Editor’s note: The perpetual optimism of technological innovation belies the gritty reality of internet culture. Before we get too excited about Internet 2025, our Head of Content and Product wanted to set the record straight about where we are now and what we should not expect to see in the next internet. Is he telling the hot new internet to get off his proverbial lawn?

In an era dominated by digital abundance, where emails, photos, and various forms of digital clutter have become the norm, many look towards artificial intelligence (AI) as a silver bullet. However, the solution to digital hoarding—a behavior deeply embedded in our interactions with technology—is not as straightforward as deploying more sophisticated AI tools. Instead, it necessitates a shift in our digital behavior, a change in how we engage with digital content.

AI, with its promise of efficiency and automation, offers compelling solutions to manage the ever-growing piles of digital clutter. From smart email filters that prioritize incoming messages to photo management apps that organize images using facial recognition, the capabilities of AI in handling our digital mess seem boundless. However, these technological advancements, while helpful, do not address the root cause of the issue: our behavior and relationship with digital content.

Ezra Klein’s contemplation sheds light on a pervasive issue that transcends simple technological fixes. Klein introduces the concept of “shame closets” in our digital worlds—repositories where we stash away the unwieldy bulk of digital content that we accumulate, much of it unnecessary, leading to a chaotic and overwhelming digital existence. This metaphor strikingly encapsulates the disarray that defines much of our online lives today, from overflowing email inboxes to unmanageable photo collections and beyond.

What was once seen as a digital liberation has morphed into a form of digital bondage, where the sheer volume of data—emails, photos, messages—has become too daunting to manage effectively.

Klein’s reflection on Gmail’s evolution is particularly poignant. The initial promise of Gmail, with its then-unprecedented storage capacity, symbolized a new era of digital abundance. Yet, this very abundance, facilitated by the plummeting cost of digital storage, has become a double-edged sword. What was once seen as a digital liberation has morphed into a form of digital bondage, where the sheer volume of data—emails, photos, messages—has become too daunting to manage effectively.

The essence of the problem lies not in the lack of tools to manage digital clutter but in our approach to digital consumption and retention. We live in an age of digital abundance, where the cost of storing digital information has become negligible, leading to the indiscriminate saving of emails, photos, and files. This behavior is further exacerbated by FOMO anxiety, compelling us to subscribe to countless newsletters, capture endless photos, and download numerous files with the hope of revisiting them someday—a day that seldom comes.

Enter the concept of digital minimalism, a philosophy that encourages a more intentional approach to technology usage, focusing on quality over quantity. Apps like Hey, which force users to make deliberate choices about what to focus on, embody this philosophy. They challenge the user to confront their digital habits, asking them to decide what truly deserves their attention and what can be let go. This approach aligns with the values of ON_Discourse, emphasizing the importance of conscious engagement over passive consumption.

AI can provide the tools to assist in our digital decluttering efforts, but it cannot make the fundamental choices for us.

Adopting such a mindset requires more than just the use of sophisticated apps; it demands a cultural shift towards valuing digital space as much as we value physical space. Just as one would declutter their home to create a more harmonious environment, the same principle should apply to our digital lives. By fostering a culture of digital minimalism, we not only alleviate the stress associated with digital clutter but also open up space for meaningful digital engagement.

The role of AI in this cultural shift is supportive, not central. AI can provide the tools to assist in our digital decluttering efforts, but it cannot make the fundamental choices for us. The decision to unsubscribe from a newsletter, delete redundant photos, or archive old emails remains human, grounded in our ability to discern what holds value. As we navigate the intersections of technology with various sectors, it becomes clear that the solution to digital hoarding lies not in more technology, but in a renewed understanding of how we interact with the digital world.

AI and apps like Hey offer valuable assistance in managing digital clutter, but they cannot save us from it. The true resolution lies in changing our digital behaviors, adopting a minimalist approach, and making conscious choices about what deserves our attention. This behavioral shift, supported by technology, can lead us to a more manageable and meaningful digital existence.

Presence is the

Next Frontier

in Connectivity

Editors Note: What if Internet 2025 was really a story about enhanced digital infrastructure? The majority of the future-speculation focuses on novel consumer tech experiences but pays little attention to reimagining the way devices connect. This perspective comes from a technology executive who has a compelling vision for how humans and devices will soon interoperate.

Since 2019, the number of connected devices inside homes has increased 40%

browsing?

From the editor: The AI era has ushered in a new way of content interaction: prompting. This article explores two views on what will happen to another interaction model: browsing.

