> Even with evidence staring them in the face, carriage companies still did not pivot, assuming cars were a fad.
I like this quote. But this analogy doesn’t exactly work. Withe this hype cycle, CEOs are getting out and saying that AI will replace humans, not horses. Unlike previous artisans making carriages, the CEOs saying these things have very clear motivations to make you believe the hype.
Moreover, there was at least one company which did pivot --- the Chevy Malibu station wagon my family owned in the mid-70s had a badge on the door openings:
>Body by Fisher
which had an image of the carriages which they had previously made.
Let us see how this will age. The current generation of AI models will turn out to be essentially a dead end. I have no doubt that AI will eventually fundamentally change a lot of things, but it will not be large language models [1]. And I think there is no path of gradual improvement, we still need some fundamental new ideas. Integration with external tools will help but not overcome fundamental limitations. Once the hype is over, I think large language models will have a place as simpler and more accessible user interface just like graphical user interfaces displaced a lot of text based interfaces and they will be a powerful tool for language processing that is hard or impossible to do with more traditional tools like statistical analysis and so on.
[1] Large language models may become an important component in whatever comes next, but I think we still need a component that can do proper reasoning and has proper memory not susceptible to hallucinating facts.
I like Steve's content, but the ending misses the mark.
With the carriage / car situation, individual transportation is their core business, and most companies are not in the field of Artificial Intelligence.
I say this as someone who has worked for 7 years implementing AI research for production, from automated hardware testing to accessibility for nonverbals: I don't think founders need to obsess even more than they do now about implementing AI, especially in the front end.
This AI hype cycle is missing the mark by building ChatGPT-like bots and buttons with sparkles that perform single OpenAI API calls. AI applications are not a new thing, they have always been here, now they are just more accessible.
The best AI applications are beneath the surface to empower users, Jeff Bezos says that (in 2016!)[1]. You don't see AI as a chatbot in Amazon, you see it for "demand forecasting, product search ranking, product and deals recommendations, merchandising placements, fraud detection, translations."
I wonder if there is something noteworthy about Studebacker - yes, they were the only carriage maker out of 4000 to start making cars, and therefore the CEO "knew better" than the other ones.
But then again, Studebacker was the single largest carriage maker and a military contractor for the Union - in other words they were big and "wealthy" enough to consider the "painful transformation" as the article puts it.
How many of the 3999 companies that didn't acutally had any capacity to do so?
Is it really a lesson in divining the future, or more survivorship bias?
I've listened to so many CEOs in various industries (not just tech) salivating at the potential ability to cutout the software engineering middle man to make their ideas come to life (from PMs, to Engineers, to Managers, etc.). They truly believe the AI revolution is going to make them god's gift to the world.
I on the other hand, see the exact opposite happening. AI is going to make people even more useful, with significant productivity gains, in actuality creating MORE WORK for humans and machines alike to do.
Leaders who embrace this approach are going to be the winners. Leaders who continue to follow the hype will be the losers, although there will probably be some scam artists who are winners in the short term who are riding the hype cycle just like crypto.
Enjoyed the history, but don't get the premise. Has any tech been watched more closely or adopted faster by incumbents?
> The first cars were expensive, unreliable, and slow
We can say the same about the AI features being added to every SaaS product right now. Productization will take a while, but people will figure out where LLMs add value soon enough.
For the most part, winning startups look like new categories rather than those beating an incumbent. Very different than SaaS winners.
>In each of the three companies that survived, it was the founders, not hired CEOs that drove the transition.
This is how VCs destroy businesses by bring in adult supervision. CEOs are not incentivized to play the long game.
The difference between the mobility & transportation industry, whether it by carriage and horse, or motor car, was that it was in demand by 99% of the population. AI, on the other hand, is only demanded by say 5%-10% of the population. How many people truly want an AI fridge or dishwasher? They just want fresh food and clean dishes.
I don't know if the problems at the company that I worked for, came from the CEO, or many of the powerful General Managers.
At my company, "General Manager" positions were the ones that actually set much of the planning priorities. Many of them, eventually got promoted to VP, and even, in the case of my former boss, the Chairman of the Board.
When the iPhone came out, one of my employees got one (the first version). I asked to borrow it, and took it to our Marketing department. I said "This is gonna be trouble for us."
I was laughed out of the room. They were following the strategy set down from the General Managers, which involved a lot of sneering at the competition.
The iPhone (and the various Android devices that accompanied it), ate my company for breakfast, and picked their teeth with our ribs.
A couple of the GMs actually anticipated the issues, but they were similarly laughed out of their rooms.
I saw the same thing happen to Kodak (the ones that actually invented digital photography), with an earlier disruption. I was at a conference, hosted by Kodak, and talked to a bunch of their digital engineers and Marketing folks.
They all had the same story: They were being deliberately kneecapped by the film people (with the direct support of the C-Suite).
At that time, I knew they were "Dead Man Walking." That was in 1996 or so.
