Information Ninja

My guest? @RobTiffany. The topic? The value of digital twins to model machines, processes and businesses. Mistakes are mine. Not Rob’s. P.S. The goal of #AIChat? To help you cut through the artificial intelligence noise.

** 10 min until #AIChat. Join me from 2PM ET to 2:30PM ET My guest? @RobTiffany. The topic? The value of digital twins to model machines, processes and #business P.S. This is a 30 minute #AIChat. P.P.S. A S/O to @vfiorese_ for suggesting @RobTiffany as an #AIChat guest. ** pic.twitter.com/TtsZHNs5RJ

— Nick Tang (@nickhtang) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Twitter Universe.

Welcome @RobTiffany!

It’s a 30 minute #AIChat.

Let’s hit the ground running.

Here’s Q1) Can you define what’s a digital twin? #AIChat

— Nick Tang (@nickhtang) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1: In it’s simplest form, a digital twin is a digital representation of a physical object. This could be a machine, a person, or even a process. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1.1: For some history, digital twins were originally created by NASA to have high-fidelity models of spacecraft for design and troubleshooting. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1 follow-up. Is there such a thing as a wrong #digital #twin #AIChat?

— Nick Tang (@nickhtang) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1.2 A digital twin can be wrong and therefore deliver bad results if it’s properties or attributes don’t match the physical object precisely. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Q 1.3 Can a digital twin be more observable than the object it represents and does that make it less than a twin? #aichat

— spara (@spara) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1.3: Digital twins tell the story of the machine #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Still in use. DART https://t.co/n6IdVbRUg7 #aichat

— spara (@spara) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A1.4: Since a #DigitalTwin can carry more measured and calculated data than the physical object, I think it makes it a super twin. In a well-functioning system, the twins will drive all your operations. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It does, but it makes it seem that the digital twin is the system controller. #aichat

— spara (@spara) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here’s Q2 for @RobTiffany (it’ll help you with his definition of #digital twin in Q1)

How does a digital twin link to model machines, processes and business? #AIChat

— Nick Tang (@nickhtang) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2: For starters, I believe that #digitaltwins should be at the heart of any #IoT system since you can’t understand the telemetry #data being collected without modeling the schema or shape of the object producing the data to provide context. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2.1: When physical machines and people are connected to an #IoT system via a #digital thread of near real-time data, the digital twin is brought to life. You can see the latest state of the physical object as well as its history by viewing the digital twins. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2.2: Beyond being a mirror of physical objects, digital twins can also carry rules, KPIs and #Analytics with them that are triggered when new #data arrives. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2.3: The #DigitalTwin can map measure values to sensors from a physical object but it can also contain virtual or calculated values that are derived dynamically. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A digital twin does a great job of properly organizing the data relevant to a physical object which makes it easier for advanced analytics, #MachineLearning, and #DeepLearning to do their thing. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2.4: The more #data your #DigitalTwins accumulate, the better the results will be from #AI. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A2.5: Classes of machines that are the same as each other can be improved when the #digitaltwin of one machine solves a problem that can be shared across a fleet. #aichat

— Rob Tiffany 🇺🇸 (@RobTiffany) January 10, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is the first unofficial #AIChat for 2019.

#AIChat is a Twitter chat that helps you demystify artificial intelligence.

This topic?

Started by @JBarbosaPR.

Should #AI and #robots pay taxes? Mistakes are mine. Not @JBarbosaPR

There has to be a clear intent to make #AI & #Robots pay taxes . Beware, To the masses its a farfetched idea, but the implications of NOT addressing it are unnerving. #society #jobs #taxes #AI #unemployment #disruption @MiaD @nickhtang pic.twitter.com/5TlZuV3B1z

— Jan Barbosa 🐝 (@JBarbosaPR) January 3, 2019

we don’t tax the tools we use to make products,
and AI and Robots are just tools, nothing too tax,
the product that is sold is what should be taxed.

— Stanley Waite (@stanleywaite1) January 3, 2019

Taxing robots is crazy and impractical. Should we tax washing machines? How about software? Can you even define the robots that would be taxed?