No, it won’t.

Generative AI is transforming content consumption, starting with just a prompt. This shift begs a critical question: Are we overestimating the desire to engage with content through AI prompts, and underestimating the timeless value of traditional browsing?

The enduring appeal of browsing

Browsing—the act of casually exploring content without a specific goal—has been an intrinsic part of human behavior long before the digital era. It caters to our innate curiosity and desire for serendipitous discovery. In contrast to AI-prompted interactions, where responses are generated based on specific user inputs, browsing allows users to stumble upon unexpected content, leading to new ideas and inspirations.

I spoke to Tyler Chance, a VP of Product at Hearst, who questions whether a prompt-first interface can lead to a better user experience.

“I don’t know what replaces the browse. If the entire Netflix homepage were to go away and just be an input prompt… because now, I’ve watched everything that I know I want. How do I get to the things that I don’t know I want?”

It is about the dopamine, the slow dopamine drip of a browse.”

The prompt paradigm

AI technologies have introduced a new way of interacting with content. AI systems like chatbots and recommendation engines provide users with content based on direct prompts or past behavior. This approach, while efficient, is rooted in the assumption that users always have a clear intent or preference when engaging with content, which is not always the case.

We must consider the balance between intent-based consumption and discovery through browsing. While AI excels in delivering content tailored to specific queries, it may not always capture the joy of spontaneous discovery that browsing offers. 

User preferences: new or familiar?

Do people currently spend more time seeking specific information or exploring content without a predetermined goal? This question extends to user interface preferences. Do people genuinely seek a new way of interacting with content, or is there comfort and satisfaction in traditional methods? While some may argue that current content consumption methods are outdated and inefficient, others find value in the familiar experience of browsing, suggesting resistance to completely adopting prompt-based interfaces.

Chance believes that it would be hard to break away from how attractive, addictive, and spontaneous the browsing experience is, as opposed to one where you’re expected to know the right way to prompt or always have a specific intent.

“Just think about the notion of UX over the last like, 10 years,” Chance said. “It is about the dopamine, the slow dopamine drip of a browse. That is what the social feed is. That is what you know. That’s where we start. We start and then we hone and that is going to be a really hard nut to crack because it is the place to go when you have zero intent and you want to craft an intent.” 

The argument for AI-driven content discovery is flawed. The assumption that users always have a clear intent is overstated, while browsing without a specific goal can lead to discovering content that one might not have known existed. Additionally, AI systems, while advanced, don’t understand the nuances of human curiosity and the desire for serendipity.

Yes, it will (sorta).

Something was bothering me, and I couldn’t figure out what the query should be. All I could remember was that “an investor at some point in time spotted a trend wherein the first few days of January set the tone for the rest of the year.” This was not enough for a Google search, or at least not enough to avoid a lot of furious and frustrated clicking.
 
I turned to Perplexity AI. The chatbot’s quick responses, inaccurate or not, led me to remember the phrase “investor’s almanac,” which pointed me to the Stock Trader’s Almanac. Perplexity then informed me about “the first five trading days of January” and the “January Barometer.” I then confidently turned to Google, where I satisfied my knowledge gap by browsing and reading a variety of high-quality articles.

This anecdote cemented two realizations for me:
1. Prompting is not a temporary phenomenon.
2. Browsing is not going away.

In a world of just prompting, I would have been stuck wondering what responses were accurate and which were hallucinated. In a world of just searching, I would have spent too long trying to figure out the right query, if I had had the energy to search at all.

Sometimes, humans want to quickly prompt. Other times, we just want to browse.

ON_Discourse co-founder Toby Daniels, a veteran of CES,
has taken over our CES planning meetings with hot takes
from his ample experience from the show. We thought we
should give him the pen to write a mini confessional about
the world’s biggest consumer tech conference. 
—ON_D

Toby Daniels

Co-Founder, ON_Discourse

CES is not new to me. I’ve been attending the event for over 15 years, having walked the crowded halls, networked in one event after the other, and seen countless overhyped tech unveilings.

CES’ primary problem is the whole event is confusing and crowded, while also
being extremely isolating. I am not alone in making this diagnosis; I have had
countless conversations with fellow convention goers and tech executives who
report feeling disoriented and lonely (especially during loud networking events).
This problem creates the conditions that lead to the second, most common issue.

The event’s secondary problem mirrors a major issue in business, tech, and
media: groupthink. The show is an echo chamber with familiar faces and
conventional ideas wrapped in flashy tech. In this mode, agreement is chosen over
conflict, and innovation is nothing but an empty vessel of safe concepts.

