25 Apr 2023 · 34m · Alison Beard, Reid Hoffman · 20 quoted facts
Reid Hoffman argues that technology is never value neutral, and that builders should stay optimistic while checking for harm as they go. He says no one gets a product right at launch, so ethics means asking hard questions early, measuring effects, and fixing problems over time. In his view, moving fast is fine as long as what breaks is servers, not society.
The central tension is speed versus care. Hoffman defends fast scaling and warns that slowing down hands the rules to people who don't care about impact. He also says rigid regulation can lock in the past. His answer is outcome-based rules, such as escalating fines for harmful content, that let companies innovate. He admits that measured voices get less media attention than extreme ones, and that harder problems like climate attract less money.
Hoffman says no one launches a product at scale perfectly. The responsible approach is to ask about bias, jobs and misinformation, measure results, and keep improving. He says every company he is involved in treats these questions as central.
Hoffman calls himself a 'definite move fast person' and author of Blitzscaling. He says breaking servers is fine but breaking society is not. He also warns that if careful people go slow, those who don't care about impact will set the rules.
He says a mandated delay on video uploads might not stop violent clips and would only add paperwork. He prefers escalating fines, such as $1,000 for the first hundred views and $100,000 per view after that. This leaves companies to find the fix.
Hoffman says people tend to do the easiest, most valuable work, which is why there is so much software. Climate change and ocean deacidification are harder because they cost more and pay back less. He says he tries to help design incentives that pull more effort toward them.
At Greylock, Hoffman says reference checks aren't finished until you've found a negative reference on the person. He looks for founders who take the hard, risky-for-them choice over the easy one. He also looks for those who keep commitments such as tracking their societal impact.
No. He says it is an illusion that technology is value neutral. Every technology affects people differently, so builders have to ask who benefits and who is disadvantaged.
Hoffman says partly. He thinks the industry now pays more attention to bias, misinformation and job effects in AI. He names Satya Nadella and Sam Altman as leaders 'well on the learning curve,' but says it would be foolish to claim the problem is solved.
He says rules should set outcomes, like less violent video, and let companies work out how to reach them, with audits and fines that grow with harm. He says bad regulation can be better than none for critical systems like banking, but that rules which anchor tech to the past can do damage.
He looks for a strong business that benefits customers and society, and for founders he considers high integrity. He also says he wants to be surprised, as he was when Airbnb was pitched to him.
He wanted to counter 'techlash,' the growing negativity about technology. He believes technology is 30 to 80 percent of the solution to big problems like climate change, so he wants to talk with innovators working on them.
Stated by the speakers. Each quote matches the transcript, which shows what was said, not that it is true.
Reid Hoffman is described as a founding board member of PayPal, a founder of LinkedIn and a partner at the venture capital firm Greylock.
“Reid Hoffman is a founding board member of PayPal, a founder of LinkedIn, a partner at the venture capital firm Greylock,”
Reid Hoffman is a director of several companies including Microsoft and recently stepped down from the OpenAI board.
“a director of several companies, including Microsoft, although he recently stepped down as a board member of OpenAI.”
Reid Hoffman says he took part in a 1996 episode of Firing Line debating freedom of speech.
“I think I did a 1996 firing line on this on freedom of speech is to say, well, we don't regulate freedom of speech”
Reid Hoffman describes himself as the author of Blitzscaling and a proponent of moving fast.
“I'm the author of Blitzscaling. I'm a definite move fast person.”
Reid Hoffman names Satya Nadella and Sam Altman as tech leaders who are learning to build responsibly.
“some tech leaders, you know, Satya Nadella, Sam Altman, are well on the learning curve.”
Alison Beard cites a Peter Thiel quote complaining that the tech industry promised flying cars but delivered 140 characters.
“there's the famous Peter Thiel quote. We wanted flying cars, they gave us 140 characters, and now it's more like we want climate change solutions”
Reid Hoffman sits on the board of Joby, a company working on flying cars aimed at easing gridlock and pollution.
“I'm on the board of Joby, we are working on flying cars, and that's to redefine space in a climate change way that will help with gridlock and pollution”
Reid Hoffman co-founded Inflection with Mustafa Suleyman, and Greylock also backs AI companies including Adept, Cresta and Snorkel.
“I co-founded a company called Inflection with Mustafa Suleiman. We have Adept and Cresta and Snorkel and all these other companies at Greylock”
Reid Hoffman says Airbnb's founders pitched him on a marketplace for space, an idea he had not been actively considering.
