While I enjoy deep philosophy discussions, let's set abstract, generalized philosophy aside for a moment, as every technology needs an examination for the totality of its merits, negatives, and risks.
After spending 3 years recently as an AI strategist/modeler at the National Artificial Intelligence Institute, I believe I can speak in more than simple abstract terms. Some of the negatives of unfettered LLM AI are;
- Entry level job openings in many areas are falling dramatically due to AI replacement, with a resulting rising unemployment rate among the young adult population (https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/2026-graduates-job-market-7928bcd ) Musk proposed a basic income, but then so our youth then look forward to life as Well's Eloi?
- Data center growth is also mashing the accelerator of energy consumption, and in the current adminstration, this means even higher levels of fossil fuel consumption that risks both future peaks in said non-renewable energy sources, and an accelerated decimation of our descendants' climate. ( https://www.utilitydive.com/news/fossil-fuel-gas-coal-climate-data-centers/753565/ )
- The cognitive power of impending Artificial SuperIntelligence (ASI) to dominate humankind cannot be dismissed with the wave of a hand. From OpenAI's Leopold Aschenbrenner before the OpenAI Safety Team was fired (which led the establishment of another Safety Team, which was also soon fired) , ASI could;
- Provide a decisive and overwhelming military advantage. Even early cognitive superintelligence might be enough here; perhaps some superhuman hacking scheme can deactivate adversary militaries. In any case, military power and technological progress has been tightly linked historically, and with extraordinarily rapid technological progress will come concomitant military revolutions. The drone swarms and roboarmies will be a big deal, but they are just the beginning; we should expect completely new kinds of weapons, from novel WMDs to invulnerable laser-based missile defense to things we can’t yet fathom. Compared to pre-superintelligence arsenals, it’ll be like 21st century militaries fighting a 19th century brigade of horses and bayonets. (I discuss how superintelligence could lead to a decisive military advantage in a later piece.)
- Be able to overthrow the US government. Whoever controls superintelligence will quite possibly have enough power to seize control from pre-superintelligence forces. Even without robots, the small civilization of superintelligences would be able to hack any undefended military, election, television, etc. system, cunningly persuade generals and electorates, economically outcompete nation-states, design new synthetic bioweapons and then pay a human in bitcoin to synthesize it, and so on. In the early 1500s, Cortes and about 500 Spaniards conquered the Aztec empire of several million; Pizarro and ~300 Spaniards conquered the Inca empire of several million; Alfonso and ~1000 Portuguese conquered the Indian Ocean. They didn’t have god-like power, but the Old World’s technological edge and an advantage in strategic and diplomatic cunning led to an utterly decisive advantage. Superintelligence might look similar.
( https://situational-awareness.ai/from-agi-to-superintelligence/ ) and make sure to read the full page before shrugging the above of as unfounded or unrealistic. In fact, as a related thought exercise, ask chat GPT "How many cognitive biases do humans possess?" that an ASI could easily exploit with all the extant information, writings, speeches, posts, and tens of thousands of data points about virtually all humans in positions of power and influence.
Abstractions are fine, though even the most abstract thinkers know that some technologies carry very real existential risks. For example, a global nuclear war would result in a decades long nuclear winter from which very few species would re-emerge. And AI in war games have been notorious for launching nuclear weapons as an early resort....
In addition to my appreciation of how you write, I read everything of yours that I can because I learn something every time I do. This is no exception.
I think that most people accept the fact that things change, that progress is both inevitable and that people will have to adapt to that reality.
Their degree of comfort with change is influenced by the agents of change and the perception by the general public as to the qualities demonstrated by these agents of change.
When the Scottish lords force their tenants off the land and replace them with sheep I suspect that their former tenants did not think that this “ change “ was in their best interest.
Today we are confronted with the AI revolution that promises to have an impact upon citizens that will be heaven for some and hell for other.
People look to those who lead this change for guidance. An essential factor in providing this guidance is the character of those who lead the change. For AI it is the Tech bros.