CES is often touted as “a beacon for leaders in business and technology,” where
the future meets today’s reality. While this paints a picture of innovation and
forward-thinking, it often masks the event’s superficial nature. CES, in all its
glory, can sometimes be more about shiny objects and getting into the hottest
party or VIP event rather than the depth of conversation. Despite the countless
curved TV screens that are never going to be a thing, I believe in the value of this
event and that we can fix CES.

True perspective, I’ve learned, comes from heated debates, uncomfortable questions, and a willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. This year, we are bringing our discourse and community to CES.

The discipline of discourse is a forcing function that lets us provoke, argue,
challenge, and listen – not just to reply, but to understand and consider. These
authentic engagements help us break free from the cycle of redundancy and
uncover truly groundbreaking ideas and new perspectives.

At CES 2024, the ON_Discourse team will make the show in January worth
attending for our members, who will be organized into “Pods”, or small groups
that attend sessions together, join dinners, hit up parties, and practice the
discipline of discourse as a single unit. They will also get a guided experience,
including a kick-off briefing, a discourse-driven tour of the convention floor, and
invitations to a carefully curated list of events.

The discipline of discourse is a forcing function that lets us provoke, argue,
challenge, and listen – not just to reply, but to understand and consider. These
authentic engagements help us break free from the cycle of redundancy and
uncover truly groundbreaking ideas and new perspectives.

As we move towards CES 2024, I feel a renewed sense of purpose. Our approach
is different – we won’t be there just to observe; we’ll be there to engage and
disrupt the status quo of conversations. We’re setting up to ensure our members
experience CES not as a showcase of gadgets, but as a forum of intelligent,
meaningful dialogue.

I am hopeful that with our concerted effort, this CES will mark a turning point.
Our next Issue, “Intelligently Artificial,” will capture this shift from superficial
tech displays to rich, meaningful exchanges of ideas. It’s not just about the
technology; it’s about the intelligence behind it – the thoughts, the debates, and
the discourse.

Toby Daniels

Co-Founder, ON_Discourse

There is an uneasy tension in the sports rights model across cable, broadcast, and streaming.

On the one hand, cord-cutting is eating away at the extraordinary scale of linear, which counted more than 105 million cable TV households in the US over a decade ago. The pricing of past sports rights deals reflected that, and not so much the promise of streaming.

Today, there are around 60 million homes with cable access, and over 75 million if we include virtual cable distributors like YouTube TV and Fubo TV.

On the other hand, new sports rights deals must assume both the declining scale of cable network distribution and the growth of streaming. The recent NFL deal has Paramount’s CBS, Comcast’s NBC, and Disney’s ABC and ESPN all distributing games across both linear and streaming platforms (Fox will distribute via linear, only). Deals struck in the past few years by the NHL, the PGA Tour, and WWE also have versions of the linear plus streaming business logic built in.

There are growing questions emerging about the business model of streaming. Legacy media streaming services are struggling to scale and to turn a profit. The worry is that some may not be around in a few years. In some cases, like with Paramount Global, their negative free cash flow and junk-rated debt are legitimate reasons for partners like the NFL to be worried.

Software

MIKE TREFF

CEO, Code and Theory
Co-Founder, ON_Discourse

Hardware

DAN GARDNER

Co-Founder and Exec Chair,
Code and Theory
Co-Founder, ON_Discourse

So, in conclusion…

Hardware matters. Imagine a company invents new AR tech that can be easily integrated into any piece of glass. Imagine a company that builds a platform to let anyone cheaply project onto any piece of glass. Either way, every window can now be a screen. That matters. Your brand may not be the company that invents a new form factor, but you need to be able to leverage the latest innovation. Ultimately, you can’t ignore hardware or the software.

If your brand wants to build a moat, however, the key isn’t hardware or software. It’s data. To stay relevant, business leaders must figure out how to leverage software-enabled hardware to deploy robust data strategies.

The question then is: Do you have the data to be competitive?

From the editor: Before the launch of the Intelligently Artificial Issue, we invited Peter Smart, the global CXO of Fantasy, to give a demo of a new AI-powered audience research tool the company calls Synthetic Humans. This article is a distillation of the discourse from that event.  

