Are you an E/ACC or a Decel?
I posed this question to you earlier this month in a special feature spotlighting an Outer Limits issue from my days in the field doing research for Brownstone Research.
And the outpouring of responses from Bleeding Edge subscribers was incredible… I have to say, you all made me proud!
Technological advancement is inevitable. We are living in exciting times! I am in favor of E/ACC in hopes that it will bring about many positive outcomes.
– Carl Z.
E/ACC! This 90-year young man just hopes the self-driving car will be fully ready for me BEFORE they take my keys
– David C.
I would like to think of myself as an E/ACC type of person. I always thought that the future would be one of free thought and a decentralized way of life.
The Decels want total centralized control of every aspect of your life. It’s not a way to get ahead in life, it has a negative impact on people in all areas of their life. The decels are what I refer to as bullies to anyone who doesn’t think as they do. It’s their way or else. I can’t live in that type of world.
– John B. S.
I’m an E/ACC. Honestly, I believe anyone who is serious about subscribing to Jeff Brown is an E/ACC.
– Paul K.
Definitely E/ACC all the way! Technology rules!
– Serge K.
Well said, Serge. Yes, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of folks who wrote in stood in favor of progress.
Another way to think about this kind of mindset is being rationally optimistic. It’s easy to let fear and negativity get to us and come up with a hundred different ways that things can go wrong.
But when good people get together and work towards positive outcomes, better outcomes are always the end result.
In case you missed The Bleeding Edge – E/ACC or Decel, it references the existential fight for the future of the human race between those in favor of technological advancement – the E/ACCs (pronounced “e-acks”) – and the “Decels” who would see us halt that progress entirely.
Here’s what I wrote you then…
E/ACC stands for effective acceleration. It is a belief that humanity can and will solve its problems through technological innovation and growth.
Those who believe in E/ACC know that the right path forward is to accelerate technological development.
They believe in employing human capital (i.e. our intelligence) and financial capital for building, innovating, and advancing technology… for bettering the human race and expanding our human consciousness. And they believe in consuming more energy, not less, to achieve those ends.
E/ACCs wish to leverage technology, free markets, and capital to build a world of abundance and freedom and to achieve that as quickly as possible.
The Decels, on the other hand, wish to decelerate technological advancement. They are interested in degrowth, in slowing things down, and are sometimes referred to as “Doomers.”
With every major technological shift, there have been naysayers and “Doomer” groups who fear change and growth… They want to control the pace of progress.
That never works. If some country, or group of people, adopt that kind of mindset; they will suffer greatly while other groups or adversaries move ahead.
Acceleration is empowering. It gives us an enhanced capability to manage, avoid, and defend against bad actors. And when everyone’s quality of life improves through new technologies and advancements, there are simply fewer things for us to be upset or worried about.
I’ve added some more context around this topic in a couple of my answers that follow.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
Jeff
Goldman Sachs on AI
Hi Jeff. What are your thoughts on Goldman Sach’s negative views about generative AI: https://www.404media.co/goldman-sachs-ai-is-overhyped-wildly-expensive-and-unreliable
Here is the report from their website: https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/gs-research/gen-ai-too-much-spend-too-little-benefit/report.pdf?ref=404media.co
Is there any truth in their perspective or are they off the mark? Do you think they have any vested interest in publicly stating this?
– Elizabeth V.
Hi Elizabeth,
Wow! Fantastic that you read this. And I’m so glad that you wrote in with this.
I was just shaking my head in bewilderment when I first saw the Goldman Sachs report a few weeks ago.
Most of the report was written by Goldman’s analysts. It acknowledged that the latest artificial intelligence (AI) trend still has room to run, but it also shared a lot of skepticism along the lines of “we haven’t found a killer app yet” or “the real transformation won’t happen for another decade or so” or “the current AI isn’t designed to solve complex tasks, which is where the money is.” (Note: I’m just paraphrasing.)
Before I go further, it’s important to note that Goldman Sachs’ position on AI stands in stark contrast to JPMorgan’s and so many others.
But we should always remember, these are bankers. They’re not technologists and they’re not analysts with decades of experience working in high tech. Naturally, lacking real-world experience in high tech is going to impact their worldviews.
With that said, I’d like to use a couple of quotes from the report as examples for us to build upon. The first comes from MIT professor Daron Acemoglu…
Given the focus and architecture of generative AI technology today… truly transformative changes won’t happen quickly and few – if any – will likely occur within the next 10 years.
