The AI Doc

A Review

Hey everyone, this is a really busy week for me as both my daughters are graduating from high school. No, they aren’t twins. They were born less than a year apart. We have family coming in and I’ve been given a to do list to accomplish before the big day. All that to say that this week’s news letter will be a bit shorter than normal, but I still wanted to give you something. With that in mind, I present our very first review.

My Movie Review:

If you’re not familiar with The AI Doc it’s a recent release and people are starting to talk about it. Tech documentaries and dramatizations are my favorite genre. So I was happy to watch a new entry into this space. If you aren’t familiar with it at all, here’s the trailer:

My Rating:

Most people rate movies on a five-star scale. I tend to be more practical. The questions I usually want answered is: Will I Get My Money’s Worth?
Since this was just released it currently costs $19.99 to stream. That price will decrease as time passes. So, here’s my rating based off of the typical price points:

• $19.99: Not worth it.

• $9.99: No.

• $5.99: Not yet.

• $3.99: Can you spare 3.99? If so, it’s worth renting.

• Netflix/Streaming/Broadcast TV: Absolutely!

My rationale:

First, this movie isn’t made to appeal to people who are super dialed in to the latest events and developments in AI. Here’s a good litmus test for you. Do you know who Yann LeCun is? Do you know the title of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s latest book? If you answered yes to either or both of those questions, you probably already know everything this movie can tell you.

But if you aren’t following AI that closely, the movie does a solid job introducing the main competing worldviews and concerns in the field. It gives viewers a broad sense of the debate without reducing everything to a simple “AI good” or “AI bad” type argument.

One nice thing is that they do manage to get a lot of the leaders in the field on camera. That alone makes it worthwhile for viewers who want a clear, accessible overview of the current conversation.

Debate Question

I subscribe to Ben Thompson’s Stratechery. It’s a paid newsletter, but as part of that he also provides several private podcasts. One of those is a weekly interview where Thompson will speak to a tech founder, reporter, or other thought leader.

This past week he interviewed Joanna Stern. During that interview one of them had a throw away line during the course of their conversation that stuck with me. They said:

“AI raises the floor and lowers the ceiling.”

It raises the floor because it gives ordinary people access to abilities they previously did not have. I know almost nothing about music, but with AI, I could probably create a functional song. Not a great son, necessarily. Maybe not even a good one. But something recognizable as a song, sure. And that’s more than I could do on my own.

At the same time, AI can lower the ceiling when people mistake access for mastery. I could ask AI how to improve the song. I could have it explain structure, melody, harmony, and arrangements. With enough back-and-forth, I might even produce something decent. But that’s mean I’ll become the next Mozart. It means I’ve been given access to a powerful tool restricted by my own limitations. AI can make beginners more capable, but it doesn’t automatically turn them into masters.

The quotation above appears to run counter to a common argument in this field: that people with deep domain knowledge on a topic can use AI to achieve superhuman type results. I don’t think these claims are necessarily in conflict. I believe they are describing two different relationships to the tool.

For a beginner, AI functions like a ladder. It allows them to reach basic competence faster. The person who can’t write code can build a small app. The person who can’t compose much can generate a song. the person who isn’t a designer can create something that looks, at least at first glance, like a logo. That’s the floor rising.

But for many users, that’s where it ends. They stop where the machine stops. They accept the first usable output as the final product. Because the result looks passable, it’s well-formatted, and the answers read as plausible, it feels finished to them. The work has a patina of quality, but doesn’t necessarily reflect depth, judgment, and originality. It doesn’t represent a sense of taste that has developed over the course of years.

Experts are different. A genuine expert can see where the model is wrong. Where its output is bland or derivative or even worse, incomplete. They don’t accept those first outputs. They use AI to test variations, challenge assumptions, and increase the number of drafts that they can create. In their hands, AI might actually raise the ceiling in that it allows them to quickly consider alternatives and more fully explore their vision.

And at the end of the day, that’s what determines quality. It’s that pursuit of your own singular vision rather than allowing the AI to determine what you should make, what you will accept, or what ‘good enough’ means for you.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Do you feel like AI is harming creative output? Is it creating dependence? Is it harming the development of skills and techniques that users would otherwise develop on their own?

Maybe you’re on the other side. Is AI going to lead to a rennaissance in fields that are now shut off for the average person? Things like the creation of movies, video games, innovative new apps tailor made for specific niche use cases?

Weigh in and let me know what you think!

If you know of other people who would be interested in these articles, please share it with them. If you have any questions or want to say hi, you can reply to this email or comment directly on the post.

Thanks again for being a subscriber. and have a great day!