Maybe it was a result of the free spirit of the late 1960s with all those drugs. Perhaps it was just a reaction to the threat of war and being so worn out with the one in Vietnam. It could also be that we just had nothing to fill the connection voids we were feeling with each other.
Nevertheless, Gary Dahl came up with pet rocks packaged in boxes with ventilation holes and straw bedding imitating a pet carrier. According to Wikipedia, he conceived the idea in a bar while listening to his friends complain about their pets. A rock would not need to be fed, walked, bathed, or groomed, and it would not die, become sick, or be disobedient.
Lacking the capital to launch the product, Dahl convinced some colleagues to invest in it. He purchased the actual rocks from Mexican beaches for less than a penny each. The Pet Rock was introduced in August 1975 at a San Francisco trade show, and Dahl was then swarmed by orders from retailers. The fad lasted about six months, ending after a short increase in sales during the 1975 Christmas season. Although by February 1976 they were discounted due to lower sales, Dahl sold nearly 1.5 million Pet Rocks for just under $4 each during the initial release, turning 95 cents profit on each unit, and became a millionaire.
Fads like this die out. But, before they do, FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) steps in to hype everything. The fever pitch of the hype cycle can be alluring and addictive. Perhaps this Wikipedia summary helps the collective obsession.
Collective obsessions have three main features in common. The first, and most obvious sign, is an increase in frequency and intensity of a specific belief or behavior. A fad’s popularity increases quickly in frequency and intensity, whereas a trend grows more slowly. The second is that the behavior is perceived as ridiculous, irrational, or evil by those who are not part of the obsession. Some people might see those who follow certain fads as unreasonable and illogical. To these people, the fad is ridiculous, and people’s obsession with it is equally absurd. The third is that, after it has reached a peak, it drops off abruptly and is followed by a counter obsession.
A counter obsession means that once the fad is over, if one engages in the fad, they will be ridiculed. A fad’s popularity often decreases rapidly once its novelty wears off. Some people might start to criticize the fad after pointing out that it is no longer popular, so it must not have been “worth the hype.”
Please remember that I am an AI advocate and have spent my entire career using it. When Susan wanted to build a company and suggested the name Apogee, I asked her to include the name Interactive because I wanted our initials to be AI. Our lawyer warned me at the time that AI had fallen out of favor because the claims about it just weren’t realistic.
Well, fast forward to today and read the feeding frenzy to find brilliant minds and hope that when you put them in the same group a miracle happens: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsoft-ai-9ded6031?st=ScxWA8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalinkhttps://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsoft-ai-9ded6031?st=mysDjz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
and if that wasn’t enough, try this: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-recruiting-mark-zuckerberg-sam-altman-140d5861?st=eZXedc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The problem with this thinking is always the same. First, it will create a mutiny within the historically loyal ranks … good traditional people will jump ship, and the remainder dwindles in effectiveness, and then, when the hype cycle moves to the inevitable down cycle, the entire organization implodes. Gone are the days of “skunk works.”
Secondly, brilliant people tend not to be the best team players, and this business is not about superstars. Finally, and most essentially, the AI game always depends on curated, high-quality data, not just massive, unfiltered information fed into some “black box” models.
I grew up with a simple adage: garbage in … garbage out. It was true 60 years ago and is even truer today.