The .com craze was a gold rush to a land with proven reserves. It was clear there was a huge opportunity to get rich. The question was which companies would find the right approach and succeed. Amazon lived, other retailers like Pets.com didn’t. Kozmo and Webvan failed but their general business ideas later succeeded at other companies. And so on.
AI feels more like a gold rush based on rumors and hype. It isn’t clear (at least to me) that a market opportunity exists to justify the massive spending going on.
Tying into this, I feel like in the late-’90s/early-’00s there were a lot of people using the internet every day and some of the benefits and potential were already obvious. Office jobs were extensively starting to use email already and many people at home were checking email at least once a day and looking at online news. E-commerce was basically an improved mail-order catalog, but the improved selection, availability, and prices really were an improvement. Instant communication was an immediate benefit and digital media was showing obvious promise.
I don’t feel like I see nearly the same widespread use of “AI” today. Some of the things that are getting big money don’t really seem like they have a lot of practical application. I don’t think many people have a daily need to generate images or videos. A lot of the things that seem more promising, like improved translation or voice to text, also might not be very profitable, as in people probably won’t want to pay much for them, and they definitely won’t be unless the astronomical resource costs currently projected come way down.
I think where they’re very similar is there are a lot of companies rushing to slap the craze into their business, transform the business for the craze, or create a new business capitalizing on the craze, whether or not it actually makes sense to do so and whether or not the technology is actually useful for the stated purpose yet.
The .com craze was a gold rush to a land with proven reserves. It was clear there was a huge opportunity to get rich. The question was which companies would find the right approach and succeed. Amazon lived, other retailers like Pets.com didn’t. Kozmo and Webvan failed but their general business ideas later succeeded at other companies. And so on.
AI feels more like a gold rush based on rumors and hype. It isn’t clear (at least to me) that a market opportunity exists to justify the massive spending going on.
Tying into this, I feel like in the late-’90s/early-’00s there were a lot of people using the internet every day and some of the benefits and potential were already obvious. Office jobs were extensively starting to use email already and many people at home were checking email at least once a day and looking at online news. E-commerce was basically an improved mail-order catalog, but the improved selection, availability, and prices really were an improvement. Instant communication was an immediate benefit and digital media was showing obvious promise.
I don’t feel like I see nearly the same widespread use of “AI” today. Some of the things that are getting big money don’t really seem like they have a lot of practical application. I don’t think many people have a daily need to generate images or videos. A lot of the things that seem more promising, like improved translation or voice to text, also might not be very profitable, as in people probably won’t want to pay much for them, and they definitely won’t be unless the astronomical resource costs currently projected come way down.
I think where they’re very similar is there are a lot of companies rushing to slap the craze into their business, transform the business for the craze, or create a new business capitalizing on the craze, whether or not it actually makes sense to do so and whether or not the technology is actually useful for the stated purpose yet.