Discussion about this post

User's avatar
arthur smith's avatar

Arguably your most controversial essay.

For over 20 years I wrote such reports for the c-suite of an f100 company. Due to my experience in strategy, innovation, competitive intelligence, and foresight I appreciate the thought and effort required to fashion such an essay. Gotta decide when to use soft or passive language, picking thoughts that are defensible, trying to avoid crossing over from credible to incredible, how much detail, setting context, phew…

While reading, many thoughts came to mind. perhaps overly critical, but here you go:

1.) nothing created by humans works for "everyone". am i being hyper-critical, maybe, but words matter. "everyone" is an extreme word...

2.) innovations propagate across the world in waves. they typically emerge from multiple places (US, Europe, China, etc.). they often conflict when they come into contact with each other.

3.) you don't say the E word, but it seems implied when you use phrases like "work for everybody". there has never been a time in recorded history when humans were equal or had equity. the closest we have been to equity in a society has always required suppressing some people and/or favoring others... both imposed by a police force...

4.) i can support your opinion that AI will be a fast, maybe the fastest, spreading innovation ever. but it will still take decades to reach the majority of people, and when it does reach the majority, the various AI capabilities will vary in function and quality. additionally, people will not use AI with equal effectiveness.

5.) as you note, the US has been "unmoored" many times. Many/most geopolitical analysts say the US became unmoored when the USSR collapsed - circa 1990. But many credible analysts and historians also note other cycle durations.

6.) many look back and declare that the US created and used globalization to keep the USSR at bay. The USSR fell and now Russia has one thing left that keeps them in the game - nukes. Russia is a “has been” empire. Meanwhile globalization enabled the rise of China. So, now it is time to realign US political and commercial relationships accordingly. The disruption we see would be occurring with or without AI due to the change in empires. The new alignment includes developing “manufacturing” in places that cannot be leveraged against the US. Obvious locations include the US, Canada, and Northern Mexico. Regardless, manufacturing location needs to change. Why not bring it back to North America?

7.) AI is going to be “invented” in at least two places (US and China) and maybe three or four (EU, India).

8.) You note some advantages of AI, “…facts in all fields and spot patterns in vast amounts of data…” You and i know that “facts” are often subjective, and at the very least are contextual… the training engineers have the power…

9.) “The truth is that what comes out of this transformation in the coming decades is going to be a different kind of civilization. As crazy as it sounds, that’s the level of invention we are heading into.” An interesting statement. It is an attention getter but only tells us “the future will be different”…

10.) I agree with you that I don’t want the AI that is eventually used in the US to be designed, implemented, or operated by China or Europe

11.) This is a scary statement to me: “If you want to understand where America is going in the future, shift your gaze to the West Coast and focus on what’s happening in San Francisco.” I’m not very pleased about the thought that the future of AI will come out of SF. Sure, there are brilliant people. Sure, the SF area and its people have some great ideas and values. They also have some ideas and values that many find unappealing… ever been to Gonzales, TX, Pittsburg, KS, Ocean Springs, MS, Las Vegas, NM, or Monticello, IL? There are other places with other ways to live…

12.) the idea of “sharing wealth” through the ranks is an interesting statement. How about “earning wealth” through the ranks instead? I cannot think of a job that can’t be augmented with the use of AI, even if it is used to optimize the fastest, easiest, cheapest way to perform minimum wage work. But, it is psychologically better for people to “earn” something than to have it “shared” with them - among other things, they quickly develop the mentality that what is “shared” with them is “owed” to them... or as some pols might say, “it is your right”…

Expand full comment
Brian Hardwick's avatar

Love this vision Pete. Sign me up.

Expand full comment
43 more comments...

No posts