Digital product design does not happen in a vacuum. Designers, product owners, marketing teams, and business stakeholders all have extensive conversations with customers before, during, and after designs are ultimately shipped. This process is timely and expensive and it feeds a thriving user research industry; consumer brands pay a premium for access to real people from target audience segments to record reactions and develop concepts. The vendors and design teams then plot that feedback into thousands of slide deck pages across the land. The testers get paid, the vendor gets paid, the design staff gets approval, and the designs ultimately ship.

Here’s the thing about all of this testing: what if it’s fake? What if real people are the problem?

Real people are too human to be reliable. They lie, they cut corners, and their attention wanes. They’re in it for the money, which obscures their true opinions as they are not invested in the experience. They resist change with red-hot passion before they embrace and ultimately celebrate it. They are not useful testers.

The proliferation of user research as a design process is responsible for standardized and conventional design practices online. It is hard to produce a differentiated design when we try to meet people where they say they are.

Put bluntly, real people are a waste of time and money.

Can AI fix this?

Fantasy believes that the solution to this human problem of qualitative testing is to use AI to develop a new, scalable audience research ecosystem built on synthetic humans.

A synthetic human is a digital representation of a human being, built using an LLM that converts a massive amount of real survey data into a realistic representation of a human being. Think of it as a digital shell of a human cobbled together using thousands of psychographics data points.

Prompting a synthetic human should give you a realistic response. As a result, if you train a synthetic human to deliver feedback and reactions to developing ideas, you should get actionable audience data. These modern-day AI-generated avatars are much more powerful than a chatbot because they generate and sustain their own memories.

We are not talking about Alexa or Siri here. A synthetic human initiated with a preliminary dataset (age, demographics, location, income, job, and so on) can determine, without any other prompt, that “she” has two daughters, aged 5 and 3. These daughters have names and go to a certain school. Their teachers have names and each daughter has a favorite subject or cuddle toy.

If you don’t interact with this synthetic human for six months and then prompt “her” again, these daughters would still be in “her” mind, as would the teachers and the school. In the intervening time, the children might have celebrated a birthday, or entered the next grade, all aspects that get folded into the profile and leveraged for realistic responses. As a result, “her” opinions about your developing ideas can feel more reliable.

Organizations can train these humans to react to developing concepts, or brainstorm new concepts outright. They can also leverage their generative memory capabilities to help organizations overcome embedded workflow obstacles, like stubborn stakeholders.

Let’s say an organization knows that “Bob” in audience development has a reputation for capricious feedback that often causes a production bottleneck. The organization can train a synthetic human to brainstorm ways to overcome Bob’s reputation.

Here’s another example. Imagine prompting two contradictory synthetic humans (one is aggressive and the other is conservative) to collectively brainstorm an idea over the weekend so that you can arrive on Monday to a fresh batch of thinking. These two personalities are not just coming up with ideas; they are reacting to each other’s ideas, giving feedback, rejecting suggestions, and building on top of promising sparks.

What’s the catch?

There is always a catch. And at ON_Discourse, we lean into the questions that hide underneath the inspiring claims of innovative technology. There is no denying the potential of synthetic humans. It is a direct response to the biggest issues that plague the audience research industry today. Synthetic humans can stay focused, can offer candid feedback, and can be scaled to deliver deeper insights at a lower cost. These are good things. But there are gaps in the capabilities of these tools. Our virtual discourse on November 30 unpacked some of them and thus the limitations of synthetic humans for audience research.

Synthetic humans cannot predict the future. They are locked in the snow globe of their initial configuration. Their generated memories cannot incorporate the development of novel technology or cultural revolutions. As a result, we should not expect this kind of tool to unlock perspectives for new developments. This is notable, given that we are living in an era of rapid, unpredictable change. What humans think about specific disruptions will have to come from other sources.

Synthetic humans do not access deeply human emotional states. They do not grieve. They do not get irate. They do not get horny or goofy, and they do not long after something that is just out of reach. These powerful emotions provide the source material for some of our most inspiring technical and creative accomplishments. Our guests provoked this concept with real-world examples of powerful emotional moments. There are limits to what we can expect an avatar to create – we cannot prompt a bot to dig deeper. Synthetic humans are calibrated to maintain a level set of emotions.

The issues we explored regarding synthetic humans speak more to the role of audience research than to the capabilities of this tool. The collated test results that are plotted on slide decks represent an unintentional hand-off of creative thinking to the masses. Forward thinking organizations are going to recognize the value of synthetic research for solving the achievable problems they face in design and product development. And they will leave the big thinking to the people that still run their business with their head, heart, and with their real human teams.

Do you disagree or have a completely different perspective?
We’d love to know.