Iot Future Quotes

These days, elementary school students learn English and coding at school. Tomorrow's elementary school students will learn AI. AI comes before English and coding. This is because artificial intelligence is the language and tool of the future.

If we think of the relationship between software and hardware, Artificial Intelligence mainly flows from software to hardware, just as the human mind controls the body. The recognition processed by Machine Learning directs hardware and other software. On the contrary, in the Internet of Things, processing from hardware to software is the main process, and the huge amount of big data collected by sensors is analysed by software.

The era of artificial intelligence has arrived. You, who only felt far from artificial intelligence, and the growing dream trees, are now inseparable from artificial intelligence.

AI is deeply infiltrating everyone's life.

While we strive to understand the universe, the true nature of reality might be as much about the observer as the observed.

In the symphony of AI, let GPT be the rhythm, but always let human ethics be the lead.

Dive deep into AI, but always keep a lifeline tethered to human empathy.

In the dance of innovation, let AI lead the steps, but ensure humanity chooses the song.

Computer science is like learning to speak a new language, but instead of talking to people, you're talking to computers.

Just as feathers aren't needed for a plane to soar, feelings aren't required for AI to solve the world's most complex problems; it's about the logic and algorithms, not the emotions.

Artificial Intelligence is a tool, not a master. When you have clear goals, it can empower you to achieve them. But without direction, you risk becoming a servant to its evolving capabilities, rather than harnessing its power for your own advancement.

What does AI have to do with me? Isn't it a distant future that has nothing to do with me, not a scientist, a technician, or a computer programmer? Well, Artificial intelligence is not a story of someone who has nothing to do with it, but the fact is, it is now everyone's story.

As technology advances, surly the older generation will feel that they have too much to handle. Young people growing up today, on the other hand, will experience IoT as something natural. The Internet of Things will help us, humans, to a great extent, not least environmentally but also to ensure safety.

In emerging technologies, security is the biggest threat, and common standards for communication and safety are improving, which means that risks will be minimised. We can only hope that man with this technology can actually stop the destruction of our planet, make the population healthier, and create a better future for all of us.

The question is no longer whether we use technology or not; it's about working together in a better way. Surrounding technologies like Siri, Alexa, or Cortana are seamlessly integrated into our interactions. We walk into the room, turn on the lights, play songs, change the room temperature, keep track of shopping lists, book a ride at the airport, or remind you to take the right medication on time.

Not futuristic enough? What about an interspecies Internet—one that links elephants, dolphins, and great apes for “the purposes of enrichment, research, and preservation”? Though it may sound crazy, it’s already here. In Australia, for example, there are over 300 sharks on Twitter (no, they did not sign up themselves). Researchers fitted 338 sharks, including many great whites, with acoustic tags that send an electronic signal to shore-based receivers when the animals come within half a mile of the beach. For a country that has suffered more fatal shark attacks than any other, this IoT development is saving human lives, and the sharks have attracted nearly forty thousand beach-going Twitter followers as a result.

in IoT, there’s no such thing as a straightforward B-to-B or B-to-C market approach. You can have many different kinds of customers. The physical device is just an enabler. Your value lies in your IP, the usage data from your customer base, and your ability to trade information across multiple markets.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from working with all these large manufacturing companies, it’s that this shift can truly drive growth. What happened to the technology sector is going to happen to the manufacturing sector—I’m sure of it. Why? Because IoT allows you to rediscover your customers. It lets you learn what they really want. In fact, I would argue that the only true competitive advantage is your relationship with and knowledge of your customers. Think about it—what’s the first thing your competitor does when you put out a new product? It buys that product on the open market and sends it to the R&D lab, which then proceeds to dismantle it, benchmark it, and reverse-engineer it in a thousand different ways. Your competitors can’t do that with the collective intelligence of your customer base. That’s something that you, and only you, can own. It’s an incredibly powerful advantage.

IoT is about to change the world. But in order to be truly successful at it, we’re going to have to rediscover the people who are buying the things that we make.

Undoubtedly, the prominence of disabilities will be blurred in the future with the advancement in IoTs. A future where these IoTs will weave themselves into the vital components of organisms and the very human genome.

But if IOTA lost the confidence of some of the most respected cryptographers in the blockchain community, it continued to generate enthusiasm among a variety of big-name enterprises. That’s perhaps because, quite apart from how badly or otherwise it developed and managed its cryptography, the IOTA team’s economic model is enticing. If its cryptographic flaws can be fixed, the tangle idea could in theory be far less taxing and expensive in terms of computing power than Bitcoin and Ethereum’s methods, which require every computer in their massive networks of validators to process and confirm the entire list of new transactions in each new block. German engineering and electronics giant Bosch has been running a range of experiments with IOTA, including one involving payments between self-driving trucks arranged in an energy-saving linear “platoon.” The idea is that the trucks at the back that are enjoying the benefits of the slipstream would pay IOTA tokens to those at the front to compensate them for bearing the bulk of energy costs in creating that slipstream. Meanwhile, IOTA and Bosch are both part of a consortium called the Trusted IoT Alliance that’s committed to building and securing a blockchain infrastructure for the industry. Other members include Foxconn, Cisco, BNY Mellon, and a slew of blockchain-based startups, such as supply-chain provider Skuchain and Ethereum research lab ConsenSys.