How does the public assess the credibility of these individuals?
I suspect they the public applies a test based essentially on something akin to the Seven deadly sins and the twelve virtues. I haven’t checked but I suspect that those attributes are found in most if not all major religions and secular societies .
When we examine the behaviours and statements of the Tec bros what do we find?
Is there a hint of pride? Of a strong belief in their own abilities?
Is there a hint of greed? An insatiable desire for wealth? Billions? Trillions ?
Is there envy? Jealously towards others ?
Wrath?
Extreme anger towards others?
Let’s look at the positive characteristics.
How many are exercising prudence? They express fear and the need for guard rails but race ahead in their absence. Is that an example of wise decision making?
Justice? Fairness in dealing with others?
Temperance? Self control and moderation? Demonstrating an ability to deal with hardship?
The bottom line is can they be trusted to give full consideration to the impact of AI on society writ large or are they in it for themselves come hell or high water.
Absent trust ,society will be in a period of unrest and possibly turmoil .
I recall Ursula Franklin’s The Real World of Technology. I see AI wants to help refresh my memory of her. Anyway I have always called my computer The Machine. I enjoyed reading your article.
I have to say I was confused by the title until I realized this post was two essays that are works in progress. The first essay reads like a theory of coming, inevitable defeat. Is it inevitable? The second essay is harder for me to get my mind around, perhaps because I'm having trouble distinguishing between the general argument and the specific cases. The responses from other readers are part of why I subscribe here. Thanks for two thought provoking essays.
I'm not sure who you've been reading to get the idea that everyone loved technology in that past - probably business boosters. In my technologist world, it's an absolute axiom that humanities types have hated technology and technologists from time immemorial. That's what Marc Andreesen is drawing on. And, to be transgressive and shocking myself, I think he's more right than wrong. Yeah, I don't look to the Pope, especially for technology advice, because the Church has forbidden (hormonal) birth control. Think about that - BIRTH CONTROL! The Catholic Church's view is that women may not use this technology to stop from getting pregnant. That's their definition of "what's good for humanity". NO, I will not bow down to someone who prohibits contraceptives as unacceptable technology. That supposed "reverence for life" looks a lot more like having a strong aspect of repressive patriarchy.
And it doesn't help your argument to be comparing what's basically an off-the-cuff expression of derision to a cherry-picked long essay. Many of these people can write "cogent and thoughtful" expression of their beliefs. You (or I) may strong disagree with their beliefs - but they do have the ability to defend them.
I’ve read many pages of Andreessen’s writings and listened to hours of his interviews. My characterization is fair and substantive. He is astonishingly arrogant and dismissive and never deals with strong arguments or nuances.
As to the Pope, we can debate what values should guide but that values should guide? No. And frankly there’s nothing in what the pope wrote to warrant this take. You’re dragging in other beefs, not judging his words.
Note, I said "many of these people", specifically not "Andreesen". Without discussing him in specific, there's no requirement that every single such person be able to give extensive philosophical defenses of their views. That's a very irritating presumption common to humanities types. They live for this, so anyone who doesn't must be derided as "uncultured" or some such. Hence the cherry-picking.
On the Pope, respectfully, I strongly disagree - I quoted the specific words "reverence for life" for a reason. The Church puts under that rubric "no birth control". No, it's not other beefs. It's exactly this belief. The values of the Church are not vague platitudes. They have very detailed ideas on what isn't permitted to be done with technology, like reproductive freedom. And long philosophical defenses of that view. I will not "sanewash" them.
While I enjoy deep philosophy discussions, let's set abstract, generalized philosophy aside for a moment, as every technology needs an examination for the totality of its merits, negatives, and risks.
After spending 3 years recently as an AI strategist/modeler at the National Artificial Intelligence Institute, I believe I can speak in more than simple abstract terms. Some of the negatives of unfettered LLM AI are;
- Entry level job openings in many areas are falling dramatically due to AI replacement, with a resulting rising unemployment rate among the young adult population (https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/2026-graduates-job-market-7928bcd ) Musk proposed a basic income, but then so our youth then look forward to life as Well's Eloi?
