Hey Reader, It's hard to see past the chaos in the White House, but I want to share something with you that I told my team a few months ago: When history tells the story of the 2020s, AI will be the main character, and Donald Trump will be a footnote. This week it seems likely that Trump will send his country and several others into a recession. But despite his temporary power and his fame/infamy, he's a small man in a big decade. Our grandkids will be reading history books like this: "In the 2020s, a respiratory pandemic killed 20 million people and a new technology changed everything about knowledge, productivity, and how people thought about human jobs. It was an era of massive transformation. FUN FACT: A reality TV host served two non-consecutive terms as president, just like Grover Cleveland did in 1893." To understand why Trump, Biden, Musk, Zuckerberg and all today's famous players will be forgotten in 50 years, just look at this week's tariff debacle. Trump really dislikes international commerce. This is a pretty extreme, idiosyncratic and unpopular view, but it matters because the president basically has unilateral power to decide on tariffs, which are taxes on things that cross the border. To get a sense of Trump's thoughts on this topic, here is an excerpt from a book by renowned journalist Bob Woodward, showing a note Trump wrote by hand on a draft speech: "Trade is bad." Basically he has an extremely shallow and innumerate view on international trade – he believes that if we buy more from a country than we sell to a country, the other country is cheating us. This led him to put huge tariffs (taxes / duties / levies) on any physical object that crosses the border, from toys to car parts to bananas. (Not just products made in China, but everywhere.) This crashed the stock market because most companies don't have the profit margins to cover these new costs – for example, iPhones would be 30% more expensive and small businesses will effectively be bankrupted by sudden bills when their made-in-China products arrive at American ports. Example: This small American business that makes products for special-needs children will owe an extra $79k in new tariffs. Also, Trump put some tariffs on uninhabited islands, which is just funny and probably does deserve a spot in the history books. This is a big deal and probably will be a huge setback for the American economy over the next year. But let's think through it – in the age of AI, what will happen when you kill international trade? Trump's stated goal is to "re-shore" manufacturing jobs, though it's unclear which ones he wants to bring back. (Making Nikes?) In practice, if the new tariffs remain in place, we'll likely see this sequence of events:
And that, of course, is where AI enters the scene. We've been talking about this for two years now, but I'll reiterate the most important trend of the century – everything that humans do is getting better, faster and cheaper as a result of AI. So if you run a company whose import costs just went way up, which seems like a safer path? Door 1: Invest millions in a new factory in the U.S. to avoid tariffs that will probably be moot long before the facility opens. Door 2: Automate your business operations and dramatically reduce payroll to offset the new taxes on every physical object that crosses the border. (Note: There's also a lot of stuff, like bananas and coffee, that can't be made in the U.S. at any price, so automation is the only cost-control option for those companies.) Now, you can see why Trump has so little control over the future. Anything he tries to do to strangle trade (or otherwise mess with the economy) will just accelerate the inevitable shift to more and more human "knowledge work" being sped up by AI. In short, no matter how loud anybody yells about trade deficits, high tariffs will have the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than "bringing factories back" to America, tariffs are simply a blunt and self-destructive way to accelerate the adoption of AI in the office and robotics on the assembly lines. The problem: "slower" AI adoption is a lot better for societyWe're all here because we're early AI adopters, and to some degree we stand to benefit from AI moving faster. But in my mind, moving too fast toward AI replacing a large amount of human knowledge work is a bad idea. Right now there is a (healthy) barrier to greater AI displacement because it is really bad for a company's reputation to fire workers en masse. But if the tariffs force those firings, then you basically get the worst of all worlds. Companies adopt AI in a way that rapidly displaces humans, the average family has less money, and the whole system gets rapidly distorted in a way that hurts everyone. The better version would be that as older employees age out of the workforce, companies either don't replace them, or they replace them with younger AI-savvy employees who are many times more efficient thanks to their "partnership" with AI. Most existing jobs are retained while new job creation adapts to AI. That's why a 10- or 20-year AI transition to is so much better for society than a 1- or 2-year blitz. As you may have noticed, 95% of companies have barely scratched the surface of what is possible with AI as it stands today. (This is why the newly minted AI consultants in our programs are scoring so many projects right now.) And even in a recession, the major tech companies will be pouring billions of dollars into making AI better, faster and cheaper, over and over again. To put it another way, our destination is clear – and to the extent our leaders can make a difference, it's by guiding the economy to an AI-powered future the hard way (massive, unnecessary, self-inflicted disruption) or the easy way (gradual, steady change). To a better future, – Rob |
We help entrepreneurs and executives harness the power of AI.
Hey Reader, This week I'm digging into a question that comes up a lot among students – as well as among all my software engineer friends, many of whom have been coding for money for 20+ years. Are coders truly cooked as a result of AI? It's ironic, of course, that the first white-collar job to be replaced by AI is likely to be the job that many of AI's creators held for most of their careers. It also makes a lot of sense – the folks who are making large language models are coders themselves,...
Hey Reader, This week, my students and I have been talking a lot about the climate effects of AI. The footprint of AI usage has been a big issue for years – and it's become an even more common question because of viral headlines claiming that AI "drinks a bottle of water" to generate even a small amount of content. And it's about more than just quantifying resource usage. In our new post in Innovating with AI Magazine, author Amy Smith explores how grocery stores can use AI to optimize their...
Hey Reader, Love 'em or hate 'em, AI search tools are rapidly becoming the most efficient way to find answers online. That's one takeaway from our first proprietary survey of Innovating with AI readers – shared today in our latest post in Innovating with AI Magazine (free for everyone). See the full article and data In addition to the new data, intrepid IWAI reporter Tim Keary has interviewed thought leader Nick Reese (the first Director of Emerging Technology Policy at the US Department of...