An interesting aspect that doesn't seem captured by TFA and similar articles is that it is not a specific kind of business that is being disrupted, but rather an entire genre of labor on which they all rely to varying extents: knowledge work. Furthermore, "knowledge work" is a very broad term that encompasses an extremely broad variety of skillsets (engineering, HR, sales, legal, medical...) And knowledge workers are indeed being rapidly disrupted by GenAI.
This is an interesting phenomenon that probably has no historical equivalent and hence may not have been fully contemplated in any literature, and so comparisons like TFA fall short of capturing the full implications.
Whether these companies see themselves an AI company seems orthogonal to the fact that they should acknowledge this sea-change and adapt. However, currently all industries seem to be thinking they should be an "AI company" and are responding by trying to stuff AI into any product they can. Maybe the urgency for them to adapt should be based on the degree to which knowledge work is critical to their business.
This kind of article has to be a subgenre of business writing.
Why didn't all the carriage makers (400+) become Ford, General Motors and Chrysler?
Why didn't hundreds of catalogue sales companies become Amazon?
Why didn't hundreds of local city taxi services become Uber and Lyfe.
Hint: there's hundreds on one side of these questions and a handful on the other.
Beyond the point that a future market doesn't necessary have space for present players, the "Oo, look how foolish, they missed the next wave" articles miss the point that present businesses exist to make money in the present and generally do so. If you're horseshoe maker, you may know your days are numbered but you have equipment and you're making money. Liquidating to jump into this next wave may not make any sense - make your product 'till demand stops and retire. Don't reinvest but maybe raise prices and extract all you can from the operation now. Basically, "failed to pivot" applies to startups that don't have a capital investment and income stream with a given technology. If you have those, speculative pivoting is ignoring your fiduciary duty to protect that stuff while it's making making even if the income stream is declining.
And sure, I couldn't even get to the part about AI this offended most economist part so much...
I feel this at a personal level. I started as an Android developer and stayed so. Not venturing into hybrid/etc or even trying to be into iOS as well, let alone backend, full stack (let's not even begin to talk of AI) - while kind of always seeing this might happen. Now I see the world pass by kind of. I don't think it's always missing the future. Maybe a comfort zone thing - institutional or personal? Sometimes it's just vehement refusal to believe something. I think it's just foolish hope against the incoming tidal shift.
It's an interesting story but a weird analogy and moral. What would have been better if the other 3,999 carriage companies had all tried to make automobiles? Probably about 3,990 shitty cars and a few more mild successes. I'm not sure that's any better.
That's what I see with AI. Every company wants to suddenly "be an AI company", although few are sure what that means. Companies that were legitimately very good at a specific thing are now more interested in being mediocre at the same thing as everyone else. Maybe this will work out in the long tun but right now it's a pain in the ass.
> He founded Buick in 1904 and in 1908 set up General Motors. ... In 1910 Durant would be fired by his board. Undeterred, Durant founded Chevrolet, took it public and in 1916 did a hostile takeover of GM and fired the board. He got thrown out again by his new board in 1920 and died penniless managing a bowling alley.
Interestingly, my grandfather worked as a mechanic at a family-owned Chrysler car dealership for 30 years that previously sold carriages. It's in their logo and they have one on the roof.
39 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] threadI like this quote. But this analogy doesn’t exactly work. Withe this hype cycle, CEOs are getting out and saying that AI will replace humans, not horses. Unlike previous artisans making carriages, the CEOs saying these things have very clear motivations to make you believe the hype.
Cynically, there's no difference from a CEO's perspective between a human employee and a horse
They are both expenses that the CEO would probably prefer to do without whenever possible. A line item on a balance sheet, nothing more
>Body by Fisher
which had an image of the carriages which they had previously made.
And conversely, people who fear that they might be replaced have very clear motivations to claim that AI is useless.
If this was published a few months ago, it would be telling everyone to jump into web3.
Everyone is jumping on the AI train and forgetting the fundamentals.
_____
The first cars were:
- Loud and unreliable
- Expensive and hard to repair
- Starved for fuel in a world with no gas stations
- Unsuitable for the dirt roads of rural America
_____
Reminds me of Linux in the late 90s. Talking to Solaris, HPUX or NT4 advocates, many were sure Linux was not going to succeed because:
- It didn't support multiple processors
- There was nobody to pay for commercial support
- It didn't support the POSIX standard
[1] Large language models may become an important component in whatever comes next, but I think we still need a component that can do proper reasoning and has proper memory not susceptible to hallucinating facts.
With the carriage / car situation, individual transportation is their core business, and most companies are not in the field of Artificial Intelligence.
I say this as someone who has worked for 7 years implementing AI research for production, from automated hardware testing to accessibility for nonverbals: I don't think founders need to obsess even more than they do now about implementing AI, especially in the front end.
This AI hype cycle is missing the mark by building ChatGPT-like bots and buttons with sparkles that perform single OpenAI API calls. AI applications are not a new thing, they have always been here, now they are just more accessible.
