What you're describing about creators becoming more niche reminds me of what happened with TV in the 2000s. Cable became ubiquitous around then, which meant that mom and dad watched different TV shows from their kids, and suddenly they had different sets of people they considered "famous." (Gen X had grown up with fewer channels, so they knew all the same shows and stars as their parents, so this was a new phenomenon.)
The 2000s also saw an explosion in "reality TV," which started as participatory normie game shows like Survivor, the Bachelor, and Big Brother. But once those shows hit saturation, the networks introduced "celebrity" versions of each show. To pull this off, they had to greatly devalue the definition of "celebrity," from "universally famous superstar" to "person who had been on TV at some point in the past." If you watch a TV show even today with, say, a "panel of celebrity judges," it's quite likely you'll be meeting them for the first time on that show. We just don't have enough real celebrities.
Now that the Internet is universally accessible and anyone can be a creator, the long tail of creators is almost infinite. This means if you want to put together something with 24 creators, even the most online audience members are unlikely to know most of them, even if that thing you're putting together is serving a very tight online community of interest. Welcome to the world of universal choice. Everybody can be a celebrity, and nobody really is.
I really want to hear the debate that must be raging over at Tinder HQ about whether to introduce a new chat gpt teir.
On the one hand, people would definitely pay to use it but would they pay to listen to it?
Maybe they should just go the whole hog and turn themselves into an AI powered matchmaker. 'We've simulated six months of chat messages and can confirm that the two of you are made for each other'
I loved the war thunder entry I had no idea where that was going, and where it ended up was amazing.
I think you're right about creator clash, I just feel like these guys know they are fighting over a smaller pool of fans that are into their form of media and this will be industry standard. Guess it's more bad news for Andrew tate, who missed another clout building opportunity.
I loved the use of enshitting (and how it works) and maybe think that the overuse of ai is what causes its downfall. On the other hand the future ending up being two robots talking to each other is probably the more likely outcome. But I don't think any robot would be clever enough to name themselves @ryanpornstar
The take that Google was blindsided and under serious threat from OpenAI and ChatGPT seem pretty naive to me. Granted I fall in the “academic laughing at normies impressed by AI that can’t draw fingers” category, but Google is likely biding their time and waiting to see what their next move/response should be.
For one, they have their own chatbot that is arguably better (given it made their employee lose his mind and think the chatbot was sentient). And more importantly they have the delivery platform for such a service that people already use everyday.
If, in the future, you did a Google search and were also asked if you wanted to ask LaMDA as well, then no one would go to OpenAI’s ChatGPT page just to use it. The AI powered search engine You.com has already built in the ability to prompt a Stable Diffusion model into it’s search bar. Sure, Microsoft could build ChatGPT into Bing, but who has ever used bing...
Automating away "useless" human communication and interaction to increase efficiency, productivity, services and profits is the story of the last couple of decades. A lot of it is warranted.
It feels dystopian but I'm generally a fan of automating away all the time sucking communication "theatre". Processing cover letters is a great example. It should be automated away. It then allows us to focus more human effort on the parts of the process that actually result in value and positive outcomes.
If AI helps us identify and extract all the pointless shit we all deal with every day, I'm all for it, as it'll also then help us identify, elevate and focus on what really matters. It's not often clear what the important things are until we have enough time and space to actually properly consider them.
What you're describing about creators becoming more niche reminds me of what happened with TV in the 2000s. Cable became ubiquitous around then, which meant that mom and dad watched different TV shows from their kids, and suddenly they had different sets of people they considered "famous." (Gen X had grown up with fewer channels, so they knew all the same shows and stars as their parents, so this was a new phenomenon.)
The 2000s also saw an explosion in "reality TV," which started as participatory normie game shows like Survivor, the Bachelor, and Big Brother. But once those shows hit saturation, the networks introduced "celebrity" versions of each show. To pull this off, they had to greatly devalue the definition of "celebrity," from "universally famous superstar" to "person who had been on TV at some point in the past." If you watch a TV show even today with, say, a "panel of celebrity judges," it's quite likely you'll be meeting them for the first time on that show. We just don't have enough real celebrities.
Now that the Internet is universally accessible and anyone can be a creator, the long tail of creators is almost infinite. This means if you want to put together something with 24 creators, even the most online audience members are unlikely to know most of them, even if that thing you're putting together is serving a very tight online community of interest. Welcome to the world of universal choice. Everybody can be a celebrity, and nobody really is.
I really want to hear the debate that must be raging over at Tinder HQ about whether to introduce a new chat gpt teir.
On the one hand, people would definitely pay to use it but would they pay to listen to it?
Maybe they should just go the whole hog and turn themselves into an AI powered matchmaker. 'We've simulated six months of chat messages and can confirm that the two of you are made for each other'
I loved the war thunder entry I had no idea where that was going, and where it ended up was amazing.
I think you're right about creator clash, I just feel like these guys know they are fighting over a smaller pool of fans that are into their form of media and this will be industry standard. Guess it's more bad news for Andrew tate, who missed another clout building opportunity.
I loved the use of enshitting (and how it works) and maybe think that the overuse of ai is what causes its downfall. On the other hand the future ending up being two robots talking to each other is probably the more likely outcome. But I don't think any robot would be clever enough to name themselves @ryanpornstar
The take that Google was blindsided and under serious threat from OpenAI and ChatGPT seem pretty naive to me. Granted I fall in the “academic laughing at normies impressed by AI that can’t draw fingers” category, but Google is likely biding their time and waiting to see what their next move/response should be.
For one, they have their own chatbot that is arguably better (given it made their employee lose his mind and think the chatbot was sentient). And more importantly they have the delivery platform for such a service that people already use everyday.
If, in the future, you did a Google search and were also asked if you wanted to ask LaMDA as well, then no one would go to OpenAI’s ChatGPT page just to use it. The AI powered search engine You.com has already built in the ability to prompt a Stable Diffusion model into it’s search bar. Sure, Microsoft could build ChatGPT into Bing, but who has ever used bing...
I wouldn’t count Google out, ever.
Automating away "useless" human communication and interaction to increase efficiency, productivity, services and profits is the story of the last couple of decades. A lot of it is warranted.
It feels dystopian but I'm generally a fan of automating away all the time sucking communication "theatre". Processing cover letters is a great example. It should be automated away. It then allows us to focus more human effort on the parts of the process that actually result in value and positive outcomes.
If AI helps us identify and extract all the pointless shit we all deal with every day, I'm all for it, as it'll also then help us identify, elevate and focus on what really matters. It's not often clear what the important things are until we have enough time and space to actually properly consider them.