“when Brian Chesky and Nate and Joe brought Airbnb to me. I hadn't really been thinking about, you know, a marketplace for space”
Reid Hoffman says Roblox is among the Greylock investments in networks that reshape social life, alongside his co-founding of LinkedIn.
“It's part of the reason I created, you know, LinkedIn with my co-founders, things that we've done and various other investments at Greylock, including like, for example, you know, like, take Roblox”
Greylock runs office hours reserved for entrepreneurs from underrepresented minority groups, according to Reid Hoffman.
“I mean, we do things at Greylock like have a set of office hours that's only for underrepresented minority entrepreneurs.”
Reid Hoffman says he works with Mark Zuckerberg on the CZI Biohub, which aims to cure infectious disease worldwide.
“one of the things I do with him is the CZI Biohub, where he's trying to cure infectious disease for people all around the world and putting in a lot of money to that.”
Reid Hoffman says Silicon Valley and a set of mostly coastal Chinese cities are the world's two leading tech regions.
“I'd say the two areas in the world that are the most tech leading are both Silicon Valley and a set of cities in China, mostly along the coast.”
Reid Hoffman says he does not think Chinese tech companies discuss the effects of their work on the Uyghurs.
“in China, I don't think you have any discussion in the tech and companies of like, what it means for the Uyghurs”
Reid Hoffman says hundreds of Microsoft employees work on AI safety and suggests that work be shared for free, including with competitors.
“I think there's hundreds of people at Microsoft who work on AI safety. How do we essentially just distribute it for free?”
Reid Hoffman defines 'techlash' as growing negativity and uncertainty about what technology brings, and says it motivated his show Possible.
“what is referred to as techlash, which is more negativity and uncertainty about what technology is bringing versus the positive sides.”
Reid Hoffman names Juul as the startup he most often criticizes, calling vape products a net negative.
“I guess the the one I most often pick on is Juul. But like creating electric cigarettes or vape things, I think are net not positive.”
Alison Beard notes that GPS is among the technologies that began with government investment.
“some of the greatest technologies, GPS, for one, you know, stemmed from government investment initially.”
Reid Hoffman argues bad regulation can be better than none for the financial system because banking must keep running.
“when you get to the financial system, the absolute necessity of the financial system continuing to run, you say, well, actually, in fact, bad regulation is better than no regulation”
Reid Hoffman proposes escalating fines for violent video, from $1,000 for the first hundred views up to $100,000 per view after that.
“let's say for the first hundred views, it's a thousand dollar fine, for the next thousand views, it's 10,000 dollar fine, and for every view after that, it's 100,000 dollar fine.”
Hoffman sets out his basic framework: judge technology by its effect on people, including groups with little power. He uses cars as an example of large benefits with serious costs.
“technology is essentially value neutral”
He compares social media's early promise and later problems with AI. He argues responsibility means asking questions and measuring as you build.
“The way that ethics starts is by asking the questions and checking as you're building.”
Hoffman defends fast scaling while arguing that what you break matters. He names leaders he thinks are learning.
“The question is, what things do you break?”
He explains how his venture firm picks companies and founders, including the role of deep reference checks.
“You haven't completed your reference checks until you found a negative reference check”
He describes concrete steps Greylock takes on inclusion and admits progress is slower than he would like.
“If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.”
Hoffman compares the two leading tech centers and suggests AI safety work could be shared widely, even with competitors.
“the two areas in the world that are the most tech leading”
He explains the new show as a response to 'techlash' and argues technology is central to solving large social problems.
“30 to 80 of the solution is technology.”
Hoffman lays out his view of government's role and why he prefers outcome-based rules to prescriptive ones.
“when is bad regulation better than no regulation?”
He closes by urging young people to think like entrepreneurs and use technology to do good by asking the right questions.
“ask the right questions and help create the future”
Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Alison Beard. When any new technology comes along, people, especially those in the tech industry itself, tend to get really excited about all the good it's going to bring. Social media connects people around the world, crypto democratizes finance, generative AI supercharges productivity, and so on. The evangelist crowd is loud and proud. But as we've seen over the past decade, the potential downsides of the latest tech innovations don't always get as much attention.