— Peter Harris (@2peterharris) January 3, 2019

Well #robotics / #AI could wipe out entire departments and make many blue collar jobs obsolete. How many could be trained ? I gave training overseas to a dept changing from paper to digital and a few people just quit their jobs the first day as jobs dry up who pay the tax?

— Jan Barbosa 🐝 (@JBarbosaPR) January 3, 2019

Noting there is a problem is not the same thing as having a good solution. It may be that technology will affect jobs, but taxing robots is not the answer. Software will displace more people than robotic machines, by far.

— Peter Harris (@2peterharris) January 3, 2019

Feel #AI is seen more as a cost cutting tool than a job empowering tool. Already soaring GNP is not representative of economic state of a country as workplace is doing more with less workers and far less salaries.

— Jan Barbosa 🐝 (@JBarbosaPR) January 3, 2019

Cost reduction and productivity improvement are the same thing… In any case, if you propose taxing robots, you first need to define robot, which I submit will be a hard thing to do.

— Peter Harris (@2peterharris) January 3, 2019

Agree, and I get its not in the mind of #techs to implant taxes / use of tech politics. But same for #CRISPR , #AI use, or Job Cutting #tech it will finally rest in the hands of politicians / society / economist to decide possibly never the techs. Great idea for #AICHAT 🤔

— Jan Barbosa 🐝 (@JBarbosaPR) January 3, 2019

Most of it rests in the hands of the developer as they can hold or launch a disruption which usually is far ahead of what Gov is ready for🌐🤔 #AIChat

— BrainBlender🤔🌐 (@BrainBlenderTec) January 3, 2019

Value creation that is not done by human beings needs to pay for the viable marketplace of consumers, who cannot consume if value creation is done by robots. Only in totally insane world do you have robots created to buy stuff they have no idea why there were programmed to buy.

— CityVP Manjit (@CityVP) January 4, 2019

Corporations have Personhood , yet their personhood allows far more flexibility than ours. In a globalized world corporate personhood can move freely between states and achieve perks as tax benefits than humans cant. Then why not #AI / robots fall under same rules ? #ethics #AI

— Jan Barbosa 🐝 (@JBarbosaPR) January 4, 2019

I don’t believe that corporations are people but if you can get 5 votes to swing your way on the Supreme Court – all bets are off. The 1% are not robots, they are living flesh and blood people who need robots to squeeze the next bit of green juice from their plutocratic economy.

— CityVP Manjit (@CityVP) January 5, 2019

Thank you for raising an important, largely overlooked issue: “Why we should start taxing the robots that are taking human jobs (How #automation helps tax avoidance)” via @TC_Africa https://t.co/Z7xmAWNw5D #4IR #AI #Robotics

— Glen Gilmore 🚀 #MWC19 (@GlenGilmore) January 4, 2019

i fully disagree with the idea of taxing the robots…
there has been no problem for decades with the robots that have been used in the car industry, workers have all found new jobs to do and cars became cheaper or better for the same price, more sales generated more tax gained.

— Stanley Waite (@stanleywaite1) January 4, 2019

What Jan is proposing isn’t all that far-fetched. Appliances like washing machines are already taxed and so are software, services, etc. We will need to rethink the tax code to accommodate this new category of “robot service providers”.

— Mia Dand (@MiaD) January 3, 2019

Then what you are likely proposing is something more like a broad tax on capital assets, including software. Remember, a machine tool is just another automated worker. But, taxing sources of productivity enhancement is generally bad economics..

— Peter Harris (@2peterharris) January 3, 2019

Our current tax code isn’t adequate to cover the variety of form factors that robots/AI may take in future. Will need input from tech, law makers, accountants, AI ethicists etc. to come up with a solid taxation model. Either way, good discussion! Thanks all!

— Mia Dand (@MiaD) January 3, 2019

This article is discusses the problems that are not solved with taxing robot / AI owners. It is about more than the universal income. https://t.co/xRm9qpECRy

— Kevin K. Conroy (@KevinKConroy) January 3, 2019