Marc Andreessen, the tech billionaire who is a little bit too optimistic about Technology, more specifically AI, is being heavily appreciated and also sincerely criticised. Pointing out his recent ‘Techno-Optimist Manifesto’, people have been calling him to change the title to ‘Techno-Billionaire Manifesto‘. But is the manifesto really that deluded?

As with any spirited debate, there are those who offer a more cautious perspective. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has always acknowledged that, “every Technological revolution affects the job market. I’m not afraid of that at all. That’s the way of progress. And we’ll find new and better jobs”. The optimism, clearly visible. 

Before dismissing Andreessen’s views as an investor and billionaire, another investor has been weighing in similar thoughts. Vinod Khosla, the founder of Khosla Ventures, the first investors of OpenAI, also offers a stern warning, suggesting that most AI investments today will lead to losses. He likens AI investing to a hype cycle, cautioning that only disciplined investors will reap the benefits.

Active vs normative optimists, not libertarian

Amongst all the voices, Andreessen may be one of the most vocal proponents of AI’s potential, but he’s far from alone in his convictions. LeCun’s words, like Andreessen’s, resonate with a core truth — AI is unlikely to cause instant mass unemployment. Instead, it will displace jobs over time and, ideally, make people more productive.

While declaring that slowing down AI is tantamount to murder might be hyperbolic, it’s undeniable that we’re in the midst of remarkable AI advancements, and optimism isn’t unwarranted.

LeCun points out, “A few of my famous friends and colleagues have expressed hesitations about technological risks. It is not because they are techno-pessimists. They do believe in the ability of technological progress, and AI in particular, to improve the human condition. But they doubt that current economic and political institutions, and humanity as a whole, will be capable of using it for good.”

“We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder,” read Andreessen’s 5000-word blog, decided by the enemies and friends of AI. 

The people criticising Andreessen’s views are most concerned with the list of institutions that he calls are enemies of AI. Sustainability is one of them. Noah Smith argues for this in his blog saying, “But while he might be referring to people who cloak degrowth ideas under a false banner of sustainability, actual sustainability is not an enemy of techno-optimism. Indeed, it’s a core part of it. Being able to sustain technological society into the indefinite future is, itself, a fundamental goal of innovation. And the way to accomplish that sustenance is almost always more innovation, not less.”

Adam Wenchel, chief executive of AI company Arthur, said, “These systems are going to roll out over time, very gradually, people are going to adapt to them and it’s going to be OK.” 

Chis Cox, Meta Platforms’ chief product officer, highlights the positive impact of AI on business efficiency, citing AI chatbots based on celebrities as examples. These applications, while promising, also raise ethical questions about deepfakes and data privacy. Michael Wolf, co-founder and CEO of Activate, predicts a significant shift in the search industry driven by open-source AI models. While his vision is exciting, it underscores the profound changes AI will bring.

Is Andreessen right then?

Andreessen asserts that we are all being fed a steady diet of falsehoods, with claims that technology is a harbinger of doom, poised to steal our jobs, reduce our wages, increase inequality, and wreak havoc on our society. He argues, “Our civilisation is built on technology. Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realisation of our potential.” While this perspective is undeniably enticing, it’s not immune to scrutiny.

The notion that technology is the magic elixir for all our woes has its detractors, and they’re not entirely wrong. Concerns raised by luminaries like Elon Musk and Gary Gensler about the unbridled growth of AI and its potential consequences are far from baseless.

Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Inflection AI, likens the rush to “build AI chatbots” to the rush to build websites at the dawn of the internet or apps after the advent of smartphones. This analogy draws attention to the fast-paced nature of AI innovation and its potential pitfalls.

Apart from these tech leaders, Indian IT has been also deeply integrating Generative AI in its services and profiting off of it. For example, TCS has been integrating generative AI in its services after being a little sceptical till last year. EXL chief said that the company is looking to hit a $2 billion revenue mark in the next two years, led by its focus on digital businesses and significant upcoming investments in generative AI. 

Similarly, Genpact, which shys away from disclosing bookings outlook, in the recent quarter, revealed that it expects full-year bookings growth of 25-30% above last year’s level of $3.9 billion, banking on generative AI projects and initiatives. 

Clearly, there is real impact on the ground of this generative AI revolution, which is not just driven by investors and billionaires. 

So, what’s the conclusion here? While Andreessen’s manifesto might be fittingly labelled as ‘The Techno-Billionaire Manifesto’ by some, it’s essential to critically examine the claims of unbridled techno-optimism. Regardless of that, it is up to you to decide if you are a techno-optimist or a techno-pessimist.

The post Are You A Techno Optimist or Pessimist?  appeared first on Analytics India Magazine.