Yes, you'll see some skeptics warning about unintended consequences and negative externalities. But it doesn't seem like industry insiders, the people building and deploying these new tools and the leaders overseeing that work, are thinking all that hard about what challenges they might inadvertently create. Our guest today is an unabashed techno optimist. He really does believe in the power of technology to improve our lives, but he also knows how important it is for tech companies to think more carefully and responsibly about the problems they're trying to solve and the products and services they're putting out into the world.
Reid Hoffman is a founding board member of PayPal, a founder of LinkedIn, a partner at the venture capital firm Greylock, and a director of several companies, including Microsoft, although he recently stepped down as a board member of OpenAI. He's also a podcaster, hosting Masters of Scale and the new show Possible. Reid, welcome.
Great to be here.
Okay, first off, how do you define responsible or ethical technology?
So one of the illusions that is sometimes promulgated is that technology is essentially value neutral. And that doesn't mean that it embodies values in kind of a simple way. That like, you know, I believe in democracy, or I believe in some other form of human organization, you know, or kind of the various values debates we're having within the US. and other countries. I think that the question is, you say, well, how does this affect the human condition?
What does it mean for different individuals? Like, are there bias issues? Are there things where it creates some kind of bad social impact? And you have to ask these questions. Obviously, one of the challenges when you're dealing with things of scale is it's never all good, like 100, everything. The thing what you have to do is you have to make it on broad really good and then try to make sure that you're not disadvantaging groups that don't have, you know, power or a voice.
So, for example, you say, well, cars, well, cars are generally speaking very good. It enables transportation, enables mobility, enables people to live in different areas. On the other hand, of course, in the US. we have 40,000 deaths per year in driving, then of course, climate and all the rest. So you have some kind of challenges, and you try to shape it so that on balance is very good and you're dynamically improving as you learn and refine.
As someone who has been a leader in the tech industry for a really long time, what is your honest assessment of the job that you all are doing in considering not just the upsides, but also the downsides, and then trying to mitigate those risks? Whether, you know, that's social media a decade ago or generative AI today.
Well, you know, it's a little bit hard to talk about the entire tech industry because there's some people I think who are doing pretty good jobs, and I think there's some people who are doing pretty awful jobs. You know, the story of social media, as you said in the intro, is when it opens with blogs and social networks and all the rest. It's like, oh, we're giving voice to the people who didn't otherwise have voices, and people who might be a minority of some sort somewhere in the world, whether it might be, you know, kind of sexual orientation, or might be religious, or might be a racial minority.
They can discover their voice and they can connect with other people, and isn't that awesome? And of course it is, and continues to be. But then you say, well, now it becomes where everyone's there, and then all of the issues that become part of why we have government, why we have regulation, and how we make society work together, those then come in place in full. And like, for example, one of the classic things that I've been debating since as long as I've been on basically television.
I think I did a 1996 firing line on this on freedom of speech is to say, well, we don't regulate freedom of speech, and it's like, well, of course we do. We have truth in advertising, we have issues around hate speech or violence, or there's all kinds of ways we regulate speech. Then if you say, Well, my freedom of speech allows me to say false advertising and to sell drugs that are that are harmful for lots of money, you're like, Well, that we don't allow as society.
And I think that's what the tech industry is still coming up to speed on in terms of how do we navigate? What is our definition of truth in collective discussion and how do we navigate that? Now, when it gets to AI, which is obviously the thing I've been spending a ton of time on the last number of years, I think the tech industry has learned from the social media side to pay more attention here. So the questions around, well, is it biased?
Or might there be unintended consequences in jobs or misinformation? The way that ethics starts is by asking the questions and checking as you're building. You're not gonna get it perfect, you're not gonna launch something at scale and get it perfect. But if you're asking the questions and you're measuring and you're improving, then you'll eventually get to a very good place.
So it seems like you're saying that technologists today and leaders of tech companies have maybe learned from the era of social media and that the famous move fast and break thing era is over.
What I'd say is, okay, you know, I'm the author of Blitzscaling. I'm a definite move fast person. The question is, what things do you break? You know, you break your servers? Fine, no problem, you break society. No, that's a problem. And what I'd say is some tech leaders, you know, Satya Nadella, Sam Altman, are well on the learning curve. I think it'd be a fool's statement to say, Oh, we've learned, we're good. It's like, no, no.
Part of what you're doing is we're exploring this new stuff and we're building these new things, and you can't pre predict all of it. You're learning as you go and you're fixing.
What factors are they considering when making business decisions? You know, what does the general public maybe not see or hear about what's going on behind the scenes, both in the VC community and within the companies themselves?