I can promise that this won’t age well. In fact, it’s already wrong. It’s a perfect example of how wrong “experts” can be.
Let’s just take one simple example of generative AI.
Thanks to generative AI, 92% of all software programmers are using AI to perform their jobs. A recent study earlier this year from GitHub, a division of Microsoft, revealed that 70% of software programmers cited that the AI helped them write better code, with higher quality, resulting in faster time to completion.
Generative AI is now being used in customer service applications, legal, biotechnology, academia, idea generation, graphic design, robotics, and so many other applications.
As I’ve predicted recently, we’re going to have artificial general intelligence (AGI) by 2026. AGI will be capable of performing research and development autonomously around the clock.
If that isn’t transformative, I don’t know what is. But the tasks performed by generative AI are already transformative, resulting in lower costs and a jump in productivity where it has been applied.
Here’s another quote from the report from Goldman Sachs’ Head of Global Equity Research, Jim Covello…
AI technology is exceptionally expensive, and to justify those costs, the technology must be able to solve complex problems, which it isn’t designed to do.
Covello is right that AI technology is exceptionally expensive, but he should have been more specific. Powerful AI models are expensive to train, but it’s not expensive to run once a model has been trained. This is an important distinction.
But the baffling part about the above quote is the claim that AI technology isn’t designed to solve complex problems. That’s precisely what neural networks are designed to do.
Google’s DeepMind used this technology to accurately predict how more than 200 million proteins fold. This was a grand challenge in life sciences and one of the most complex tasks that has ever been solved.
Or how about fully autonomous software capable of driving cars and trucks safer than humans can? Tesla’s fully functional, fully operational self-driving AI has logged more than 5 billion miles. And as we showed yesterday, the latest version of full self-driving (FSD) 12.5 is absolutely incredible.
This report is so off the mark and completely ignores the facts of what’s already happening with the technology and how widely it’s being used.
Which raises the point you made Elizabeth. Do they have a vested interest in pushing this narrative? It makes me suspicious too.
Investment banks do this all the time. They aggressively move their most valuable clients into positions, then go on CNBC to talk up their favorite stocks or publish bullish reports. Then, when the stocks run, they get their most valuable clients out with nice profits.
It happens all… the… time…
Nuclear Reactors
Hi Jeff. Regarding nuclear energy as the future supplier for the world’s energy demand, I offer this statement from Elon Musk, as I remember it. The land required as a safety zone around nuclear plants represents enough land to install solar panels and create more power than the nuclear plant would produce. Any truth to this?
– Brian C.
Hi Brian,
This is an interesting take.
I have tremendous respect for Musk and what he and his teams have been building. Musk is the greatest innovator and entrepreneur of a generation. He’s also a savvy businessman, despite claiming not to be one. And he is famously known for talking his book, which he is doing here.
There might be a tiny inkling of truth to this if we took them as referring to second-generation nuclear fission power plants. The reality is that people don’t want to live directly beside massive industrial power generation facilities. So naturally there is a big zone around the power plant. And second-generation technology isn’t anywhere near as safe as modern nuclear power technology.
But in reality, the general comment isn’t accurate.
When we consider the current generation of nuclear fission power plants and the coming generation of small modular reactors (SMR), the footprints are small.
In comparison, solar will take up about 75 times the amount of land that an SMR would take up to produce a similar amount of energy. And that, of course, assumes the sun is always shining in that location.
Wind power is even worse. An equivalent wind farm would require 360 times as much land.
A 1,000-megawatt nuclear fission power plant requires just one square mile, that’s it.
And what we’ll see in the future is that data centers are going to be constructed in the areas around these nuclear power plants as a source of 24/7 carbon emission-free energy.
And nuclear fusion, that’s an even better story. A fusion reactor will fit in less than a tenth of the space required by a fission reactor facility.
Musk sells solar panels. And he also sells large batteries to store electricity generated by solar panels. We shouldn’t be surprised that he’d say that.
But if I had to guess, I’d bet that he’s very supportive of nuclear fusion technology. And I’m sure he believes in a future where Teslas are fueled by electricity that comes from nuclear fusion (clean), as opposed to how Teslas are fueled today – by electricity that comes from coal and natural gas.
