Blog Posts About: disruption

This article was published in an issue of the Common Craft Newsletter. Subscribe here.

I believe AI chatbots, like ​ChatGPT, will become a part of most white-collar work. Whether you are an accountant, architect, or attorney, artificial intelligence will soon become part of your work and for some, a competitive advantage. Those who choose to experiment may find that AI can take their work to new and more efficient levels.

Tools like ChatGPT can play a valuable role in creating explainer videos. How? By helping you through one of the most difficult phases in the creative process: establishing a creative direction.

It's a common challenge. You have the idea and the major points for a video, but packaging the information can seem like a hurdle. Do you tell a story? Use an analogy? A walk-through? Is it a first-person narrative? What about visuals?

ChatGPT is an amazing tool for identifying a creative direction. With a few requests, it can generate examples and ideas that may never occur to you otherwise. Let's look at some examples:

ChatGPT Examples

I asked ChatGPT (free version 3.5) for 5 story ideas for explaining phishing scams.

"I want to create a video that clearly explains phishing scams. Please provide 5 ideas for short stories."

Here's what it generated in seconds:

​See the full version of these results​

This is the spark. ChatGPT easily provides titles and directions for a new video. If you don't like these ideas, you can ask for five more.

Let's take this a step further. I like story idea #1: "The Suspicious Email" and want an example script. So, I ask it:

"Let's focus on #1. Write a 300-word script for this story. Include a person named Chris."

Here are the results:

​See a full version of these results​

This is only a taste of what is possible. In this way, ChatGPT is a creative partner. It can get you down the creative road much faster than you can brainstorm. It can surface ideas and directions that aren't obvious.

Of course, ChatGPT has limits. It may be inaccurate or biased. It doesn't know your audience or situation. That's why it's a partner. You are required to evaluate, redirect and edit what it provides. You are required to shape it for your audience and include what you feel is important. You are the flame.

This article was published in an issue of the Common Craft Newsletter. Subscribe here.

I’ve wondered if artificial intelligence, like ​ChatGPT​, will eventually eat my lunch, so to speak. Given that I am an author, educator, and video creator, the risk seems real that AI could replace the creative work on which I've built my professional life.

Today, ChatGPT can create, analyze and summarize lengthy text, transform that text into the language of a specific demographic, and write a video script complete with suggestions for visuals, all in a matter of seconds. Needless to say, we’re living in a new reality.

Today, it can analyze and summarize lengthy text, transform that text into the language of a specific demographic, and write a video script complete with suggestions for visuals, all in a matter of seconds. Needless to say, we’re living in a new reality.

Amid the disruption, I think it’s important to understand what AI can’t do.

My career has been focused on the skill of explanation and how to design communication for a specific audience. I’d like to focus on two things that make explanations work and how they connect to AI and the human experience.

Packaging Ideas

First, let’s discuss packaging ideas. Remarkable explanations use data and facts as starting points for creativity. We ask: how can I package this information so it’s clear and understandable for my audience? Would an analogy work? A short story? This step can be frustrating because it requires inspiration and creativity. Projects sometimes need a spark to find a creative direction.

This is where generative AI, like ChatGPT, can excel. Given the right prompts, it can provide new ideas and provide multiple paths to consider. It can brainstorm with incredible speed and generate long lists of approaches, titles, themes, and more.

But that’s only part of the explanation equation.

Empathy

The second point is empathy. For that explanation to work, it must be designed around the audience’s needs. We must put ourselves in the shoes of the audience and communicate in a way that works for them. This is where humans excel. We can naturally empathize with others and adjust our communication in a way that no AI can replicate.

For Example

Imagine working in a company where it’s your job to communicate company policy. The CEO micromanages everything you do and over time, you’ve learned how to navigate her standards and write according to her expectations.

You’ve experimented with ChatGPT and it’s been helpful. You’ve had it rewrite a memo, generate suggestions for a meeting, and recommend ways to work with a micromanager.

But it can’t write for your boss. It doesn’t know your boss. It can’t understand your relationship with her. It doesn’t know what makes her happy, how she feels, or what worries she has. It doesn’t know her ambitions or aspirations. Only you, the human, can know these things.

This is true in multiple contexts.

• AI can help you do research and generate ideas for a conference presentation, but it can’t know the people in the audience, or what they need.
• AI can help teachers develop lesson plans and find creative activities, but it can’t know what will delight that specific group of students.
• AI can help an architect develop designs for a home, but it can’t know the homeowner’s attitudes and desires.

My point is this: AI is a powerful and inspirational tool. It can jumpstart creative projects. But the human touch, in the form of empathy, is required for truly effective communication. This has always been the secret sauce of explanations and that hasn’t changed.

In my book, ​The Art of Explanation​, I wrote that “Facts give stories substance. Stories give facts meaning.” You can think of AI as a (sometimes untrustworthy) fact and idea machine. It provides the substance and often, that’s not enough. Our task is to package that substance into meaning for our audience by applying the most human of traits: empathy for our audience.

The animated gif below is a succinct summary of this idea. This gif is also an example of a ​Readable Video​ that took about an hour to create.

I just got an email from Patrick O'Keefe, a friend that I've known through the web for years. His story got my blood boiling and I want to share it.

Updated:  Patrick will not have to give up his site (for now).  

Patrick owns a Mariano Rivera fan site at MarianoRivera.com. Here's the banner - notice the "unofficial" part. Rivera is a relief pitcher for for the NY Yankees.

Just recently he was contacted by SFX Baseball, who represents Rivera. Without any other contact, they have accused him of cybersquatting and creating the site to...

trick people into coming to this website instead a website operating with Mr. Rivera's approval.

