Very interesting piece, thank you. Indeed true that a lot of the goods and services we consume today are becoming tech-enabled / based. I recently wrote about how every company is becoming / converging to a X-as-a-Services model (x being a good / service).
The excitement surrounding E/ACC is understandable. However, it's important to acknowledge the superficiality and tribalism that often accompanies it. Every year, we are bombarded with claims of new solutions to humanity's problems. And, almost inevitably, these announcements are followed by the introduction of a new fund that shares a similar investment thesis, to the point it is getting embarassing. Capitalism is as much about numbers as it is about narratives, and the PR machines of the like of A16Z are making sure their narratives are dominating the debate.
No one doubts Marc Andreessen's business achievements. However, success in technology does not necessarily translate to having all the answers for the world's complex challenges. Throughout history, many accomplished figures have also caused great harm and suffering.
We should evaluate any technology or business model soberly. App-based services have provided convenience but also displaced regulated providers and sometimes - people from their homes. AirBnB, one of A16Z's earlier investments is considered as one of the contributors to housing crises in many big cities all over the world (https://www.forbes.com/sites/garybarker/2020/02/21/the-airbnb-effect-on-housing-and-rent/).
Crypto's potential has attracted significant criminal activity (not only terrorists, but fraudsters like SBF too!). And AI systems still struggle to address plagiarism and misinformation. I do not intend to dismiss these innovations entirely, but the trade-offs deserve consideration.
Venture capital has funded positive change, but the incentives do not always align with public benefit. Technologists pursue the possible without always weighing broader societal impacts. Any call for radically "fixing" the world deserves a truthful debate on both the opportunities and limitations. A debate not limited to Marc Andreesseen, Keith Rabois and Elon Musk.
Last, but not least, determining what is "effective" depends greatly on one's values and priorities. We should discuss these questions openly, without assuming any one viewpoint holds a monopoly on wisdom or virtue. A diversity of perspectives and humility will serve society best.
Very interesting piece, thank you. Indeed true that a lot of the goods and services we consume today are becoming tech-enabled / based. I recently wrote about how every company is becoming / converging to a X-as-a-Services model (x being a good / service).
Is Every Company Becoming a Software Business?
https://brandanatomy101.substack.com/p/is-every-company-becoming-a-software
The excitement surrounding E/ACC is understandable. However, it's important to acknowledge the superficiality and tribalism that often accompanies it. Every year, we are bombarded with claims of new solutions to humanity's problems. And, almost inevitably, these announcements are followed by the introduction of a new fund that shares a similar investment thesis, to the point it is getting embarassing. Capitalism is as much about numbers as it is about narratives, and the PR machines of the like of A16Z are making sure their narratives are dominating the debate.
No one doubts Marc Andreessen's business achievements. However, success in technology does not necessarily translate to having all the answers for the world's complex challenges. Throughout history, many accomplished figures have also caused great harm and suffering.
We should evaluate any technology or business model soberly. App-based services have provided convenience but also displaced regulated providers and sometimes - people from their homes. AirBnB, one of A16Z's earlier investments is considered as one of the contributors to housing crises in many big cities all over the world (https://www.forbes.com/sites/garybarker/2020/02/21/the-airbnb-effect-on-housing-and-rent/).
Crypto's potential has attracted significant criminal activity (not only terrorists, but fraudsters like SBF too!). And AI systems still struggle to address plagiarism and misinformation. I do not intend to dismiss these innovations entirely, but the trade-offs deserve consideration.
Venture capital has funded positive change, but the incentives do not always align with public benefit. Technologists pursue the possible without always weighing broader societal impacts. Any call for radically "fixing" the world deserves a truthful debate on both the opportunities and limitations. A debate not limited to Marc Andreesseen, Keith Rabois and Elon Musk.
Last, but not least, determining what is "effective" depends greatly on one's values and priorities. We should discuss these questions openly, without assuming any one viewpoint holds a monopoly on wisdom or virtue. A diversity of perspectives and humility will serve society best.