for those different platforms. So, you know, think of it in terms of then, your data lake, is a set of zones that-- >> It gets even more complex just playing on that theme, when you think about what Cisco started, called Folk Computing. I don't really like that term. But edge analytics, or computing at the edge. We've seen with the internet coming along where we couldn't deliver everything with a central data center. So we started creating this concept of content delivery networks, right? I think the same thing, I know the same thing has happened in data analysis and data processing. Where we've been pulling social media out of the Cloud, per se, and bringing it back to a central source. And doing analytics on it. But when you think of something like, say for example, when the Dreamliner 787 from Boeing came out, this airplane created 1/2 a terabyte of data per flight. Now let's just do some quick, back of the envelope math. There's 87,400 fights a day, just in the domestic airspace in the USA alone, per day. Now 87,400 by 1/2 a terabyte, that's 43 point five petabytes a day. You physically can't copy that from quote unquote in the Cloud, if you'll pardon the pun, back to the data center. So now we've got the challenge, a lot of our Enterprise data's behind a firewall, supposedly 80% of it. But what's out at the edge of the network. Where's the value in that data? So there are zonal challenges. Now what do I do with my Enterprise versus the open data, the mobile data, the machine data. >> Yeah, we've seen some recent data from IDC that says, "About 43% of the data "is going to stay at the edge." We think that, that's way understated, just given the examples. We think it's closer to 90% is going to stay at the edge. >> Just on the airplane topic, right? So Airbus wasn't going to be outdone. Boeing put 4,000 sensors or something in their 787 Dreamliner six years ago. Airbus just announced an 83, 81,000 with 10,000 sensors in it. Do the same math. Now the FAA in the US said that all aircraft and all carriers have to be, by early next year, I think it's like March or April next year, have to be at the same level of BIOS. Or the same capability of data collection and so forth. It's kind of like a mini GDPR for airlines. So with the 83, 81,000 with 10,000 sensors, that becomes two point five terabytes per flight. If you do the math, it's 220 petabytes of data just in one day's traffic, domestically in the US. Now, it's just so mind boggling that we're going to have to completely turn our thinking on its' head, on what do we do behind the firewall? What do we do in the Cloud versus what we might have to do in the airplane? I mean, think about edge analytics in the airplane processing data, as you said, Jim, streaming analytics in flight. >> Yeah that's a big topic within Wikibon, so, within the team. Me and David Floyer, and my other colleagues. They're talking about the whole notion of edge architecture. Not only will most of the data be persisted at the edge, most of the deep learning models like TensorFlow will be executed at the edge. To some degree, the training of those models will happen in the Cloud. But much of that will be pushed in a federated fashion to the edge, or at least I'm predicting. We're already seeing some industry moves in that direction, in terms of architectures. Google has a federated training, project or initiative. >> Chris: Look at TensorFlow Lite. >> Which is really fascinating for it's geared to IOT, I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Look at TensorFlow Lite. I mean in the announcement of having every Android device having ML capabilities, is Google's essential acknowledgment, "We can't do it all." So we need to essentially, sort of like a setting at home. Everyone's smartphone top TV box just to help with the processing. >> Now we're talking about this, this sort of leads to this IOT discussion but I want to underscore the operating model. As you were saying, "You can't just "lift and shift to the Cloud." You're not going to, CEOs aren't going to get the billion dollar hit by just doing that. So you got to change the operating model. And that leads to, this discussion of IOT. And an entirely new operating model. >> Well, there are companies that are like Sisense who have worked with Intel. And they've taken this concept. They've taken the business logic and not just putting it in the chip, but actually putting it in memory, in the chip. So as data's going through the chip it's not just actually being processed but it's actually being baked in memory. So level one, two, and three cache. Now this is a game changer. Because as Chris was saying, even if we were to get the data back to a central location, the compute load, I saw a real interesting thing from I think it was Google the other day, one of the guys was doing a talk. And he spoke about what it meant to add cognitive and voice processing into just the Android platform. And they used some number, like that had, double the amount of compute they had, just to add voice for free, to the Android platform. Now even for Google, that's a nontrivial exercise. So as Chris was saying, I think we have to again, flip it on its' head and say, "How much can we put "at the edge of the network?" Because think about these phones. I mean, even your fridge and microwave, right? We put a man on the moon with something that these days, we make for $89 at