I really do not see how this is sustainable? Not that crazy valuations and circular funding announcements. I’m talking about the value misalignment that seems so clear to me and others between the artists and the engineers.
A few months ago, I drafted a piece that tried to predict what the Jony I’ve designed, Open AI hardware device would and wouldn’t be.
My guess was that it whatever it is, it won’t have a screen and it won’t be a wearable.
It won’t have a screen because, at least for now, Open AI aren’t going to try and replace your phone. That would be a step too far. I’m sure they think they will eventually try and replace iPhone, but step one is just to get you carrying a microphone and camera around.
It’s a technical requirement for them. It’s core to their business. To fulfil their vision, they must know more about you. They must know more than anyone else. And the only way to know more about your than say a Google or Apple is to become an operating system (like Android or iOS).
You can try and do this by owning a browser, but those are going to be hard to displace.
It might be easier to create hardware that people want and introducing a new operating system.
GPS, microphone, camera, etc. and you put yourself in a position that only Apple and Google are in today.
But how do you convince people to start carrying around a new device?
Lots of people have been trying. Rabbit, Humane, more recently, Friend. All met with poor consumer enthusiasm.
I remember when Apple launched the Watch how much of a big deal Ive’s made about it. This was different. This was unlike any product that Apple had made before and for one reason only.
You had to wear it.
Clothing is such an important way in which we express ourselves. Whether you think you care about clothing or not, we all get dressed.
And Ive’s knew that if the Apple Watch was going to be a success, it must be beautiful and cool and the kind of thing that not just tech nerds will wear.
People aren’t going to wear another watch or a pin. But they might carry something around with them. Especially when they are sold the idea that without it, they are falling behind.
You will be the lest productive person in the room without your Open AI companion.
That’ll be the pitch.
But to achieve this, we are going to have to agree to be surveilled and monitored and recorded, everywhere we go.
And I think for a lot of people, for most people, this will be a line that we do not want to cross.
We are fast approaching this line. It’s the line that exists between the Objective and the Subjective.
Many people are happy with AI when it does maths for them or answers questions about the universe faster and easier than Google.
We’re even happy when it summarises our meeting notes for us.
But we just saw NY destroy an advertising campaign promoting Friend.com which claims to become your new best friend.
Altman just announced the relaxing of rules around Open AI for adults that will allow for more friend like interactions, including erotica.
We are sprinting into the subjective world, one where engineers believe they will be able to replicate human interaction, while artists (or at least the ones I’ve spoke too) don’t want or need and AI company to be playing around.
There are edges. Or there should be. Unfortunately, I think we will only know where they are when they are crossed.
I’m sure when Ive was pitched the partnership, he really did believe this is the next wave of technology. And he is probably right about that.
But how is Ive, an artists first, going to feel when he realises that his new boss is asking him to create a product that is capable of far more harm than the iPhone ever did.
He’s expressed regret in the past about his role in bringing the iPhone to life (re: the ad’s it serves).
When push comes to shove, I just can’t imagine that Ive and Altman will see eye to eye about the future of human <> computer interaction.