Have been more preoccupied with technology than I expected over the last two weeks. Innovation Watch has now moved to a faster server, and the site was down for a week as we worked out the kinks. Thanks for your patience. Things should get back on track this week as we pick up the threads.

I've been fascinated with the idea of artificial intelligence since I first read Edward Feigenbaum's book Computers and Thought many years ago. Of course, in the early days, AI was all about clever programming. Computers applied heuristics to solving problems, exhaustively explored a 'mental map' of possible options, and made a choice after evaluating all of the consequences. The strategy of a chess-playing machine was to look ahead at all of the possible moves, but it was only as good as the heuristics created by a human programmer.

Artificial intelligence was soon embodied in robots that faced the challenge of vision and movement. Early robots moved by creating detailed models of the space they inhabited, and used heuristics to get around. Then along came Rodney Brooks. A robotics pioneer at MIT, Brooks challenged the prevailing wisdom with a contrary view. Instead of building elaborate mental models, he said, robots needed only simple reflexes to get around. Insects did just fine at that, without complex intelligence.

Perhaps five years ago -- I can't remember exactly -- I read a Globe and Mail article about Stephen Thaler. A former scientist with McDonnell Douglas, he had developed and patented a machine -- he called it the Creativity Machine -- that was capable of real invention. The machine itself held a number of US patents. It composed music, helped with automobile and aircraft design, and 'brainstormed' new consumer products. The cross-action toothbrush was just one example. When the Creativity Machine was connected to a robot, the robot learned in just seconds how to move.

Thaler's approach to artificial intelligence closely parallels the behavior of the human brain -- with profound consequences. The Creativity Machine can take on problems in almost any field, Thaler says, and could even be at the heart of an intelligent Internet. It's clear that artificial intelligence has moved far beyond its origins, and it's much more intriguing now.

Stephen Thaler recently made a video about his invention, and I've posted a link to it here.

A few years ago I listened to a talk by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and subsequently the Earth Policy Institute. He was talking about China. The country had an insatiable appetite, he said, that was already driving up the price of cement, steel, and other commodities. One billion times anything, he said, is a big number.

Brown commented on the growing drought in northern China, where the water table was falling dramatically every year. Declining crop yields would send China into world markets to make up the shortfall, he said, and the difference would be more than Canada's annual grain production. World food prices would inevitably rise. This scenario has since been compounded by drought in other countries and the diversion of food crops into the creation of biofuels. Speculation in food commodities has further driven up prices.

Recent food riots in Haiti bear witness to a dramatic global change. The World Bank now forecasts that more than 30 nations will experience social unrest due to the rising cost of food.

Many global resources are being depleted, climate change is deepening global drought, and world population is projected to reach nine billion by 2050. We will compete more and more for scarce resources, and we'll pay more for everything -- including commodities we previously took for granted. Nine billion times anything is a big number.

Michael Raynor, a distinguished fellow with Deloitte Research in Boston and adjunct professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ontario, published a landmark book last year -- The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure (and What to Do About It). He talks about the tension between commitment and uncertainty in developing strategy, in a world that is now being buffeted by relentless change. We must deal with both, Raynor says. Uncertainty should be the concern of senior executives, while operating management deals with commitment and strategy execution.

It is how Raynor proposes to deal with uncertainty that is so interesting. We need multiple strategies, he says, to hedge for the eventuality that the expected future may not in fact come true. Core strategy sets direction that is robust in any eventuality. Contingent strategy positions an organization to deal with a number of alternative future scenarios. The art is in preserving flexibility, and not betting the organization's future on single strategic path that is cast in stone. Raynor gives many examples of good strategies gone wrong.

There is no doubt we need new tools in our strategy toolbox. No organization can develop effective strategy today without thinking much harder about alternative futures.

Could synthetic biology help to solve some of our most pressing problems? Craig Venter sees a cell stripped of its DNA as a hardware platform that can run other software. DNA manufactured in the lab can be inserted into the cell, which can then be rebooted to perform other functions. The new program -- and therefore the cell itself -- can be optimized for a particular role. Venter says his team is currently working on synthetic life forms that will turn carbon dioxide into energy, helping to address the global climate change crisis. His modest goal is to replace the petrochemical industry.

By mapping the genomes of diverse species, Venter says, we can see how the DNA code works, and select and combine snippets of code that perform desired functions. The synthetic cell could include useful characteristics borrowed from multiple species.

This is clearly a wildcard that could change everything -- full at the same time of promise and potential peril.

There are many unanswered questions. Can we prevent synthetic cells from escaping and multiplying in the wild? And, while Craig Venter's motives may be well-intentioned, what about black hat scientists who could apply these techniques to more nefarious ends? This is extraordinary science that takes us down the path to an unknown future.

Video clips can now be accessed either through the multimedia clips section, or directly at "Eye on the Future." I've posted the link to the first video today... commentary from Sylvia Lee of the World Economic Forum on growing concerns about global food security.

I hope to have some new features running on the website soon. An enhanced multimedia section will include video clips highlighting significant news items, breakthrough innovations, and emerging trends. We will also open an online forum where site members can join in a community-wide conversation about change, innovation and the future. I plan to start podcasting later in the year, once these new sections of the website are running smoothly.

Well here goes... I've decided to resurrect the old "Connections" column -- first written for the Alberta-based Alliance for Capitalizing on Change eight years ago -- as a blog. Like the original "Connections," it will focus on emerging trends and innovations and act as an early warning system for accelerating change. Because it's a blog, I'll be able to react in a much more timely way to materials posted on the rest of the website. I'm looking forward to this new, and much more direct conversation!