home, on the Raspberry Pie computer, right? And even that was 1,000 times more powerful. When we start looking at what's going into the chips, we've seen people build new, not even GPUs, but deep learning and stream analytics capable chips. Like Google, for example. That's going to make its' way into consumer products. So that, now the compute capacity in phones, is going to, I think transmogrify in some ways because there is some magic in there. To the point where, as Chris was saying, "We're going to have the smarts in our phone." And a lot of that workload is going to move closer to us. And only the metadata that we need to move is going to go centrally. >> Well here's the thing. The edge isn't the technology. The edge is actually the people. When you look at, for example, the MIT language Scratch. This is kids programming language. It's drag and drop. You know, kids can assemble really fun animations and make little movies. We're training them to build for IOT. Because if you look at a system like Node-RED, it's an IBM interface that is drag and drop. Your workflow is for IOT. And you can push that to a device. Scratch has a converter for doing those. So the edge is what those thousands and millions of kids who are learning how to code, learning how to think architecturally and algorithmically. What they're going to create that is beyond what any of us can possibly imagine. >> I'd like to add one other thing, as well. I think there's a topic we've got to start tabling. And that is what I refer to as the gravity of data. So when you think about how planets are formed, right? Particles of dust accrete. They form into planets. Planets develop gravity. And the reason we're not flying into space right now is that there's gravitational force. Even though it's one of the weakest forces, it keeps us on our feet. Oftentimes in organizations, I ask them to start thinking about, "Where is the center "of your universe with regard to the gravity of data." Because if you can follow the center of your universe and the gravity of your data, you can often, as Chris is saying, find where the business logic needs to be. And it could be that you got to think about a storage problem. You can think about a compute problem. You can think about a streaming analytics problem. But if you can find where the center of your universe and the center of your gravity for your data is, often you can get a really good insight into where you can start focusing on where the workloads are going to be where the smarts are going to be. Whether it's small, medium, or large. >> So this brings up the topic of data governance. One of the themes here at Fast Track Your Data is GDPR. What it means. It's one of the reasons, I think IBM selected Europe, generally, Munich specifically. So let's talk about GDPR. We had a really interesting discussion last night. So let's kind of recreate some of that. I'd like somebody in the panel to start with, what is GDPR? And why does it matter, Ronald? >> Yeah, maybe I can start. Maybe a little bit more in general unified governance. So if i talk to companies and I need to explain to them what's governance, I basically compare it with a crime scene. So in a crime scene if something happens, they start with securing all the evidence. So they start sealing the environment. And take care that all the evidence is collected. And on the other hand, you see that they need to protect this evidence. There are all kinds of policies. There are all kinds of procedures. There are all kinds of rules, that need to be followed. To take care that the whole evidence is secured well. And once you start, basically, investigating. So you have the crime scene investigators. You have the research lab. You have all different kind of people. They need to have consent before they can use all this evidence. And the whole reason why they're doing this is in order to collect the villain, the crook. To catch him and on the other hand, once he's there, to convict him. And we do this to have trust in the materials. Or trust in basically, the analytics. And on the other hand to, the public have trust in everything what's happened with the data. So if you look to a company, where data is basically the evidence, this is the value of your data. It's similar to like the evidence within a crime scene. But most companies don't treat it like this. So if we then look to GDPR, GDPR basically shifts the power and the ownership of the data from the company to the person that created it. Which is often, let's say the consumer. And there's a lot of paradox in this. Because all the companies say, "We need to have this customer data. "Because we need to improve the customer experience." So if you make it concrete and let's say it's 1st of June, so GDPR is active. And it's first of June 2018. And I go to iTunes, so I use iTunes. Let's go to iTunes said, "Okay, Apple please "give me access to my data." I want to see which kind of personal information you have stored for me. On the other end, I want to have the right to rectify all this data. I want to be able to change it and give them a different level of how they can use my data. So I ask this to iTunes. And then I say to them, okay, "I basically don't like you anymore. "I want to go to Spotify. "So please transfer all my personal data to Spotify." So that's possible once it's June 18. Then I go back to iTunes and say, "Okay, I don't like