Further...

they "demand" that I immediately cease and desist my use of the domain name and give it to them. They want written confirmation saying that I will do it by 5:00 PM on August 10 or they'll... well... do what they need to do without any further notice to me.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that Patrick may end up having to give up the domain - but it's not about that. This article has more info on the personal name/domain name issue.

What gets me (and Patrick) is the automatic accusation of unethical behavior. The lawyers came to him having ruled, judge and jury, that he is a thief or criminal. Maybe the sports and music lawyers should get together - strongarming is sooo 1980.

Patrick and his site are completely legit, as he says:

It's not like we're selling forged autographs, trying to trick people into something or passing ourselves as official. This is a good fan site. We've been in operation since April 4, 2004 - that's 3 years and nearly 5 months. We are the largest (and perhaps only) Mariano Rivera fan site on the internet.

Again, this isn't about the legal case - it's about being cool - you know, like The Fonz. I get so frustrated when I hear about lawyers reacting this way. Haven't we moved on yet?

To blindly throw around offensive boilerplate letters and try to throw us up against the wall like a typical cybersquatter is completely, completely inappropriate. I don't know why they couldn't have approached us respectfully and asked nicely? Maybe thanked us for what we've done and offered to work with us or something.

He is a fan with nothing but good intentions to support an athlete - and they treat him like a criminal? Patrick's site is about the best, most wholesome and legit site Mr. Rivera has on the web right now.

I wish Patrick the best in fighting this. More than anything, I want to bring light to tactics that I sincerely loath. I have no love for people that work this way. Patrick deserves better. Pass it on.

More on this story here.

If you haven't heard about Markus Frind and his dating site at plentyoffish.com, you will.

Markus is singlehandedly disrupting the dating site industry by offering a free alternative to pay-to-play sites like match.com. What makes his story so interesting is that he is the site's only employee - he runs the whole site from his Vancouver, Canada apartment and makes millions of dollars from Google ad revenue.

Here are some of the basic facts from a recent Wall Street Journal story (via: online personal watch):

• For the week ended April 28, PlentyOfFish.com was the 96th-busiest Web site in the U.S. (HitWise)
• Busy Web sites like these usually require scores of people. Mr. Frind says people often don't believe him when he says PlentyOfFish is all his.
• Nielsen/NetRatings says that by some measures, such as the time its members spend on the site, it ranks second after eHarmony.
• A few months back, he posted on his blog a picture of a check from Google for nearly $1 million for a two-month period. Google confirmed the check was for real.
• Mr. Frind says the site brings in between $5 million and $10 million a year.
• Many companies would respond to competitive pressure by hiring someone. Mr. Frind says he has no plans to do so.

There are two things that I love about this story:

1. Disruption: Markus is constantly talking about the demise of the paid sites and has the model to prove that he's a real threat to the top players. I have nothing against the paid sites, or their model, but it's great to see one guy be able to create something so threatening to an established industry. His blog is here.

2. Small is beautiful. Consider this: In 2005, Match.com had 275 employees and Alexa (whose permalinking and graph sharing tool is very broken - booo!) says Plenty of Fish is gaining on them in a big way - with only one employee and no venture funding.

This idea of being small, lightweight and happy really appeals to me in a fundamental way. It reminds me of the Robot Co-op who run very large sites (like 43 Things) with a small team of 6. The same is true with 37 Signals who have chosen to stay small despite the to opportunity to grow in #s of employees and of course, Craigslist.

These days, 20+ employees and millions of capital can be more of an impediment than an advantage - especially if you count the happiness factor. I count Markus as one the few who are showing us the business models of the future.

I love this kind of thing- the little guy does what he can to take on a big company. Jake is a loyal customer (platinum member) of American Airlines, but got dissed recently over a $50 mix-up that was their fault and got insulted at the same time.

So, he's written a letter to the company explaining the circumstances and counting (literally, by the second, on his site) how long it takes to get an reply/apology from the company. Will they reply? Does it matter that he's blogging it all? It'll be interesting to watch. Oh, and he's having a contest for anyone who wants to guess. GO Jake!

The other day, Nancy White asked me if I had ever heard about this documentary about blogs called 59 bloggers. I hadn't, but checked out the (Wordpress) web site, which was a blog, but with only one entry. One weird thing was that the blogroll still had the wordpress defaults. Something seemed weird.

Then, Duncan posts Don't mess with us nerds which tells the sordid tale of the "59 Bloggers" guy and his attempted bullying of Chuck Olsen, who has been working on a blogumentary (a term he coined) since 2002 and is a friend of the blog world.

Chuck posted his side of the story along with the text of an email from the 59 Bloggers guy, basically showing his ass. Since then, some bloggers have left the 59 bloggers project and word is spreading fast.

This guy had a chance to be cool and work with Chuck on resolution, but he choose not to and went the strong arm route. Now, his actions are being exposed by people like me, who want to spread the word that the 59 bloggers guy doesn't get it.

Update:The 59 Bloggers guy has posted a venomous description of his side of the story, basically declaring war on Chuck and the blog world. Chuck Olsen as replied on the original entry.

This is so fascinating to me. From my perspective, Chuck really tried to take the high road and never meant any harm. John Hart then proceeded to assissinate his own project by choosing to fight and spew venom instead of working for an equitable conclusion. His decision to fight caused a mob mentality among the bloggers, who feel protective of Chuck.

When it comes down to it, John Hart is exposing the person he is. Unfortunately, this kind of person is not a good match with the blog values and processes of the blog world. The blog world is better off without him.