Andreessen has become almost like a caricature of a VC. He is like the Jamie Dimon of venture capital, except with less self-awareness.
AI promises to expand our capabilities and cause major social change. Of course the people best positioned to reap outsize rewards from this transformation think it's good. There's no acknowledgement that pmarca is very much not the everyman, and that his point of view is biased by his incentives and information diet.
What amazes me is the uncritical, almost childlike optimism about AI in this piece. AI won't save the world any more than electricity or the internet saved the world. Like all automation, AI will improve productivity. Under our current incentives, that means employees will become more efficient, businesses will need fewer of them, people will lose their jobs, margins will expand, quality of life will improve for those who can afford the benefits of the new tech, and social stratification will increase. Eventually, we'll invent new wants and new jobs to do, the new tech will filter down the social strata, and margins will shrink again as competition drives prices down (assuming a competent regulatory climate). Many families will be left in the lurch like the coal miners in Appalachia and the steelworkers in Gary, Indiana were.
Andreessen would rather gaze starry-eyed at his vision of the AI future than consider the societal implications of his vision and how to address them. Makes sense, he's a VC: dreaming about the future and convincing others to build/fund/support those dreams is his job. However, he's not just ignoring the societal downsides of technological progress: he's calling people with very real concerns - concerns backed by centuries of historical precedent - paranoiacs? In what world does this guy live?
Under what circumstances has it ever been that long term, improved efficiency would mean fewer employees needed? It's quite the contrary - improved efficiency will lead to more profits which will lead to more aggressive scaling and hiring, like it always has since the beginning of industrialization.
AI promises to expand our capabilities and cause major social change. Of course the people best positioned to reap outsize rewards from this transformation think it's good. There's no acknowledgement that pmarca is very much not the everyman, and that his point of view is biased by his incentives and information diet.
What amazes me is the uncritical, almost childlike optimism about AI in this piece. AI won't save the world any more than electricity or the internet saved the world. Like all automation, AI will improve productivity. Under our current incentives, that means employees will become more efficient, businesses will need fewer of them, people will lose their jobs, margins will expand, quality of life will improve for those who can afford the benefits of the new tech, and social stratification will increase. Eventually, we'll invent new wants and new jobs to do, the new tech will filter down the social strata, and margins will shrink again as competition drives prices down (assuming a competent regulatory climate). Many families will be left in the lurch like the coal miners in Appalachia and the steelworkers in Gary, Indiana were.
Andreessen would rather gaze starry-eyed at his vision of the AI future than consider the societal implications of his vision and how to address them. Makes sense, he's a VC: dreaming about the future and convincing others to build/fund/support those dreams is his job. However, he's not just ignoring the societal downsides of technological progress: he's calling people with very real concerns - concerns backed by centuries of historical precedent - paranoiacs? In what world does this guy live?