| Hello, and welcome to this week’s installment of the Future in Five Questions. Today features Martin Casado, a general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz who leads their $1.25 billion infrastructure AI investment practice. He discusses why he sees people using AI for expressive, emotional purposes as a good thing, the possibility of “unemployable AIs,” and what he sees as academics’ unwillingness to push back on tech regulation. The following has been edited for length and clarity: What’s one underrated big idea? Most people view the latest AI wave from the vantage of previous waves. In particular, they think it's most suitable for helping improve existing businesses, whether by automating existing tasks or providing natural language interfaces. But if you really look at what is going on, the current AI wave has largely been a consumer phenomenon where AI programs are being used in two areas computers have not had great solutions for in the past: creativity and emotional connection. AI programs are creating images, music and videos as beautiful as those created by humans. And AI companions have entered the social dynamic. What does this all mean? AI will make business more efficient, but it's also going to push us into a weirder, wilder and more wonderful future than most realize. What’s a technology you think is overhyped? In a way, artificial general intelligence. Despite not having a consensus definition, it's become the focal point of every fear and hope in the industry. Most likely, we'll slowly work our way to more and more general intelligence. And when we achieve it far in the future, the economics will likely be so bad that you'll have a lot of over-qualified, unemployable AIs. Perhaps if we're lucky we'll make them practical enough to work alongside us, but that's going to take a long, long time. What book most shaped your conception of the future? “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch. He beautifully articulates that the universe is the mother of all escape rooms, and how the meaning of life is to figure out what the hell is going on. What could government be doing regarding technology that it isn’t? I think the U.S. government has historically been a marvel when it comes to supporting and investing in science and technology. Because of that public and private partnership, the U.S. has led every technical wave since the microchip. All it has to do is remember that, because over the last decade it's lost its way and has chosen instead to fear and regulate innovation rather than support it. What surprised you most in the past year? How utterly silent academia has become in the face of growing regulation against innovation. In the past, academia was at the forefront pushing for investment and openness in technology. Now, at best academics are silent on the issue, and many are complicit in calling for strong regulations on emerging tech.
| 
