AI is going to be very disruptive, right? At this point, I think it is pretty clear to most that the answer is yes, almost regardless of what industry you're in. But is it going to be really disruptive? Like disruptive in the Clayton Christensen sense of the word. (Christensen is known for coining the term "disruptive innovation", which he contrasted against "sustaining innovation.")

This is a good question, and I like how Ben Thompson thought about it in his newsletter this morning:

I tend to believe that disruptive innovations are actually quite rare, but when they come, they are basically impossible for the incumbent company to respond to: their business models, shareholders, and most important customers make it impossible for management to respond. If that is true, though, then an incumbent responding is in fact evidence that an innovation is actually not disruptive, but sustaining.

The point he is making is that given that the big tech companies (and of course everyone else) are all now responding to AI by incorporating it into their businesses, it, by definition, must not be a disruptive innovation. It's a sustaining one. This doesn't mean that AI won't have significant impacts on our economy; it just means that maybe it won't put a company like Alphabet out of business.

I thought this was an interesting way of looking at things because it is a reminder that "disruptive innovations" often start out at the bottom of the market. They start in a way that can feel innocuous to incumbents; that is, until they move upmarket. But this is not at all how AI feels. As soon as you play around with ChatGPT you immediately think to yourself, "holy shit, this thing can do my job."

That is obviously something very meaningful. But is it going to shake up the big tech world order? I don't know, if you follow Christensen's definition, crypto sounds like the more disruptive innovation.

Okay, I really don't want to make this -- using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me -- a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: "write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development." Here's what it generated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.

First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.

Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

I must say that I'm impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to "the need for affordable housing."

And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I'm not sure there's much to improve on here. These computers are good.

So if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.

Construction is an essential sector of the economy, responsible for building and maintaining the physical infrastructure that underpins our society. However, it's no secret that construction productivity lags behind other sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and information technology. So why is this the case?

One of the main reasons for the productivity gap is the unique nature of the construction industry. Unlike other sectors, construction projects are often one-off, bespoke endeavors, making it challenging to achieve the economies of scale that are typical of manufacturing or technology. Each project requires a different set of skills, tools, and materials, which can be costly and time-consuming to source and manage. This leads to a lack of standardization and efficiency, which can hinder productivity.

Another factor that contributes to low productivity in construction is the reliance on manual labor. Despite the increasing use of technology and automation, much of the work in construction still relies on physical labor, which is subject to human limitations and the potential for errors. This can result in delays, rework, and additional costs, all of which impact productivity.

Moreover, the construction industry faces challenges in terms of supply chain management and workforce development. The industry relies heavily on a complex network of suppliers, subcontractors, and laborers, all of whom must be coordinated and managed effectively. This can be difficult, particularly in light of the current labor shortage and skills gap in the industry.

To address these challenges, the construction industry needs to embrace innovation and new technologies to improve efficiency, standardize processes, and reduce waste. There is also a need to invest in workforce development and training to upskill the existing workforce and attract new talent to the industry.

In conclusion, the construction industry faces unique challenges that make it challenging to achieve the productivity gains that are typical of other sectors. However, with the right investments in technology, training, and process improvement, the industry can overcome these challenges and continue to build the infrastructure that our society relies on.

Maybe you didn't notice. But if the above doesn't sound like me and my writing, it's because today's blog post is brought to you by ChatGPT (AI). The prompt I used was, "write a short blog post about why construction productivity lags other sectors of the economy."

On some level, it's unsettling that AI can now, almost instantaneously, spit out a blog post like this. It would now be pretty easy to set up a daily blog, like this one here, and use ChatGPT to populate it each day.

But of course, while that might be interesting initially, it would quickly become a banal baseline. Anyone and everyone could copy what you're doing. AI is going to change a lot. But our jobs remain the same: find new ways to create value and be remarkable.