Antonym: The Cambrian Explosion Edition
Antonym is written weekly by Antony Mayfield and a made-up machine known as AIntonym. Sections by the latter are in italics for clarity or confusion. Please share, subscribe and report it to the authorities in your territory.
Dear Reader
Sometimes we write to understand what we think, and sometimes we write to understand what we don’t know.
I’ve been using the phrase “Cambrian explosion” to describe the scale of new tools and developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and so have many other people.
This is the planet Earth in the Cambrian period, which was a 50 million-year stretch which ended on 3rd April 485,390,234 B.C. (OK, not that precise day).
Picture this: you're lounging on a prehistoric beach when suddenly, the serene waters erupt like a fiesta gone wild. It was as if the evolutionary fireworks had been ignited. Suddenly, BOOM! Out of nowhere, a kaleidoscope of exotic marine life emerged, strutting their stuff like influencers at London Fashion Week
The Cambrian Explosion is often called the evolutionary Big Bang, a seismic shift that unleashed a torrent of eye-catching organisms that seemed to defy logic. Bizarre-looking trilobites, those ancient arthropods with their armoured exoskeletons, scurried across the seafloor like well-dressed vacuum cleaners. Brachiopods—shelled wonders with their bivalve bodies—resembled fancy clamshells, inviting all the cool kids to a stylish undersea soiree.
And let's not forget the enigmatic creatures that defy categorisation—the problematic prodigies known as soft-bodied organisms. These gelatinous oddities drifted like bad impressions of jellyfish, flaunting their otherworldly beauty while confounding palaeontologists with their lack of fossilisation potential.
AI: Try before you trilobite
I think the Cambrian Explosion metaphor is a useful one for the phase of AI we’re living through.
The difference in scale between the version of ChatGPT we were using in January (GPT3) with the one we’re using in May (GPT4) is enormous. How enormous? The models are measured in parameters, which are the adjustable settings that determine how it understands and generates language. GPT3 has 175 billion parameters. GPT 4 has, well, no one knows. There are claims that it is one trillion or 100 trillion, which is as precise as our estimate of the exact day the Cambrian Era ended and shows people’s predilection for round numbers.
And size, it turns out, isn’t everything; as a leaked memo from Google showed this week, evolution is about exploring many ways of succeeding. The millions of developers who have got their hands on the leaked AI model from Facebook Meta are finding more uses for and ways of improving performance and making the technology smaller much faster than the Big Tech players expected.
The other aspect of the evolution analogy to bear in mind is that not all of these tools and ways of working will succeed. Something big is happening, but no one really knows how this will play out. There’s bullshit and guesswork at the macro level of predicting even the near future to the micro level of “Ten Mind-Blowing AI Tools That Will Make You Rich Now”.
Writing an analysis paper for our clients on what is happening in this space at the moment, I got all cute and asked:
Q: What do your biggest competitor, the start-up that will be your nightmare in six months time and your Mum all have in common?
A: They all just got access to AI.
Be less impressed, much less impressed
For some balancing about the here-and-now impact of this technology, take some cues from Adam Tinworth, an expert on journalism and SEO. Over to AIntonym for a summary of his article pointing out how limited AI-powered search is at the moment.
Adam argues against the panic surrounding AI-powered search, asserting that it is still an immature technology that has yet to prove itself in the marketplace. The recent integration of ChatGPT with Bing has triggered an arms race, but these changes do not scare Adam, as he believes that people using the tools will determine its success. Additionally, he suggests that SEO practices will need to adapt to account for AI-driven chat and to focus on quality content, expert copy, and reader value.
Adam concludes:
Search isn’t going to transform overnight. But it will change, as it always has. And, as ever, the people who win will be those who mix a ruthless focus on reader need with the agility to adapt to new technology as it emerges.
Antonym is a lot more hawkish about the prospects of SEO, but I called social media’s impact on search marketing about five years too soon; and, as they used to say in Silicon Valley, “Being early is the same as being wrong”.
The crux of The Crux
[A(I)ntonym]: Antony finished reading The Crux by Richard Rumelt this week. It took him several months, whereas I sucked up all that data in a few seconds. If your puny human mind would like the insights rather than sit with it half-read on your bedside table for months, then I’ve listed them below. You’re welcome.
In The Crux, Rumelt offers several pieces of advice for identifying the key challenge or problem facing an organization:
Look beyond symptoms: Many times, organizations focus on surface-level issues rather than digging deeper to understand root causes. Rumelt advises looking beyond superficial problems (such as declining sales) to uncover underlying factors (such as changes in consumer behaviour).
Identify conflicting objectives: Conflicts between different goals or objectives within an organization can often reveal important information about the true nature of the problem. By examining conflicts carefully, it may be possible to pinpoint where the real difficulty lies.
Consider hidden tradeoffs: Hidden tradeoffs exist when pursuing multiple goals simultaneously creates difficult choices or constraints. Recognizing these tradeoffs can help organizations better understand the full implications of their actions and prioritize accordingly.
Seek out misalignment: Misaligned interests or priorities among individuals or groups within an organization can signal a lack of clarity regarding overall direction. Addressing such misalignments can help clarify the crux of the problem.
This week I’m watching…
I’m watching Succession (Now TV). But you knew that… If you still haven’t started watching it, I salute your zigging while I am emphatically zagging, but officially have given up trying to persuade people.
The fourth series of Fargo (Prime Video) is excellent. The famous cast is so impressive it’s slightly distracting at first, but the stories are as warped and winding as ever, and the tone feels fresh. Chris Rock, as a dangerous gangster, works surprisingly well, and Jessie Buckley is superb as an off-kilter, amphetamine-addicted nurse.
AIR (Prime Video) tells the story of how Michael Jordan’s mother reshaped the sportswear and sponsorship market by negotiating with Nike to get a percentage of all goods sold with her son’s name on them. Nike expected to sell $3 million of so of the shoes, and 40 years later is still selling billions of dollars worth every year. Told mainly from the perspective of the Nike team, it is also deeply resonant for anyone who has ever made a pitch with their whole heart and soul and had to wait for the verdict.
That’s all for this week…
Thank you for reading and for the feedback. Our Special Edition: Finding Ideas With AI, remains the most popular post so far and is still doing brisk attentional business – if you’re new to the newsletter, you might enjoy checking that one out.
See you next week…
Antony