What NFTs, AI and the metaverse reveal about “thought leadership”
One of the challenges of engaging with tech enthusiasts is hearing them proclaim they’ve made groundbreaking discoveries. For instance, a friend was recently captivated by the realization that knowledge is inherent in language, excitedly explaining how language models like ChatGPT can grasp meaning from seemingly nonsensical words. He equated this discovery with the advent of writing itself.
His enthusiasm mirrored classic Structuralism concepts, known for over a century. Yet, his interpretation seemed a naive, confused version of the theory. I exited the conversation quickly, noticing his frustration when I wasn’t equally amazed.
Sometimes people are unaware that their perceived discoveries are already well-established knowledge. Elon Musk’s fascination with hands, explored by various professions, and Palmer Luckey’s misconception about postmortem analyses on the One Laptop Per Child project, demonstrate this.
At the extreme, this is reminiscent of products like Juicero’s costly juicer, defeated by simple hand-squeezing.
Finding something new to you is thrilling, yet assuming it’s novel to everyone can lead to oversight — common among startup enthusiasts who may be isolated or confident in their unmatched intelligence.
Solving unsolved problems requires hubris, yet unmanaged, it creates blind spots. Like announcing Freudian psychology’s original introspection without deeply engaging in it.
Upon observing something critical, I instinctively investigate whether others reached similar understandings, like when recovering from a concussion. My research then resulted in personal documentation, still helping others today. Such endeavors require acknowledging collective intelligence and experiential diversity instead of assuming uniqueness.
This particular hubris has colored not just individuals, but professional environments like Silicon Valley. Previously, tech creators focused on customer needs. Post-financial crisis, a shift occurred towards inventing consumer futures without regard to existing demands — a misguided homage to Steve Jobs’ revolutionary approach.
Jobs’ success stemmed from addressing simple, tangible needs. His iconic products thrived from practicality and timing — a stark contrast to trends like NFTs, metaverse endeavors, and language models, which prioritize wealth over consumer satisfaction.
Silicon Valley sometimes overlooks that visionary futures must first align with public interest. This disconnect explains diminished enthusiasm for VR headsets or digital novelties — consumers simply weren’t interested.
AI’s usefulness, albeit limited, largely centers on data organization rather than everyday life transformation. Its adoption, albeit initially free, targets scenarios not replacing existing technology but hoping to tap government contracts.
AI companies now face challenges sustaining vast, expensive developments without robust profit mechanisms. To varying degrees, AI innovations fail because they ignore the essence of customer desire.
Even within mundane daily activities, inefficiencies remain appealing. Romanticizing automation ignores everyday enjoyment — vacation planning, recipe experimentation, or curating social interactions aren’t inherently flawed needing “fixing.” Similarly, while AI promises writing ease, motivation plays a bigger role in whether people engage in activities like coding.
AI-driven novelty, like music-generating apps, ladders onto consumer need for novelty — often without genuine demand. These tools typically cater to opportunistic exploitation of monetization channels rather than artistic expression, complicating discovery of genuine creative works and livelihoods in the process.
Many tech creators overlook consumer experience, interpreting living concerns through insular perspectives. Their fixations arise from idealized tech futures, ultimately out of touch with practical realities — NFTs, metaverse visions, and early VR pitches suffered from this.
Reflecting on disconnected decisions reveals systemic Silicon Valley introspective deficits. Critics often jested on Andreessen’s introspection scarcity, yet his discussions illuminate deeper cultural maladies.
Encountering professionals happy post-psychedelic journeys yet indifferent to failing enterprises might seem paradoxical. Yet collective happiness, not entrepreneurial martyrdom, aligns closer with broader societal goals.
Ultimately, fulfilling consumer desires steer innovation success. Prioritizing sincere understanding over forced innovation fosters sustainable advancements, rather than hyped future projections consumers neither need nor seek.