Generative AI's real-world disruption is debated; some people say life would not be significantly worse without tools like ChatGPT or Claude. Real-life impact varies, with individuals sometimes finding relief or assistance from chatbot counsel during difficult times. The technology is often evaluated in societal and historical terms because its most prominent promoters frame it that way. Predictions of AI ushering abundance and well-being mostly come from those working closest to the technology, who may have incentives to oversell it. Generative AI shows impressive capabilities and the fastest adoption in modern history, reaching 39.4% of U.S. adults within two years. Despite rapid uptake, that adoption has not yet translated into comparable large-scale societal transformation.
Could generative AI be just a minor revolution? On a recent episode of the TBPN podcast, Jordi Hays asked his cohost John Coogan whether his life would really be that much worse if he couldn't access generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude. Would AI's absence be as disruptive, he asks, as the sudden disappearance of smartphones, or TVs, or electricity? Coogan conceded it wouldn't.
As Financial Times politics and culture columnist Janan Ganesh notes in a recent op-ed, those predicting that generative AI will usher in abundance and well-being are the ones working closest to the technology and presumably understand it best. But they are also the ones with the most to gain from overselling it, and the most reluctant to admit they've dedicated their careers to something with only modest impact.
To be sure, generative AI is an amazing technology. Anyone who has used ChatGPT's Deep Research, Anthropic's Computer Use feature, or Google's Veo 3 video generator can see that. It's also the fastest-adopted technology in modern history: Gen AI apps reached 39.4% adoption among U.S. adults in just two years, compared to the four years it took for smartphones to hit 35% adoption following the iPhone's 2007 launch.
Collection
[
|
...
]