On November 30, 2022–one year ago yesterday–ChatGPT was launched. I started using it about a week after launch and was blown away. For me, it was similar to when I first used the internet for the first time back in 1995.
Yet, here we are a year later, ChatGPT hasn’t really changed my life. Sure, I use it (or its competitors) as a tool here and there (e.g., Claude.ai wrote the title to this IFOD for me), but for me, it hasn’t been a life-changing technology like the internet or smartphones have been. But to be fair, the internet didn’t immediately change my life either — its effect on my life built gradually.
This is how it always goes with new technology and is captured by something called Amara’s Law, which states:
Amara’s Law: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”
Amara’s Law is similar to the Gartner Hype Cycle, which is a graphical representation of the maturity, adoption, and social application of specific technologies. Here it is:
Examples of this concept abound.
The Internet
William Gibson’s terrific 1984 novel Neuromancer foresaw a world of “cyberspace.” A decade later, his vision was rolled out to the masses as “the internet.” Yet, for a decade or so, the internet didn’t have a big effect on the economy — it was more of a sideshow. In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said, “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s. As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.”
The internet’s effect on commerce, the economy, and productivity took time to build.
The Personal Computer
Mainframe computers had been used in business for decades before the launch of the personal computer in the 1970s. At first, the concept of having a computer in your home was exciting, but for most people, having an early personal computer wasn’t life-changing. There were limited applications of what the personal computer could do for you. In 1977, the CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation, a leading maker of mainframe computers, said, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Of course, personal computers are ubiquitous now, and we even carry them in our pockets.
Human Genome Project and CRISPR
In an incredible feat of science and collaboration in 2003, the Human Genome Project produced a genome sequence that accounted for over 90% of the human genome. This accomplishment was rightfully met with great fanfare and predictions of eradicating many diseases and the advent of personalized/precision medicine. Bill Clinton announced, “It is now conceivable that our children’s children will know the term cancer only as a constellation of stars.” IFOD on mapping the Human Genome.
A decade later, CRISPR gene editing technology was discovered, ushering in the promise of editing heredity diseases from our DNA and other medical breakthroughs. Here’s an IFOD on CRISPR technology.
While mapping the genome and CRISPR have led to important medical discoveries and therapies, their short-term promise was overhyped, and the real benefits are building over time.
The Amara’s Law Mental Model
Other breakthrough technologies that were overhyped include blockchain/crypto, 3D printing, EVs, and autonomous vehicles. Amara’s Law provides us with a mental model of thinking about these new technologies:
- Early on, it behooves us not to get caught up in the hype.
- When the new technology fails to be life-changing, we shouldn’t dismiss it as irrelevant but instead appreciate that it may have a bigger effect over the longer term than we can imagine.
Interestingly, at a recent meeting of the Santa Fe Institute the tech, information, and computational gurus were distributed along a line from existential threat to human life to palpable excitement. So reality is likely somewhere in between (smile). In truth it is already changing lives — students and faculty are figuring out how to use these tools to enhance learning rather than undermine it, scientific journals are figuring out what it means for publication, communication professionals are terrified (ChatGPT can probably write a pretty good university strategic plan or a downtown reviatilzation manifesto), and… self written wedding vows might actually improve!
So, many of these “short sighted” comments are simply true at the time they were said, and not meant to mean “ever.”
The CEO who said in 1977, “There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home” was correct for the time he said it, meaning there was little practical value at the time. If he had said “ever”, then he would have been wrong.
On the other hand, Krugman was just plain wrong.
I wonder how Bard compares to ChatGPT? I try the same prompts out in both and find Bard superior. I was blown away by the cover letter for a resume Bard produced by looking at an old cover letter and a list of present responsibilities. I find Bard pinpoints an answer in one paragraph as opposed to looking at pages of sites that the same question would give in a Google search. It is sometimes extraordinary, fun, and gives nuances to word look ups better than dictionaries.