Consider one scenario that some envisage in an IoT world, where a self-driving car that needs to get somewhere in a hurry can make a small payment to another self-driving car to let it pass. As discussed, you’ll need a distributed trust system to verify the integrity of the transaction, which may involve a lot more information than just that of the money transfer before it can be processed—for example, you may need to know whether the overtaking car is certified as safe to drive at the faster speed, or whether one car’s software can be trusted not to infect the other with malware. These kinds of verifications, as well as that of the fund balance in the paying car’s wallet, could be run through a blockchain log to check the validity of each side’s claims, giving each the assurances they need without having to rely on some certifying central authority. The question, though, is: would this transaction be easily processed if it were based on a private blockchain? What are the chances, in a country of more than 230 million cars, that both vehicles would belong to the same closed network run by a group of permissioned validating computers? If they weren’t part of the same network, the payment couldn’t go through as the respective software would not be interoperable. Other car manufacturers might not want to use a permissioned verification system for which, say, GM, or Ford, is the gatekeeper. And if they instead formed a consortium of carmakers to run the system, would their collective control over this all-important data network create a barrier to entry for newer, startup carmakers? Would it effectively become a competition-killing oligopoly? A truly decentralized, permissionless system could be a way around this “walled-garden” problem of siloed technology. A decentralized, permissionless system means any device can participate in the network yet still give everyone confidence in the integrity of the data, of the devices, and of the value being transacted. A permissionless system would create a much more fluid, expansive Internet of Things network that’s not beholden to the say-so and fees of powerful gatekeepers.

Even the U.S. government has shown its interest in this field, with the Department of Homeland Security awarding blockchain infrastructure builder Factom a $199,000 grant to develop an IoT security solution. It’s a small number by ICO fund-raising standards but a noteworthy vote of confidence in blockchain technology from a government agency. Factom’s model would create an identity log of data emitted by a device, including its unique identifier, its manufacturer, its update history, its known security issues, and its granted authorities. The idea is that if a device’s history of performance, permissions, and certification is recorded in an immutable ledger, hackers can’t alter the record to disguise a flaw they’ve exploited. It’s not clear how much oversight the U.S. government would have over the system. Context Labs in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is doing similar work to achieve what it calls “data veracity.” In various industries, it is pulling together consortia of interested parties to agree on open-data standards for APIs (application processing interfaces) that would allow parties to share data stamped with unique cryptographic hashes that provably identify the device and its owner.

The Internet was originally built on trust,” write the authors of the IBM paper, Veena Pureswaran and Paul Brody. “In the post-Snowden era, it is evident that trust in the Internet is over. The notion of IoT solutions built as centralized systems with trusted partners is now something of a fantasy.” Pureswaran and Brody argue that the blockchain offers the only way to build the Internet of Things to scale while ensuring that no one entity has control over it. A blockchain-based system becomes the Internet of Things’ immutable seal. In an environment where so many machine-to-machine exchanges become transactions of value, we will need a blockchain in order for each device’s owner to trust the others. Once this decentralized trust structure is in place, it opens up a world of new possibilities. Consider this futuristic example: Imagine you drive your electric Tesla car to a small rural town to take a hike in the mountains for the day. When you return you realize you don’t have enough juice in your car and the nearest Tesla Supercharger station is too far away. Well, in a sharing economy enabled by blockchains, you would have nothing to fear. You could just drive up to any house that advertises that it lets drivers plug into an outlet and buy power from it. You could pay for it all with cryptocurrency over a high-volume payments system, such as the Lightning Network, and the tokens would be deducted from your car’s own digital wallet and transferred to the wallet of the house’s electric meter. You have no idea who owns this house, whether they can be trusted not to rip you off, or whether they’re the sort of people who might install some kind of malware into your car’s computer to rob its digital-currency wallet.

Here’s a compelling quote from Scott Pezza of Blue Hill Research on the topic: If you currently sell products that collect some sort of data (or could be retrofitted to do so) and there is someone out in the world who would find that data valuable, IoT is a new revenue source for you. If you sell physical products that degrade or need to be serviced, IoT means you can offer remote monitoring services, or preventative maintenance services—new revenue streams. In the alternative, you can increase the attractiveness (and value) of those products by giving customers the ability to conduct that monitoring and maintenance themselves. If you sell services that could be expanded if you only had access to more data, it’s new money. And if you sell technology to help sense conditions, facilitate secure communications, conduct analysis, manage service provisioning and billing, or forecast and plan revenue—this market is going to need you.

Understanding what 4IR is all about will help put into perspective how some of the world’s most cutting-edge technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Blockchain, IoT, AR, 3D Printing and many others will impact your own life.

Michaela Jamelska is a tech entrepreneur, Nova founder, human rights advocate, and human rights delegate to the United Nations. She is highly involved in technology and human rights projects from the early stage of her professional career. Working in the deep-tech industry with a focus on smart cities, autonomous solutions, and IoT. She is always interested in innovation that can make a positive impact on today and future society. She believes innovation can be a driver for a better change if used in the right way and spent past years engaging in the intersection of technology, human rights, and positive global development.