Your piece reminds me of long ago when Ford was explaining to the union that in the future, automation could replace all the union workers, reduce costs, and improve everything. The union rep replied, and sell the products to who?
It sounds like the “future robots do everything” is getting closer. But sell it to who? Who has jobs? There will be a radical change in how things are done and how populations will survive it.
Human nature is kind of taking something from another one way or another to enjoy more than them.
How do we divide wealth in the future? What will wealth be measured in even?
We will probably nuke ourselves out of the equation anyway by then. Then the robots can carry on.
– Bernard B.
Hello Bernard,
I appreciate you writing in with your thoughts. I know that a lot of us are struggling to get our heads around these issues. These are big ones you raise. I think I could write a book on these subjects…
First off, you’re correct, there will be radical change. How we, as a population and a society, deal with those changes will determine the outcome.
Some things will feel sudden – like the widespread availability of personalized AI assistants – while the employment of other kinds of AI will take years to unfold, giving the human workforce time to adjust.
Soon, lower-income families will have access to technology and services that, historically, only kings and queens could afford. To your point, how will wealth be measured if such incredible services are widely available and affordable in the future?
The average person won’t have to work for decades to be able to afford nannies, housekeepers, and executive assistants to make their lives easier. For less than $20,000 we’ll be able to purchase a Tesla Optimus that will be able to perform all of those roles. And the only cost will be the electricity to power the intelligent robot.
We humans will have more time to focus on high-value tasks and lifelong education. And yes, we’ll have more free time for a higher quality of life.
Our biggest risk will be politicians who want to strip away our freedoms and control our movements and behaviors. We got a taste of what “they” wanted to do during the pandemic. That was a warning of what might come if we allow “them” to have their way.
I do hope you are wrong about a nuclear World War III. I’ve never been more concerned about the prospect of nuclear war in my life than I am right now. The current U.S. government has been warmongering for the last three and a half years. And it continues to encroach on Russia with its foreign policy, almost as if it wants the war to escalate.
Let’s hope cooler heads prevail and we can return to times of peace and prosperity. I think we’ve had enough of all this money printing, military conflict, corruption, record levels of debt and deficits, and division.
I hope we can all work together, peacefully, to get things back on track.
Dear Sir,
You paint a pretty worrisome picture of our issues with China, and I do not disagree. However, I would be most interested in what you have to say regarding Starlink.
Elon Musk plans to eventually have 40,000 small low-orbit satellites in orbit at some point in the future. I’m sure the Chinese would target those satellites if there was ever an open war with the US but I am also pretty sure they would target the undersea cables as well. Could Starlink save us?
– Nathan N.
Hi Nathan,
I’m definitely worried and keeping a close eye on developments. I’ll be sure to keep all of you informed of any new developments, large or small.
Starlink, I would argue, has become an invaluable piece of communications infrastructure. It already blankets the globe, including coverage over mainland China as seen below.
Source: Starlinkmap.org
Starlink has complete coverage of mainland China with its network of satellites, and, as you noted, there are a lot more to be deployed.
China has also already launched technology to destroy satellites, and I fully expect that we’ll see some of this happen in the future. Specifically, satellites perceived to be developed for surveillance over what China considers to be its territories.
SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, however, are communications satellites, not surveillance satellites. And they are not geostationary (i.e. they do not remain above a particular location on Earth).
They are in low Earth orbit where they speed around Earth, and broadband connections are handed off from one Starlink satellite to another as they pass overhead.
Amazing technology…
But to your question, Starlink – under Musk’s leadership – could become a vital communications network in times of trouble. The company is already partnering with wireless operators to enable direct-to-smartphone communications – like text communications.
If wireless networks were taken down by a government, Starlink could quickly become the only way we could communicate and share information about what’s going on.
Starlink has already become a vital lifeline for those who live remotely – outside of the range of a 4G or 5G network, a wired broadband communications service like CATV, or a fiber optic network.
So many companies have tried for decades to do what Musk and his team have done at SpaceX. Starlink employed bleeding-edge technology in both satellite design and transmission/reception technology and combined it with SpaceX’s revolutionary low-cost reusable rocket designs.
I hope things never get to the point where we have to rely on Starlink for basic communications, but I’m sure happy to know that it’s there if we need it.
AI Will Only Benefit the Rich
I lived through the computer age which transformed society but did nothing for the average person’s spending power (in fact families now need two wages just to survive unlike last century when all it took was one breadwinner). AI will be similar in that all the wealth creation will be sucked up by corporations and the elite whilst the common man will gain nothing.
