Anubhav Raina shares a post that explores the problem with tech leaders driving the wholesale adoption of tech.
Saw this pop-up in my feed and something about the tone and the people giving the message (tech leaders) just angered me.
Some fears are justified & their conversation should be encouraged. In today’s age it should be OK to go beyond the myopic view of how we are personally impacted by AI and also ask whether societal structures we have in place are sustainable at scale?
To counter people’s fears by telling them they only need to equip themselves is condescending to a large majority. The sub-text I read between the lines is “if you only equip yourself and manage to use tech better than others, you have nothing to fear”.
This is likely good advice at a personal level – but should we not pause & do some “second order thinking” on whether this good advice at scale?
Should tech leaders like Ranjani Mani or Chamath Palihapitiya not be leading the thinking on this?
Yes – Coca Cola was an example of someone using technology (refrigeration) to generate tremendous wealth. But they also led to job losses for a large number of mom-and-pop soda makers that probably lined the streets. Technology’s nature is such that it will reduce constraints on everyone (time, geography, money etc.)…and in the absence of these constraints a winner-take-all dynamic usually appears. Which is why VCs were so obsessed with this concept for the past couple of decades. This is just how it is.
And yes, it has been argued (rightly) before that creative destruction is a good thing as it allows for labor to be engaged in more productive activities – but the topic is certainly more nuanced than this sound-bite.
This logic of creative destruction only works if the new jobs don’t become redundant / susceptible very quickly after their creation.
Key points include:
- The impact of AI
- New industry disruption
- UBI adoption