ChatGPT has claimed its first casualty on the stock market. Yesterday the price of shares from California-based learning company Chegg tanked by nearly half, after its CEO Dan Rosensweig said on an earnings call that he believes ChatGPT is “having an impact on our new customer growth rate.” Market-watchers on Twitter noted it’s likely the first ever publicly-traded company to acknowledge that it’s getting battered by the new technology. Since ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools first captured the public’s imagination last year, there’s been rabid speculation about their potential to revolutionize the economy. ChatGPT has already destroyed the once-robust industry of Kenyans writing college students’ essays for them. Next will it kill the college admissions essay altogether? The PR flack? The local newspaper? Chegg is a somewhat unique case, as a company that was the subject of intense scrutiny even before its seeming admission of defeat by ChatGPT — it allows students to post their homework online in search of answers from other people. Chegg calls this “homework help.” Many educators call it "cheating." Students apparently now call it irrelevant, as ChatGPT provides for free something close enough to the service for which Chegg currently charges $15.95 a month. So as its share price takes a beating, is the company the proverbial dead canary in a coal mine or just an unlucky outlier? This morning I called Matthew Mittelsteadt, a tech researcher at the free-market-oriented Mercatus Center, to get his read on the situation and shed some light on what generative AI might have in store for the economy next. His response to the news was… not ambiguous. “Good riddance,” Mittelsteadt said. “The exact type of thing that I'm hoping gets disrupted or destabilized by [AI] is these corporations that engage in this rent-seeking behavior.” Mittelsteadt characterized Chegg as a classically extractive middleman service, paying once for materials that it can then charge for over and over again. This, he said, is the kind of company that’s likely to be most affected by generative AI’s disruptive properties — those that aggregate rather than providing any kind of original content or service. “In terms of disruption… I don't think [generative AI] is going to be quite as immediately ground-shaking in most areas as people think it's going to be,” Mittelsteadt said. “Chegg is a very niche, limited service… the service they offer is aggregation, the same that ChatGPT does, and [ChatGPT] is not going away.” During Chegg’s fated earnings call, the CEO Rosensweig said that generative AI will actually make the company stronger — last month it introduced a GPT-4-powered tool called “Cheggmate” that creates a ChatGPT-like assistant within its platform. (“We are very excited to work with Chegg, given their history as the leading student-first learning platform,” OpenAI’s Sam Altman said in a statement.) Mittelsteadt thinks this could be a smart move for the company. At this early stage it can still take a significant amount of effort to prompt a helpful answer from ChatGPT, as anyone who’s tinkered with it knows. “Prompt engineering isn't that easy, and a lot of students don't necessarily have time to learn how to do it,” he said. “If Chegg or other services can pivot and figure out how to improve that process, I think there's actually a lot of value there.” Which gets to why all this matters beyond just the fate of a niche edutech company. Just as with media innovations from the telegram to the world wide web, ChatGPT has drastically reduced the cost and effort involved in producing information. ChatGPT frequently spits out false or garbled information, but it can serve as a remarkably efficient jumping-off point for brainstorming, or for pointing its user in the direction of primary research materials. It’s well-documented at this point that advances like this have, for whatever reason, not meaningfully contributed to economic productivity. But each advance undoubtedly changes the way we think and learn — meaning the fate of a company like Chegg might be less useful as an economic indicator than as one of how the next generation of Americans will interpret the world around them. “There’s uncertainty in ChatGPT, unlike with Chegg, meaning that the students who are going to be cheating regardless can't necessarily trust the answers they're getting,” Mittelsteadt said. “So hopefully they’re then forced to validate those answers, which… is going to force them to learn something, or at least think a little bit, which is an improvement over the situation where they're using Chegg.”
|