it anymore. "Please reduce my consent. "I withdraw my consent. "And I want you to remove all my "personal data for everything that you use." And I go to Spotify and I give them, let's say, consent for using my data. So this is a shift where you can, as a person be the owner of the data. And this has a lot of consequences, of course, for organizations, how to manage this. So it's quite simple for the consumer. They get the power, it's maturing the whole law system. But it's a big consequence of course for organizations. >> This is going to be a nightmare for marketers. But fill in some of the gaps there. >> Let's go back, so GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, was passed by the EU in 2016, in May of 2016. It is, as Ronald was saying, it's four basic things. The right to privacy. The right to be forgotten. Privacy built into systems by default. And the right to data transfer. >> Joe: It takes effect next year. >> It is already in effect. GDPR took effect in May of 2016. The enforcement penalties take place the 25th of May 2018. Now here's where, there's two things on the penalty side that are important for everyone to know. Now number one, GDPR is extra territorial. Which means that an EU citizen, anywhere on the planet has GDPR, goes with them. So say you're a pizza shop in Nebraska. And an EU citizen walks in, orders a pizza. Gives her the credit card and stuff like that. If you for some reason, store that data, GDPR now applies to you, Mr. Pizza shop, whether or not you do business in the EU. Because an EU citizen's data is with you. Two, the penalties are much stiffer then they ever have been. In the old days companies could simply write off penalties as saying, "That's the cost of doing business." With GDPR the penalties are up to 4% of your annual revenue or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater. And there may be criminal sanctions, charges, against key company executives. So there's a lot of questions about how this is going to be implemented. But one of the first impacts you'll see from a marketing perspective is all the advertising we do, targeting people by their age, by their personally identifiable information, by their demographics. Between now and May 25th 2018, a good chunk of that may have to go away because there's no way for you to say, "Well this person's an EU citizen, this person's not." People give false information all the time online. So how do you differentiate it? Every company, regardless of whether they're in the EU or not will have to adapt to it, or deal with the penalties. >> So Lillian, as a consumer this is designed to protect you. But you had a very negative perception of this regulation. >> I've looked over the GDPR and to me it actually looks like a socialist agenda. It looks like (panel laughs) no, it looks like a full assault on free enterprise and capitalism. And on its' face from a legal perspective, its' completely and wholly unenforceable. Because they're assigning jurisdictional rights to the citizen. But what are they going to do? They're going to go to Nebraska and they're going to call in the guy from the pizza shop? And call him into what court? The EU court? It's unenforceable from a legal perspective. And if you write a law that's unenforceable, you know, it's got to be enforceable in every element. It can't be just, "Oh, we're only "going to enforce it for Facebook and for Google. "But it's not enforceable for," it needs to be written so that it's a complete and actionable law. And it's not written in that way. And from a technological perspective it's not implementable. I think you said something like 652 EU regulators or political people voted for this and 10 voted against it. But what do they know about actually implementing it? Is it possible? There's all sorts of regulations out there that aren't possible to implement. I come from an environmental engineering background. And it's absolutely ridiculous because these agencies will pass laws that actually, it's not possible to implement those in practice. The cost would be too great. And it's not even needed. So I don't know, I just saw this and I thought, "You know, if the EU wants to," what they're essentially trying to do is regulate what the rest of the world does on the internet. And if they want to build their own internet like China has and police it the way that they want to. But Ronald here, made an analogy between data, and free enterprise, and a crime scene. Now to me, that's absolutely ridiculous. What does data and someone signing up for an email list have to do with a crime scene? And if EU wants to make it that way they can police their own internet. But they can't go across the world. They can't go to Singapore and tell Singapore, or go to the pizza shop in Nebraska and tell them how to run their business. >> You know, EU overreach in the post Brexit era, of what you're saying has a lot of validity. How far can the tentacles of the EU reach into other sovereign nations. >> What court are they going to call them into? >> Yeah. >> I'd like to weigh in on this. There are lots of unknowns, right? So I'd like us to focus on the things we do know. We've already dealt with similar situations before. In Australia, we introduced a goods and sales tax. Completely foreign concept. Everything you bought had 10% on it. No one knew how to deal with this. It was a completely new practice in