Confessions of a Tech-Optimist

A few weeks ago, prominent VC—and inventor of the web browser—Marc Andreessen published a post entitled "The Tech-Optimist Manifesto". I learned about the post from two different podcasts, both of which described the piece as "deranged". While I'm not sure I would go quite that far, the style, tone and some specific remarks are admittedly rather strange:

We believe in the romance of technology, of industry. The eros of the train, the car, the electric light, the skyscraper. And the microchip, the neural network, the rocket, the split atom.

We believe in adventure. Undertaking the Hero’s Journey, rebelling against the status quo, mapping uncharted territory, conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community.

Uh, okay.

Nonetheless, Andreessen's thesis deserves to be taken seriously, particularly in that it surfaces a broader debate about the role of technology in modern society. The latter has become especially acute since the release of ChatGPT last year, as anxiety over recent improvements in AI have reached a fever pitch. The battle lines have been drawn between those who are focused on technology's harmful effects and those who believe it to be our savior.

There is nothing really new about this turn of events. In fact, I'm afraid to even mention the Luddites since it has become such a cliche. More recently, concerned citizens have been up in arms about nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and the widespread use of smartphones, each time grappling with the potential benefits and drawbacks of new technologies. The current debate around AI and technology is part of a historical continuum, reflecting our ongoing efforts to reconcile the promise and perils of technological advancement.

At this point I should admit to being a lifelong techno-optimist, with a fascination for computers and software development that began at the tender age of nine. Perhaps for this reason, I have always taken for granted that the best chance of solving society's problems is through development of increasingly advanced technology. From modern agriculture's elimination of hunger–in the developed world, at least–to the transformative power of the internet to increase access to knowledge, technology has been the main driver behind a centuries-long effort to improve our lives. And my beliefs are not just theoretical; they are informed by a lifetime spent observing technology's tangible benefits.

Like Andreessen, I've noticed a troubling trend over the past couple of decades. When I was young, tech founders were typically regarded as heroes. Rather than sit on their laurels, they were striving to effect real change in the world through innovation. They were conjuring up new tools, from the personal computer to the internet to the smartphone, that made a real difference in people's lives. If they got filthy rich in the process, this was just evidence that the system works. Why would anyone take on the risk and grueling work required to create a world-beating company, to the benefit of all mankind, if there wasn't a pot of gold waiting for them at the end of the startup rainbow?

In recent years, however, public opinion has turned against the tech industry. Facebook has been a popular target, accused of every manner of misdeed from improperly influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to inciting genocide in Myanmar. Tech bros with obnoxious libertarian views and frat boy lifestyles have replaced adorable nerds as the avatars of the San Francisco startup scene, ruining the city in the process. Oh, and Elon Musk.

Indeed, the growing antipathy towards technology has a lot to do with the perceived rightward shift of the tech elite in general, and Musk in particular. Much of this is driven by the mainstream press, which is famously left-leaning. The two opposing sides of the debate can be roughly summed up as follows:

• On one side are the techno-optimists. They are convinced that technology has played a crucial role in bettering humanity's lot: improving health, extending lifespans, vastly expanding agricultural production, increasing leisure time, offering mobility solutions for both local and international travel, and much more besides. These benefits have only been achievable thanks to the capitalist system underpinning the economies of the free world. Any effort to slow technology's advance, or temper the power of capitalism to provide incentives for risk-taking and innovation, is therefore counterproductive and must be vigorously resisted.
• On the other side of the debate are those who are skeptical or critical of the unbridled growth of technology and its intersection with capitalism. This group often includes segments of the mainstream media, activists, and some political figures. They are concerned about the socio-economic disparities and ethical implications that have accompanied technological advancements. Issues like the widening wealth gap, loss of privacy, ethical concerns surrounding AI, and the displacement of traditional jobs are central to their arguments. This perspective emphasizes the need for regulations and checks on the tech industry to ensure that technological progress does not come at the expense of societal well-being and ethical standards.

The stakes are high. To take one example, the skeptics argue vociferously that we are taking unwarranted risks by pursuing new AI technologies without fully understanding the potential consequences. Andreessen, meanwhile, speaks for the tech-optimist crowd when he claims, in his typical hyperbolic manner, that:

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.

Here's my take: I agree with Andreessen and the tech-optimists that technology is a largely a force for good. Efforts to slow down its advance are both counterproductive and likely futile. We are much more likely, for instance, to successfully combat climate change through carbon capture technology, renewable energy innovations, and advanced agricultural techniques than through attempts to scale back industrialization or reduce energy consumption. Likewise, we should be wary of focusing on highly speculative negative consequences of AI without considering the massive benefits it has the potential to provide. History has shown that technological advancements often yield the most effective solutions to the complex challenges we face.

At the same time, Andreessen's post is absurdly over-the-top and far too one-sided. Claims that opponents of AI research are guilty of murder, or that "technological innovation in a market system is inherently philanthropic, by a 50:1 ratio" are pretty hard to swallow. The packaging as a manifesto, with its pompous prose and questionable blend of Nietzschean and Randian tropes, is frankly a bit irritating. And there is absolutely no discussion of the downsides of technology, whether it's the potential for increased surveillance and loss of privacy, the exacerbation of social inequalities, the displacement of traditional jobs, or the ethical dilemmas posed by advancements like AI and genetic engineering.

I applaud Andreessen's underlying premise. It is all too easy to focus on the downsides of advanced technology while taking for granted its incredible benefits. If the result is a slowdown in progress, we will be depriving ourselves of potential medical advances, environmental solutions, and enhancements in quality of life that technology could bring. By demonizing capitalism because of the inevitable economic inequality it entails, meanwhile, we are jeopardizing a major driver of progress that redounds to the benefit of human society writ large.

Andreessen's perspective, however, while highlighting the undeniable benefits of technology, fails to address critical issues that are essential for a balanced understanding of its role in society. For example, he dismisses the idea of a Universal Basic Income (which I support) by claiming it will "turn people into zoo animals". He proposes no alternative solution to the problems of wealth inequality and computers replacing jobs, pretending instead that they don't exist.

I wholeheartedly agree with Andreessen that we need to fight tooth-and-nail against overly simplistic attitudes that exaggerate the risks of new technology without acknowledging the staggering benefits it has provided over the course of the past several centuries. I also believe that in most cases, the solution for technology's worst excesses is more technology. Andreessen's manifesto is fatally flawed, however, both due to its off-putting tone and its excessively one-sided viewpoint. A more balanced document, written in a less bombastic style, would be a far better way to advance his goals and viewpoint.