Yesterday, while writing and editing a report for one of our clients, I used ChatGPT for two different use cases. One use case was to ask for a summarization of what “firmware” is and how critical it is. The second use case is to define the pillars of a data management and governance policy in the enterprise. On that one, I asked for more details about managing unstructured data. The ChatGPT results were mind-blowing. I know a lot about this specific IT field, and I could validate the correctness of the answers. I saved a lot of time because of ChatGPT.

But what about my ethics?

Should I write a disclaimer in this report that says GenAI was used to put together some portions of this report? Is the client ready and mature enough to read this disclaimer? Will he understand that ChatGPT is in fact like an assistant to whom I asked to summarize what a data governance policy is? How do I cite my sources?

Microsoft supports the Apple Vision Pro headset with Office 365 Suite, Teams and Copilot. At least five apps, on day one, for a use case (productivity) still to be demonstrated as viable. For the most probable day-one use case of the Apple Vision Pro, Netflix refuses to create a single app, a “simple” video library browser and player. WTF? Politics. 😑

Avoiding Vendors Lock-in

The notion of “avoiding vendors lock-in” in information technology is interesting. I would argue that it’s impossible to completely be without some sort of vendor lock-in1. At some point, there is always a required commitment level. You commit to open-source software. You commit to a cloud vendor. You commit to a platform. I often give the example of a company building an application internally with a team of developers. In that scenario, the company is committing to something: the application, the data tied to it and its operational model. Applications are hard to replace in many environments. When you decide to invest in software development, you commit to the end product for many years, if not decades, until the organization decides it’s time to transform the application into something else2. There is this concept of “security by design” and of “portable by design,” which should apply to any technical or application architecture. The rest is marketing nonsense.

  1. I do understand data portability concepts and loose coupling principles, though. ↩︎

  2. When it’s time to adopt new architecture paradigms like the cloud is imposing. ↩︎

This morning, at work, I had the idea of creating a GPT that would act as a virtual resume for me. Colleagues would prompt this GPT about my professional journey with usual questions about my past experience, projects, certifications, abilities, etc. I uploaded a few files, including my resume and some other professional stuff, to try it out. It took me 15 minutes to create this virtual representation of myself. Tested many prompts against it. I’m blown away. The future is here, ladies and gentlemen.

Is GenAI a Product or a Feature?

Just like Steve Jobs once said that Dropbox is not a product but a feature, I wonder if the way we consume GenAI today makes it look like a product, but it’s actually a feature. Don’t get me wrong, GenAI is utterly important and a game changer, but I feel that in the future, there will be something bigger that will encompass GenAI that will actually be THE product.

Thought of the day: 500 years from now, when someone discovers a piece of plastic with a QRCode on it, intact and readable, I wonder what they will think of it and if they’ll try to “decode” the thing.