accounting. There's a whole bunch of new software that had to be written. MYRB had to have new capability, but we coped. No one actually went to jail yet. It's decades later, for not complying with GST. So what it was, was a framework on how to shift from non sales tax related revenue collection. To sales tax related revenue collection. I agree that there are some egregious things built into this. I don't disagree with that at all. But I think if I put my slightly broader view of the world hat on, we have well and truly gone past the point in my mind, where data was respected, data was treated in a sensible way. I mean I get emails from companies I've never done business with. And when I follow it up, it's because I did business with a credit card company, that gave it to a service provider, that thought that I was going to, when I bought a holiday to come to Europe, that I might want travel insurance. Now some might say there's value in that. And other's say there's not, there's the debate. But let's just focus on what we're talking about. We're talking about a framework for governance of the treatment of data. If we remove all the emotive component, what we are talking about is a series of guidelines, backed by laws, that say, "We would like you to do this," in an ideal world. But I don't think anyone's going to go to jail, on day one. They may go to jail on day 180. If they continue to do nothing about it. So they're asking you to sort of sit up and pay attention. Do something about it. There's a whole bunch of relief around how you approach it. The big thing for me, is there's no get out of jail card, right? There is no get out of jail card for not complying. But there's plenty of support. I mean, we're going to have ambulance chasers everywhere. We're going to have class actions. We're going to have individual suits. The greatest thing to do right now is get into GDPR law. Because you seem to think data scientists are unicorn? >> What kind of life is that if there's ambulance chasers everywhere? You want to live like that? >> Well I think we've seen ad blocking. I use ad blocking as an example, right? A lot of organizations with advertising broke the internet by just throwing too much content on pages, to the point where they're just unusable. And so we had this response with ad blocking. I think in many ways, GDPR is a regional response to a situation where I don't think it's the exact right answer. But it's the next evolutional step. We'll see things evolve over time. >> It's funny you mentioned it because in the United States one of the things that has happened, is that with the change in political administrations, the regulations on what companies can do with your data have actually been laxened, to the point where, for example, your internet service provider can resell your browsing history, with or without your consent. Or your consent's probably buried in there, on page 47. And so, GDPR is kind of a response to saying, "You know what? "You guys over there across the Atlantic "are kind of doing some fairly "irresponsible things with what you allow companies to do." Now, to Lillian's point, no one's probably going to go after the pizza shop in Nebraska because they don't do business in the EU. They don't have an EU presence. And it's unlikely that an EU regulator's going to get on a plane from Brussels and fly to Topeka and say, or Omaha, sorry, "Come on Joe, let's get the pizza shop in order here." But for companies, particularly Cloud companies, that have offices and operations within the EU, they have to sit up and pay attention. So if you have any kind of EU operations, or any kind of fiscal presence in the EU, you need to get on board. >> But to Lillian's point it becomes a boondoggle for lawyers in the EU who want to go after deep pocketed companies like Facebook and Google. >> What's the value in that? It seems like regulators are just trying to create work for themselves. >> What about the things that say advertisers can do, not so much with the data that they have? With the data that they don't have. In other words, they have people called data scientists who build models that can do inferences on sparse data. And do amazing things in terms of personalization. What do you do about all those gray areas? Where you got machine learning models and so forth? >> But it applies-- >> It applies to personally identifiable information. But if you have a talented enough data scientist, you don't need the PII or even the inferred characteristics. If a certain type of behavior happens on your website, for example. And this path of 17 pages almost always leads to a conversion, it doesn't matter who you are or where you're coming from. If you're a good enough data scientist, you can build a model that will track that. >> Like you know, target, infer some young woman was pregnant. And they inferred correctly even though that was never divulged. I mean, there's all those gray areas that, how can you stop that slippery slope? >> Well I'm going to weigh in really quickly. A really interesting experiment for people to do. When people get very emotional about it I say to them, "Go to Google.com, "view source, put it in seven point Courier "font in Word and count how many pages it is." I guess you can't guess how many pages? It's 52 pages of seven point Courier font, HTML to render one logo, and a search field, and a click button. Now why