Three Contexts of Generative AI
Not everything is equal, and this is certainly true when it comes to the contexts of Generative AI. Broadly we can consider three contexts: that of the ‘Individual’, of the ‘Constrained’, and of the ‘Unrestricted’. In this piece, I will unpack this a little, to consider how the ‘rules’ differ in each space, and hence disadvantage legacy structures, in favour of both individual and disruptive elements.
One key feature of the Social Age is that of our diverse ecosystems of technology: that we each inhabit a unique pattern of technologies, which are often distinguished by being both democratised, and also rapidly disposable. Whilst Organisations have substantive infrastructure, individually we tend to inhabit these diverse and must more fluid and lightweight landscapes, and Generative AI tools fit neatly into this picture. In the illustration above, ‘Individuals’ are you and me, on the left, ‘Unrestricted’ on the right is the Wild West, the space of both conflict (scams and disinformation), and also asymmetric disruption and the rapid prototyping of new and diverse ideas, and in the middle are our Organisations, ‘Constrained’ both by external forces, and internal features of power, legacy, and control.
At the Individual level, we are prolific in our prototyping, and also very social in such, sharing ideas, insights, and recommendations. In part this is driven by the often utilitarian benefits of GenAI: for holiday planning, tax returns, learning, cheating, summarising, reporting etc. The benefits are often immediate, on demand, easily understandable, staged, developmental, often efficient, or money saving. It’s no surprise that once people pick up GenAI tools, then often leave behind initial concerns.
At the Organisational level, we quite rightly operate in a space of Constraint: GenAI impacts the Structural Organisations, impacting job roles, risk, core platforms and processes, it assails structures of power and control. Almost every applications is ‘Shadowed’, in that it happens within sight of – or under the shadow of – something else – and also it creates shadows into other systems. Organisations are restricted through regulation and law, as well as both individual and system dogma.
The ‘Unrestricted’ context is the most interesting, covering both the good and the ugly: this is the space of disruption, through disinformation (at hitherto unknown scale, with the cost driven close to zero), scams and attacks, but also creativity and innovation both around the edges of systems, and within them (but beyond formal control). This is a chaotic space: it may not always be clear what is opportunity and what is threat. It may be capability that is built to be adversarial – to compete or destroy. It is highly disruptive, and may also be extremely opportunistic, in response to emergent capability, or simple circumstance.
These three spaces are not different playing fields, but rather represent one playing field with three different rules sets applied to the different teams.
Historically our Organisations could rely on their ability to acquire capability, but that may not be as true today: in my own work I explore how we are not simply observing change within a known system, but rather a fracture and re-conception of the systems itself. In this sense, the weak link is the structure of our modern Organisations, and the solution is to reconfigure them. Essentially this is about desegregating structure, task, role, power, even perhaps recognition, skill, reward etc. A reconfigured marketplace that can be fluid in it’s adaptation.
There is a good reason why this is not a utopian picture: most likely GenAI will significantly disrupt our models of social good and social order, because it will assail our structures of familiarity and value.
#WorkingOutLoud on Generative AI