The best AI applications are beneath the surface to empower users, Jeff Bezos says that (in 2016!)[1]. You don't see AI as a chatbot in Amazon, you see it for "demand forecasting, product search ranking, product and deals recommendations, merchandising placements, fraud detection, translations."
[1]: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2016-letter-to...
I wonder if there is something noteworthy about Studebacker - yes, they were the only carriage maker out of 4000 to start making cars, and therefore the CEO "knew better" than the other ones.
But then again, Studebacker was the single largest carriage maker and a military contractor for the Union - in other words they were big and "wealthy" enough to consider the "painful transformation" as the article puts it.
How many of the 3999 companies that didn't acutally had any capacity to do so?
Is it really a lesson in divining the future, or more survivorship bias?
I on the other hand, see the exact opposite happening. AI is going to make people even more useful, with significant productivity gains, in actuality creating MORE WORK for humans and machines alike to do.
Leaders who embrace this approach are going to be the winners. Leaders who continue to follow the hype will be the losers, although there will probably be some scam artists who are winners in the short term who are riding the hype cycle just like crypto.
The history of those is the big untold story here.
It doesn't help if you're betting on the right tech too early.
Clearly superior in theory, but lacking significant breakthroughs in battery reasearch and general spottyness of electrification in that era.
Tons of Electric Vehicle companies existed to promote that comparably tech.
Instead the handful of combustion engine companies drove everyone else out of the market eventually, not last gasoline was marketed as more manly.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-hist...
> The first cars were expensive, unreliable, and slow
We can say the same about the AI features being added to every SaaS product right now. Productization will take a while, but people will figure out where LLMs add value soon enough.
For the most part, winning startups look like new categories rather than those beating an incumbent. Very different than SaaS winners.
This is how VCs destroy businesses by bring in adult supervision. CEOs are not incentivized to play the long game.
The difference between the mobility & transportation industry, whether it by carriage and horse, or motor car, was that it was in demand by 99% of the population. AI, on the other hand, is only demanded by say 5%-10% of the population. How many people truly want an AI fridge or dishwasher? They just want fresh food and clean dishes.
TV networks, relative to Netflix is another.
And who can forget BlackBerry?
At my company, "General Manager" positions were the ones that actually set much of the planning priorities. Many of them, eventually got promoted to VP, and even, in the case of my former boss, the Chairman of the Board.
When the iPhone came out, one of my employees got one (the first version). I asked to borrow it, and took it to our Marketing department. I said "This is gonna be trouble for us."
I was laughed out of the room. They were following the strategy set down from the General Managers, which involved a lot of sneering at the competition.
The iPhone (and the various Android devices that accompanied it), ate my company for breakfast, and picked their teeth with our ribs.
A couple of the GMs actually anticipated the issues, but they were similarly laughed out of their rooms.
I saw the same thing happen to Kodak (the ones that actually invented digital photography), with an earlier disruption. I was at a conference, hosted by Kodak, and talked to a bunch of their digital engineers and Marketing folks.
They all had the same story: They were being deliberately kneecapped by the film people (with the direct support of the C-Suite).
At that time, I knew they were "Dead Man Walking." That was in 1996 or so.
Great line.
Let's see a similar story for, say, dirigibles.
This is an interesting phenomenon that probably has no historical equivalent and hence may not have been fully contemplated in any literature, and so comparisons like TFA fall short of capturing the full implications.
Whether these companies see themselves an AI company seems orthogonal to the fact that they should acknowledge this sea-change and adapt. However, currently all industries seem to be thinking they should be an "AI company" and are responding by trying to stuff AI into any product they can. Maybe the urgency for them to adapt should be based on the degree to which knowledge work is critical to their business.
Why didn't all the carriage makers (400+) become Ford, General Motors and Chrysler? Why didn't hundreds of catalogue sales companies become Amazon? Why didn't hundreds of local city taxi services become Uber and Lyfe.
Hint: there's hundreds on one side of these questions and a handful on the other.
Beyond the point that a future market doesn't necessary have space for present players, the "Oo, look how foolish, they missed the next wave" articles miss the point that present businesses exist to make money in the present and generally do so. If you're horseshoe maker, you may know your days are numbered but you have equipment and you're making money. Liquidating to jump into this next wave may not make any sense - make your product 'till demand stops and retire. Don't reinvest but maybe raise prices and extract all you can from the operation now. Basically, "failed to pivot" applies to startups that don't have a capital investment and income stream with a given technology. If you have those, speculative pivoting is ignoring your fiduciary duty to protect that stuff while it's making making even if the income stream is declining.
And sure, I couldn't even get to the part about AI this offended most economist part so much...
That's what I see with AI. Every company wants to suddenly "be an AI company", although few are sure what that means. Companies that were legitimately very good at a specific thing are now more interested in being mediocre at the same thing as everyone else. Maybe this will work out in the long tun but right now it's a pain in the ass.
There's an entire shelf devoted to "disruption."
There is no hope, after all :(