do we need 52 pages of HTML source code and Java script just to take a search query. Think about what's being done in that. It's effectively a mini operating system, to figure out who you are, and what you're doing, and where you been. Now is that a good or bad thing? I don't know, I'm not going to make a judgment call. But what I'm saying is we need to stop and take a deep breath and say, "Does anybody need a 52 page, "home page to take a search query?" Because that's just the tip of the iceberg. >> To that point, I like the results that Google gives me. That's why I use Google and not Bing. Because I get better search results. So, yeah, I don't mind if you mine my personal data and give me, our Facebook ads, those are the only ads, I saw in your article that GDPR is going to take out targeted advertising. The only ads in the entire world, that I like are Facebook ads. Because I actually see products I'm interested in. And I'm happy to learn about that. I think, "Oh I want to research that. "I want to see this new line of products "and what are their competitors?" And I like the targeted advertising. I like the targeted search results because it's giving me more of the information that I'm actually interested in. >> And that's exactly what it's about. You can still decide, yourself, if you want to have this targeted advertising. If not, then you don't give consent. If you like it, you give consent. So if a company gives you value, you give consent back. So it's not that it's restricting everything. It's giving consent. And I think it's similar to what happened and the same type of response, what happened, we had the Mad Cow Disease here in Europe, where you had the whole food chain that needed to be tracked. And everybody said, "No, it's not required." But now it's implemented. Everybody in Europe does it. So it's the same, what probably going to happen over here as well. >> So what does GDPR mean for data scientists? >> I think GDPR is, I think it is needed. I think one of the things that may be slowing data science down is fear. People are afraid to share their data. Because they don't know what's going to be done with it. If there are some guidelines around it that should be enforced and I think, you know, I think it's been said but as long as a company could prove that it's doing due diligence to protect your data, I think no one is going to go to jail. I think when there's, you know, we reference a crime scene, if there's a heinous crime being committed, all right, then it's going to become obvious. And then you do go directly to jail. But I think having guidelines and even laws around privacy and protection of data is not necessarily a bad thing. You can do a lot of data, really meaningful data science, without understanding that it's Joe Caserta. All of the demographics about me. All of the characteristics about me as a human being, I think are still on the table. All that they're saying is that you can't go after Joe, himself, directly. And I think that's okay. You know, there's still a lot of things. We could still cure diseases without knowing that I'm Joe Caserta, right? As long as you know everything else about me. And I think that's really at the core, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to protect the individual and the individual's data about themselves. But I think as far as how it affects data science, you know, a lot of our clients, they're afraid to implement things because they don't exactly understand what the guideline is. And they don't want to go to jail. So they wind up doing nothing. So now that we have something in writing that, at least, it's something that we can work towards, I think is a good thing. >> In many ways, organizations are suffering from the deer in the headlight problem. They don't understand it. And so they just end up frozen in the headlights. But I just want to go back one step if I could. We could get really excited about what it is and is not. But for me, the most critical thing there is to remember though, data breaches are happening. There are over 1,400 data breaches, on average, per day. And most of them are not trivial. And when we saw 1/2 a billion from Yahoo. And then one point one billion and then one point five billion. I mean, think about what that actually means. There were 47,500 Mongodbs breached in an 18 hour window, after an automated upgrade. And they were airlines, they were banks, they were police stations. They were hospitals. So when I think about frameworks like GDPR, I'm less worried about whether I'm going to see ads and be sold stuff. I'm more worried about, and I'll give you one example. My 12 year old son has an account at a platform called Edmodo. Now I'm not going to pick on that brand for any reason but it's a current issue. Something like, I think it was like 19 million children in the world had their username, password, email address, home address, and all this social interaction on this Facebook for kids platform called Edmodo, breached in one night. Now I got my hands on a copy. And everything about my son is there. Now I have a major issue with that. Because I can't do anything to undo that, nothing. The fact that I was able to get a copy, within hours on a dark website, for free. The fact that his first name, last name, email, mobile phone number, all these personal messages from friends. Nobody has the right to allow that to breach