Are all the frightening warnings from AI lab leaders actually good news for investments? ๐
Since the night before last, I've been sitting and wondering to myself โ what on earth is happening here,
The question everyone is asking also bothered me..
What do Sam Altman, Musk, and many other Silicon Valley executives know that frightens them so much?
And then, I thought, maybe we're not looking in the right direction at all...
In fact, there's a paradox here that the market hasn't yet digested:
The more artificial intelligence lab leaders warn that the technology is advancing too quickly, is too dangerous, or requires tighter regulation โ the more they are actually providing some of the strongest evidence that the technology truly works.
If the people at the forefront of the revolution say that the pace worries them to the point of needing to stop or limit it, it's hard to simultaneously argue that it's an empty bubble with no real technological progress behind it.
And in my opinion, this, and nothing else, is precisely the point that is important for investors.
Because pessimism can be the strongest validation for technology!
One can view the warnings from lab leaders as a negative sign: if even those building the models are concerned about their implications, perhaps something has gone wrong.
But one can also look at it the other way,
If the technology were not advancing at a significant pace,
there would be no need for such an intense discussion around safety, alignment, security, and regulation.
In other words โ the debate itself is part of the evidence that something big is happening.
It's similar to an engineer warning that their new engine is too powerful and needs a better braking system...
The warning does not prove the engine is worthless; on the contrary, it can indicate that the engine is producing performance that existing systems struggle to handle.
On the other hand, technology can win โ and the investor can still lose money if they paid too high a price.
This is the difference between being bullish on the technology and being bullish on the stock price.
Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where the big players simply press the "stop" button.
Microsoft, Meta, and China are not in this game for a hobby,
Definitely not
The economic, technological, and strategic advantages of artificial intelligence are too great.
Even if the United States, Europe, or other regulators try to slow down parts of the industry, it's hard to see global competition disappear.
Therefore, the more likely scenario simply cannot be a complete halt, or even a significant slowdown โ but rather a change in how models are developed and supervised.
The future will likely involve more regulation, not less AI.
The more realistic scenario is a system where independent evaluators will oversee the development of models, test their capabilities, and verify that they meet stricter safety requirements.
That is, not "stopping artificial intelligence" โ but building guardrails for it.
And that's a huge difference.
I truly think there's a very strong possibility that the sharp warnings we're hearing now are the industry's way of saying something much more interesting:
It really works.
This is also why I find it hard to see investments disappearing,
I still think that the total amount of investments that will truly change the world will be smaller than the astronomical figures currently circulating in headlines.
There will be projects that fail.
There will be companies that burn capital.
There will be data centers that do not yield the return investors expect.
And there will also be AI stocks that turn out to be trash wrapped in a shiny "revolution" ribbon.
But from here to a halt in the investment race, there's a great distance.
If anything, the warnings from the people on the front lines of the revolution reinforce the argument that this race is still far from over.
These warnings might be trying to signal something else, something bigger,
The real battle hasn't started yet.
The leaders of these labs, who already see the most advanced and closed models, understand that the capabilities are much stronger than we thought.
Not that this is a reason to slow down โ on the contrary.
But it is a reason to signal to the world โ "Friends, this is much bigger than we have described until today".
In my opinion, this is a reason for a completely opposite reality โ massive investment acceleration.
But imagine if Anthropic tried to raise half a trillion dollars just like that.
The groundwork must be laid for investors,
It starts with scare tactics and the idea of slowing down,
It will probably continue with "disillusionment" and then โ that we must actually accelerate โ as Trump is pushing for.
And then we will see fundraising and announcements of capital investments on a scale we haven't seen before.
This is my personal thesis,
I might be wrong โ we'll wait and see,
Meanwhile, the market, as usual, tries to solve all these questions in one day and price them until 2035.
The problem with a warning that AI is advancing too quickly is that it might be precisely the proof we've been waiting for to understand that it truly is advancing.