Even now life expectancy continues to decline, and the risks of an AI-led societal breakdown or extinction-level event are not worth taking.
Once our electricity bills begin to soar then the power will be switched off to this trojan horse technology and hopefully, we can get rid of it before it destroys us!
– Ivo J.
Hello Ivo,
Thanks for sending in your thoughts. They’re important. Especially now… when we’re both on the cusp of incredible technological advancements AND suffering from inflation in the prices of everything that matters (food, energy, real estate, insurance, transportation, taxes).
It’s reasonable for what’s happening now to evoke some negative projections about the future.
I’d like to break these issues down and untangle them so that we can see that, given the right policies and technologies, things could dramatically change for the better.
The current inflation we’re experiencing today is not accidental. It is the direct result of pandemic policies, economic policies, and fiscal and monetary policies.
We can’t print trillions of dollars, run a $1.6 trillion annual deficit, bail out the banking system, restrict U.S. energy extraction and production, and increase U.S. debt by $1 trillion every 100 days and still think we’re not going to have inflation.
The current policies were intentional, and they were designed to facilitate corruption and grift as well as weaken the economic power of the overall population.
The good news is that this can all change. All of these policies can be reversed. Inflation can decline dramatically, interest rates can come down, and discretionary income can increase again so that it is no longer necessary for an average family to have two wages.
And you’re also right about life expectancy, which deeply saddens me.
These developments are environmental in nature. We all live less healthy lives. As a population, we get less exercise, we lead more sedentary lives, eat heavily processed foods, consume too many “cheap” calories, and consume way too many prescription drugs.
This can change.
Sadly, these environmental factors were influenced by both the government and corporations. Pharmaceutical companies pushed for more drugs, and food companies pushed for and marketed unhealthy foods and drinks. We’re bombarded with bad habits every day in advertising.
And even the healthcare industry is complicit.
Doctors are trained not to provide critical feedback to patients for their environmental habits. If our numbers are off, we’ll often be prescribed a drug to get our numbers back into range. That’s not the key to living a long life.
I’ve experienced this myself. The only place where I experienced radically honest feedback from my physicians was at Human Longevity.
Not only did they identify that I had prostate cancer back in 2020, but they came right out and told me that I was pre-diabetic, my liver fat was way too high, my body mass index was unhealthy, and I needed to make some radical changes to my dietary habits and weight.
They were right. And I needed to hear that. And as a result, I’ve completely transformed my health, because I was willing to put in the work.
There is a path towards far better health and an increase in human longevity. But it does require effort and commitment to make it a reality. These kinds of problems can’t be solved with just a pill.
And at a much higher level, something far more remarkable is happening right now regarding technology.
AI is bringing us an incredible productivity boom. It will enable even low-income families to have access to products and services that in the past could have only been afforded by high-net-worth families.
Every family will have an AI-powered executive assistant to help us with our daily chores and tasks. It will save hours a day normally lost to menial, low-value tasks.
Intelligent humanoid robots will be affordable and dramatically improve our quality of life. We’ll be able to bring the rest of the world out of poverty. And we’ll be able to soon cure diseases that today have no known cure with technology like genetic editing.
And with nuclear fusion technology – which will be, in part, powered by AI – not only will we have limitless, clean energy… but it will be cheaper than all forms of electricity that we use today.
Autonomous driving technology will actually reduce the cost of insurance because 94% of accidents will no longer occur.
I could go on, but the key point is that the overall cost of living will decline for basic necessities that we need to live, and at the same time our quality of life will improve.
Ivo, you’re correct that the companies that design, build, and commercialize these incredible technologies will do extremely well. That’s normal.
As long as we, as a population, maintain our constitutional freedoms, we’ll all benefit from these developments in the coming years.
But if we’ve learned anything from the last few years, we are going to have to fight for those freedoms. Otherwise, those elites – those politicians, the deep state – will work hard to extract as much of that wealth and value for themselves, and only leave us the scraps.
We can do it, Ivo! I hope my answer gives you a bit of hope that there is a world in which there is a bright future ahead of us. Let’s be part of making that happen.
That’s all we have for you today. Please, keep sending in your questions, comments, and concerns. You can reach us right here. My team and I read everything you write in.
Have a great weekend,
Jeff