When new technology threatens an industry (e.g., photography vs. painting), incumbents attack the innovation's *process* ("it's not real art") because they cannot compete on its *outcome* (a good product). This is a predictable pattern of resistance.
Related Insights
Unlike the tech industry's forward-looking nostalgia, Hollywood's culture is rooted in preserving traditional filmmaking processes. This cultural attachment makes the creative community view AI not just as a job threat, but as an unwelcome disruption to the established craft and order, slowing its adoption as a creative tool.
Technological and cultural disruption is a recurring cycle, not a unique event. Just as streaming artists displaced MTV and rap overtook rock, today's dominant players will be replaced by the next wave. Resisting new technologies like AI is futile against this natural industry evolution.
Disruption opportunities in sectors like publishing exist not because incumbents are incompetent, but because their existing structures and business models force them to be "backward compatible," preventing true innovation and creating an opening for new players.
We instinctively resist things that violate our established mental categories. The visceral rejection of drinking fresh water from a pristine toilet demonstrates this powerful bias. Disruptive innovations often fail not because they are bad, but because they force people to break a well-defined mental category, causing cognitive dissonance.
The core conflict is whether a startup can achieve mass distribution before the incumbent can replicate its core innovation. Historically, incumbents have an advantage because they eventually catch up on technology. AI may accelerate this, making a startup's unique and rapid path to acquiring customers more critical than ever.
Unlike past tech shifts, incumbents are avoiding disruption because executives, founders, and investors have all internalized the lessons from 'The Innovator's Dilemma.' They proactively invest in disruptive AI, even if it hurts short-term profits, preventing startups from gaining a foothold.
Being the de facto industry standard removes the external pressure to innovate. Dominant companies often resist internal change agents who want to 'rock the boat,' fostering complacency. This creates an opening for more agile competitors to gain a foothold and disrupt the market.
The moment an industry organizes in protest against an AI technology, it signals that the technology has crossed a critical threshold of quality. The fear and backlash are a direct result of the technology no longer being a gimmick, but a viable threat to the status quo.
As the market leader, OpenAI has become risk-averse to avoid media backlash. This has “damaged the product,” making it overly cautious and less useful. Meanwhile, challengers like Google have adopted a risk-taking posture, allowing them to innovate faster. This shows how a defensive mindset can cede ground to hungrier competitors.
The founders of Recursive Intelligence were surprised that the most vocal critics of their AI weren't the chip designers whose jobs it might affect. Instead, the backlash came from academics and experts whose own competing methodologies were being outperformed by a simpler, data-driven approach from outside their field.