- MIT and other studies show that persons relying more and more on AI for analysis they once performed are exhibiting cognitive decline ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf )
- The rapid expansion in data center construction is threatening the stability and reliability of power grids to the point of blackouts. ( https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-center-energy-needs-are-upending-power-grids-and-threatening-the-climate )
- Data center growth combined with their high level of water for cooling is also threatening water supplies. ( https://news.vt.edu/articles/2025/07/eng-cee-data-centers-threaten-energy-and-water.html )
- Data center growth is also mashing the accelerator of energy consumption, and in the current adminstration, this means even higher levels of fossil fuel consumption that risks both future peaks in said non-renewable energy sources, and an accelerated decimation of our descendants' climate. ( https://www.utilitydive.com/news/fossil-fuel-gas-coal-climate-data-centers/753565/ )
- The cognitive power of impending Artificial SuperIntelligence (ASI) to dominate humankind cannot be dismissed with the wave of a hand. From OpenAI's Leopold Aschenbrenner before the OpenAI Safety Team was fired (which led the establishment of another Safety Team, which was also soon fired) , ASI could;
- Provide a decisive and overwhelming military advantage. Even early cognitive superintelligence might be enough here; perhaps some superhuman hacking scheme can deactivate adversary militaries. In any case, military power and technological progress has been tightly linked historically, and with extraordinarily rapid technological progress will come concomitant military revolutions. The drone swarms and roboarmies will be a big deal, but they are just the beginning; we should expect completely new kinds of weapons, from novel WMDs to invulnerable laser-based missile defense to things we can’t yet fathom. Compared to pre-superintelligence arsenals, it’ll be like 21st century militaries fighting a 19th century brigade of horses and bayonets. (I discuss how superintelligence could lead to a decisive military advantage in a later piece.)
- Be able to overthrow the US government. Whoever controls superintelligence will quite possibly have enough power to seize control from pre-superintelligence forces. Even without robots, the small civilization of superintelligences would be able to hack any undefended military, election, television, etc. system, cunningly persuade generals and electorates, economically outcompete nation-states, design new synthetic bioweapons and then pay a human in bitcoin to synthesize it, and so on. In the early 1500s, Cortes and about 500 Spaniards conquered the Aztec empire of several million; Pizarro and ~300 Spaniards conquered the Inca empire of several million; Alfonso and ~1000 Portuguese conquered the Indian Ocean. They didn’t have god-like power, but the Old World’s technological edge and an advantage in strategic and diplomatic cunning led to an utterly decisive advantage. Superintelligence might look similar.
( https://situational-awareness.ai/from-agi-to-superintelligence/ ) and make sure to read the full page before shrugging the above of as unfounded or unrealistic. In fact, as a related thought exercise, ask chat GPT "How many cognitive biases do humans possess?" that an ASI could easily exploit with all the extant information, writings, speeches, posts, and tens of thousands of data points about virtually all humans in positions of power and influence.
Abstractions are fine, though even the most abstract thinkers know that some technologies carry very real existential risks. For example, a global nuclear war would result in a decades long nuclear winter from which very few species would re-emerge. And AI in war games have been notorious for launching nuclear weapons as an early resort....
In addition to my appreciation of how you write, I read everything of yours that I can because I learn something every time I do. This is no exception.
Thanks.
I think that most people accept the fact that things change, that progress is both inevitable and that people will have to adapt to that reality.
Their degree of comfort with change is influenced by the agents of change and the perception by the general public as to the qualities demonstrated by these agents of change.
When the Scottish lords force their tenants off the land and replace them with sheep I suspect that their former tenants did not think that this “ change “ was in their best interest.
Today we are confronted with the AI revolution that promises to have an impact upon citizens that will be heaven for some and hell for other.
People look to those who lead this change for guidance. An essential factor in providing this guidance is the character of those who lead the change. For AI it is the Tech bros.