on my son. Or your children, or our children. For me, GDPR, is a framework for us to try and behave better about really big issues. Whether it's a socialist issue. Whether someone's got an issue with advertising. I'm actually not interested in that at all. What I'm interested in is companies need to behave much better about the treatment of data when it's the type of data that's being breached. And I get really emotional when it's my son, or someone else's child. Because I don't care if my bank account gets hacked. Because they hedge that. They underwrite and insure themselves and the money arrives back to my bank. But when it's my wife who donated blood and a blood donor website got breached and her details got lost. Even things like sexual preferences. That they ask questions on, is out there. My 12 year old son is out there. Nobody has the right to allow that to happen. For me, GDPR is the framework for us to focus on that. >> Dave: Lillian, is there a comment you have? >> Yeah, I think that, I think that security concerns are 100% and definitely a serious issue. Security needs to be addressed. And I think a lot of the stuff that's happening is due to, I think we need better security personnel. I think we need better people working in the security area where they're actually looking and securing. Because I don't think you can regulate I was just, I wanted to take the microphone back when you were talking about taking someone to jail. Okay, I have a background in law. And if you look at this, you guys are calling it a framework. But it's not a framework. What they're trying to do is take 4% of your business revenues per infraction. They want to say, "If a person signs up "on your email list and you didn't "like, necessarily give whatever "disclaimer that the EU said you need to give. "Per infraction, we're going to take "4% of your business revenue." That's a law, that they're trying to put into place. And you guys are talking about taking people to jail. What jail are you? EU is not a country. What jurisdiction do they have? Like, you're going to take pizza man Joe and put him in the EU jail? Is there an EU jail? Are you going to take them to a UN jail? I mean, it's just on its' face it doesn't hold up to legal tests. I don't understand how they could enforce this. >> I'd like to just answer the question on-- >> Security is a serious issue. I would be extremely upset if I were you. >> I personally know, people who work for companies who've had data breaches. And I respect them all. They're really smart people. They've got 25 plus years in security. And they are shocked that they've allowed a breach to take place. What they've invariably all agreed on is that a whole range of drivers have caused them to get to a bad practice. So then, for example, the donate blood website. The young person who was assist admin with all the right skills and all the right experience just made a basic mistake. They took a db dump of a mysql database before they upgraded their Wordpress website for the business. And they happened to leave it in a folder that was indexable by Google. And so somebody wrote a radio expression to search in Google to find sql backups. Now this person, I personally respect them. I think they're an amazing practitioner. They just made a mistake. So what does that bring us back to? It brings us back to the point that we need a safety net or a framework or whatever you want to call it. Where organizations have checks and balances no matter what they do. Whether it's an upgrade, a backup, a modification, you know. And they all think they do, but invariably we've seen from the hundreds of thousands of breaches, they don't. Now on the point of law, we could debate that all day. I mean the EU does have a remit. If I was caught speeding in Germany, as an Australian, I would be thrown into a German jail. If I got caught as an organization in France, breaching GDPR, I would be held accountable to the law in that region, by the organization pursuing me. So I think it's a bit of a misnomer saying I can't go to an EU jail. I don't disagree with you, totally, but I think it's regional. If I get a speeding fine and break the law of driving fast in EU, it's in the country, in the region, that I'm caught. And I think GDPR's going to be enforced in that same approach. >> All right folks, unfortunately the 60 minutes flew right by. And it does when you have great guests like yourselves. So thank you very much for joining this panel today. And we have an action packed day here. So we're going to cut over. The CUBE is going to have its' interview format starting in about 1/2 hour. And then we cut over to the main tent. Who's on the main tent? Dez, you're doing a main stage presentation today. Data Science is a Team Sport. Hillary Mason, has a breakout session. We also have a breakout session on GDPR and what it means for you. Are you ready for GDPR? Check out ibmgo.com. It's all free content, it's all open. You do have to sign in to see the Hillary Mason and the GDPR sessions. And we'll be back in about 1/2 hour with the CUBE. We'll be running replays all day on SiliconAngle.tv and also ibmgo.com. So thanks for watching everybody. Keep it right there, we'll be back in about 1/2 hour with the CUBE interviews. We're live from Munich, Germany, at Fast Track Your Data. This is Dave Vellante with Jim Kobielus, we'll see you shortly. (electronic music)