Last week I was on a panel for the World Talent Economy Forum to talk about building consensus in the metaverse. While this virtual world has potential, it is nowhere near ready to replace tools like Zoom or in-person meetings. In fact, it falls short of today’s options in an important way: because it relies on avatars, there is a higher risk of stolen identities and fraud.
Generally speaking, when building consensus, people like to look each other in the eye and use body language and personality to get others to agree. That’s true on video calls and in person. Even then, the tallest (or best-connected) person in a meeting—not the most knowledgeable or skilled—wins the day.
But what if a combination of blockchain (for security) and artificial intelligence (for better decisions) could be added to the mix? Then the metaverse—or even Zoom calls—can be transformed into far more effective tools, more effective even than meeting in person.
Let me explain.
Blockchain and identity
One problem with any type of external collaboration is being sure that the person you are working with is who they say they are. Whether it involves industrial or political espionage, outright fraud or just an impressive prank, how can you be sure that the person you are communicating with remotely is genuine?
Originally used as a distributed ledger for cryptocurrency transactions (many of which were illegal), blockchain could be used to verify the person you are working with. It uses trusted third-party sources to validate identities collectively, and while it may be possible to fool it for a very short period of time, it’s unlikely that anyone could do so on an extended basis – potentially making communication and collaboration far safer and more secure.
AI for better decisions
If, like me, you attend many collaborative meetings where consensus is required, you’ve probably noticed that the most influential (or loudest) voice in the room usually drives the decision. That’s because of a concept called “argumentative theory.” It suggests that people are genetically predisposed to want to win arguments more than find the right way forward. In other words, it is more important to win an argument than to do the right thing.
I’ve been in meetings where people who knew I was right argued – just to make sure I didn’t win an argument. But winning arguments shouldn’t be as important as making the right decision.
For example, when I worked as a competitive analyst at Siemens, we were regularly visited by Siemens PhDs who literally screamed at us and told us we were idiots. In the last round, we dealt with three such leaders in a matter of strategic direction; after we won the debate, they disbanded us, did what they wanted to do – and the partition failed, just as we had predicted. It cost the company billions of dollars, but getting rid of people who disagreed with them was more important than ensuring success.
But what if you could use AI during such discussions to rank the people at the table based on their experience, knowledge of the subject, a history of being right or wrong, and understanding of the device’s capabilities? This data can be used to rank opinions – regardless of position, volume, mismatched skills or business connections.
AI can then be used to send the issue to those most qualified to answer it, ensuring they have the highest voice. That doesn’t mean that others can’t be heard, but it will ensure that the least qualified no longer override in the best position to make a smart decision.
With blockchain verification in the metaverse, and AI assistants in the real world, technology can ensure collaboration has the best chance of success. Instead of worrying about deep fake “colleagues” or loud knowledge, people can work together towards the best solutions at hand.