How does the public assess the credibility of these individuals?
I suspect they the public applies a test based essentially on something akin to the Seven deadly sins and the twelve virtues. I haven’t checked but I suspect that those attributes are found in most if not all major religions and secular societies .
When we examine the behaviours and statements of the Tec bros what do we find?
Is there a hint of pride? Of a strong belief in their own abilities?
Is there a hint of greed? An insatiable desire for wealth? Billions? Trillions ?
Is there envy? Jealously towards others ?
Wrath?
Extreme anger towards others?
Let’s look at the positive characteristics.
How many are exercising prudence? They express fear and the need for guard rails but race ahead in their absence. Is that an example of wise decision making?
Justice? Fairness in dealing with others?
Temperance? Self control and moderation? Demonstrating an ability to deal with hardship?
The bottom line is can they be trusted to give full consideration to the impact of AI on society writ large or are they in it for themselves come hell or high water.
Absent trust ,society will be in a period of unrest and possibly turmoil .
Any argument for "character" fails miserably in the face of Donald Trump being elected President - twice.
Great read!
I recall Ursula Franklin’s The Real World of Technology. I see AI wants to help refresh my memory of her. Anyway I have always called my computer The Machine. I enjoyed reading your article.
I have to say I was confused by the title until I realized this post was two essays that are works in progress. The first essay reads like a theory of coming, inevitable defeat. Is it inevitable? The second essay is harder for me to get my mind around, perhaps because I'm having trouble distinguishing between the general argument and the specific cases. The responses from other readers are part of why I subscribe here. Thanks for two thought provoking essays.
Well researched and virtuous. Yes, that old-fashioned word that makes all the difference between Marc Andreessen and Dan Gardner.
Hi Dan, Have you read The Nature of Technology by W Brian Arthur ? It has a useful perspective on defining "technology" which Boas might have liked.
Brilliant!!!
I'm not sure who you've been reading to get the idea that everyone loved technology in that past - probably business boosters. In my technologist world, it's an absolute axiom that humanities types have hated technology and technologists from time immemorial. That's what Marc Andreesen is drawing on. And, to be transgressive and shocking myself, I think he's more right than wrong. Yeah, I don't look to the Pope, especially for technology advice, because the Church has forbidden (hormonal) birth control. Think about that - BIRTH CONTROL! The Catholic Church's view is that women may not use this technology to stop from getting pregnant. That's their definition of "what's good for humanity". NO, I will not bow down to someone who prohibits contraceptives as unacceptable technology. That supposed "reverence for life" looks a lot more like having a strong aspect of repressive patriarchy.
And it doesn't help your argument to be comparing what's basically an off-the-cuff expression of derision to a cherry-picked long essay. Many of these people can write "cogent and thoughtful" expression of their beliefs. You (or I) may strong disagree with their beliefs - but they do have the ability to defend them.
I’ve read many pages of Andreessen’s writings and listened to hours of his interviews. My characterization is fair and substantive. He is astonishingly arrogant and dismissive and never deals with strong arguments or nuances.
As to the Pope, we can debate what values should guide but that values should guide? No. And frankly there’s nothing in what the pope wrote to warrant this take. You’re dragging in other beefs, not judging his words.
Note, I said "many of these people", specifically not "Andreesen". Without discussing him in specific, there's no requirement that every single such person be able to give extensive philosophical defenses of their views. That's a very irritating presumption common to humanities types. They live for this, so anyone who doesn't must be derided as "uncultured" or some such. Hence the cherry-picking.
On the Pope, respectfully, I strongly disagree - I quoted the specific words "reverence for life" for a reason. The Church puts under that rubric "no birth control". No, it's not other beefs. It's exactly this belief. The values of the Church are not vague platitudes. They have very detailed ideas on what isn't permitted to be done with technology, like reproductive freedom. And long philosophical defenses of that view. I will not "sanewash" them.
Great essay!
Two thought-provoking essays!