Donald Trump Is Not the Sole Chaos Instigator
He isn’t even the largest one. Significant transformation will instead arise from technology—from AI.
Eight years ago, the results of the November US elections deeply stunned the small team at Backchannel, the specialized tech magazine I was in charge of. The next morning, an editor shared on our Slack that tackling a technology story appeared insensitive, if not pointless. During a flight from New York to San Francisco, I penned a column to respond to that urge, aimed as much at myself and my peers as it was at the audience. I maintained that despite the significance of this event, one aspect remained the same; the most substantial narrative of our era continued to be the technological revolution we are experiencing. Disruptive politicians, including harmful ones, may appear and disappear—or choose not to leave. However, the chip, the network, the mobile device, and everything associated with them were transforming humanity and potentially redefining what it means to be human. Our task was to document that monumental change, regardless of who held political power. The title of my column was “The iPhone Is Greater Than Donald Trump.”
This week, Trump was elected president once more despite … oh forget it, I won’t list the numerous reasons that should clearly disqualify him. You’ve listened to everything, and for most voters, it makes no difference. It’s an incredible tale, and the coming years will certainly become part of history. Perhaps not positively. Possibly in a detrimental manner for a nation where numerous individuals anticipated honoring its enduring values on America’s 250th anniversary. (In the spirit of togetherness, I’ll employ the “perhaps” qualifier because those who fall short ought to be modest, and what lies ahead is uncertain.)
However, I remain steadfast in the idea I held in 2016. As Stewart Brand stated, “Human nature remains relatively constant; science evolves, and these changes accumulate, permanently transforming the world.” The developments in technology and science are the endeavors that will ultimately have the greatest effect on our species. Centuries later, descendants (and perhaps Ray Kurzweil) will reflect on this era and recognize it as the time when microchips and neural network technology transformed everything. And who was that muscular guy with the peculiar hair who invaded the nation that once held land in the Western Hemisphere? I no longer manage a publication and now represent just one voice among a much larger team. Thus, for my part, I strongly reiterate my 2016 declaration of intent, with a minor adjustment: Artificial intelligence surpasses Donald Trump.
Certainly, journalists need to report on Trump’s second presidency energetically, consistently insisting on accountability. In the near future—for some of us old-timers it might be the entirety of our time left!—events in our community and nation will impact our daily lives more significantly than the newest updates of Claude, ChatGPT, or even Apple Intelligence. (Sorry, Tim Apple.) Should you lose your health care, reproductive rights, or end up in a deportation center or prison due to the policies of our incoming president, the awareness that AI, mixed reality, and quantum computers could potentially transform us will not alleviate the suffering.
Additionally, those of us in tech journalism will undoubtedly find ourselves reporting on the Trump administration; policy consistently influences the trajectory of technology. (Keep in mind that the US government created what we now refer to as the internet.) Currently, there is a heated discussion regarding how, or if, we ought to control or limit AI, a technology that some label as “the final invention.” I’m already hearing talks about the new administration canceling the detailed executive order on AI that Joe Biden put in place. Some are concerned that the new president’s prominent advisor Elon Musk—who operates his own AI firm and incorporates AI into his various ventures, such as Tesla and Neuralink—might exert an excessive and potentially improper impact on governmental policies and contracts. I’ve also come across speculation suggesting that the push to regulate AI may be overshadowed by the looming challenge posed by China’s robust initiatives in this area. This is significant, as the foundational principles of current AI and the eccentricities of its creators might influence whether the most alarming concerns about the technology are realized.
That’s why, the day after Donald Trump was reelected, I went to an AI company and spoke with one of its executives and a leading engineer. Indeed, while I walked back to the office, I reflected on the election outcomes and felt upset once more. However, I will complete the article regarding that company, and then work on another, remaining focused on the tech beat for as long as my shattered heart continues to beat. Ultimately, AI remains the most significant topic in the area.
In that 2016 column after the election, I elaborated further on my argument regarding the comparative significance of politics and technology.
It may not seem like it at the moment, but technology and science represent a more significant narrative than Donald Trump. Consider it. Who governed Italy during Galileo’s discoveries? How was Italy managed during that time? Who ruled as king in England during the industrial revolution? The peculiarities and shortcomings of government officials are not pertinent details when examining the Enlightenment. Ultimately, the Galileos and James Watts of history exert a greater influence than the Napoleons.
The ability to Google answers to those questions—that we have provided humanity with limitless knowledge at a simple touch—will be seen as more significant than the identity of the person in the White House, even if he lacks focus and admits to sexual assaults. As terrible as 9/11 was, the reality that one corporation could unite nearly the entire global population on a single platform is, over time, truly more significant news.
John inquires, “Knowing what you do now, would you have approached part 3 of Facebook: The Inside Story any differently?”
Hello, John, I appreciate your inquiry. I trust you found the book enjoyable. I’m unclear about what you specifically mean by “what I know now.” Perhaps the disclosures in what is referred to as “The Facebook Papers,” which indicated that the company’s researchers were concerned about the effects of its policies? The change of Mark Zuckerberg from considerate geek to muscular style icon?
In my clearly biased opinion, none of these leads me to believe that the essential aspects of the book, especially the narrative arc, have been invalidated. My narrative concludes shortly before Zuckerberg, enchanted by the conviction that virtual and augmented reality represented the future of computing, rebranded the company as Meta. However, the reality that the company now operates under a new name positions the book as a history—pardon me, the history—of Facebook during the time it was still referred to as Facebook. Wrapping up a book about a still influential company is always challenging, but that renaming appears to effectively conclude a unique era. In the book’s concluding scene, where I question Zuckerberg regarding his decisions, it seems, to its writer at least, like a fitting touch. Currently, he possesses little tolerance for these discussions, and his podcast guests are equally eager to advance.
What will become of electric vehicles? With Elon as his friend, Trump’s perspectives on the electric shift have become more intricate. California has been dismissed as a haven for the overly progressive. However, it continues to create the future.