So I'd say that every technology company that I'm a part of, that my partners at Greylock are part of, are all at least asking the questions and doing it as part of how they develop the technology. And the questions can range from are we being responsible stewards of data and people's trust? Might there be groups that are being disadvantaged by this technology? That is a structural bad thing, like, for example, you know, racial disadvantage. Whereas you could say, well, we're we're disadvantaging criminals.
And it's okay, that's fine, you know, fraudsters, you know, as best we can. Are we red teaming and thinking about blind spots or things that could go wrong? Are we thinking about what happens when this gets to scale? Do we have a good theory about why this will be net really positive and how we can remediate or diminish harms? I think all of those questions in every tech company that I'm part of are central. And and we go out and learn, we hire people and and ask for, you know, what are the other things we should be thinking of doing here?
Yeah, and bigger picture is the industry, and I'm sorry for keep saying the industry as a whole, but most of the people you know, you know, are you now focusing on more important problems than perhaps you once did? You know, there's the famous Peter Thiel quote. We wanted flying cars, they gave us 140 characters, and now it's more like we want climate change solutions, but we're getting a chatbot that can write stanzas like Shakespeare.
Well, yes, and and complicated. So, for example, flying cars. I'm on the board of Joby, we are working on flying cars, and that's to redefine space in a climate change way that will help with gridlock and pollution and a bunch of other things and be accessible. On the other hand, the natural pattern of these things is to try to figure out what's the easiest work to do that's most valuable. And so that's why people tend to do a lot of software.
And, you know, I tend to think that actually chatbots can be really valuable. They can be valuable for, you know, anything that ranges from give me some good information to help me solve this problem to any number of things that could play into human life. But on the other hand, of course, solving hard problems like climate change, ocean deacidification, you know, other kinds of things are super important and people are working on those. They're just harder because it's a lot more expensive, with the economic rewards being much more challenging.
One of the things that, you know, I try to give thinking to and advice to is how do we create an incentive system that also goes after the hard problems more?
Yeah, absolutely, and you use the word valuable, so let me press on that a little bit. By valuable, do you mean valuable to society, valuable to investors? You know, where is that purpose profits trade off or balance falling for your community now?
Well, in an ideal system, you align them so that the high functioning of business, where the product it's offering to customers, it's really good for the well-being of the customers and society and the stakeholders that it's in. There are, of course, places where that gets misaligned, and it's not only within the tech industry. It's, you know, this is one of the challenges we tend to have with making industries work. And look, there is a in all of society.
There's a whole bunch of people who are doing things only for money or only for profits. That's part of our how we design the alignment of society that goes all the way back to Adam Smith. But the question is, is also that people will say, I want to hold my head up with my friends and my community and say I'm doing a really good thing. All the people I hang out with are focused on how is it that we're also making the world and society better with what we're doing?
And so, for example, that's one of the questions we ask at Greylock when we're investing is just make sure that we are positive on those vectors. And that we have to do so within the context of a strong business. But, you know, if you're asking the question and intentionally trying to do that, then that's at least half the game.
And so as a VC at Greylock, you know, what are you looking for, seeking out, both in business ideas, business models, and founders right now?
Part of the thing that's a delight about venture investing is while you may have a very active theory of the game. So I've been doing, you know, generative AI for the last few years. I co-founded a company called Inflection with Mustafa Suleiman. We have Adept and Cresta and Snorkel and all these other companies at Greylock, and so we have a very active thesis on artificial intelligence and have had, for, you know, five plus years. We're also being surprised by the amazing things brought to us.
So, you know, just to kind of illustrate what I think the quality of of being surprised is, is when Brian Chesky and Nate and Joe brought Airbnb to me. I hadn't really been thinking about, you know, a marketplace for space, a question about how you can not just travel to a place to see a monument, but to experience local culture, to enable people to transform their own economic outcomes of being able to afford their house or their space.
But yet that's just software, and that brings all that together. So, you know, for me, in addition to AI, I also tend to look at networks that redefine our social society space. It's part of the reason I created, you know, LinkedIn with my co-founders, things that we've done and various other investments at Greylock, including like, for example, you know, like, take Roblox, which is, you know, okay, you've got developers building entertainment and educational things that, generally speaking, mostly appeal to kids, but a whole range of experiences.
We're looking to be surprised. And the question we ask is, are the customers net really benefited from this? And are the is the community and society that they're in broadly also benefited? And does it have a very strong business that will transform industries? And, you know, if we see all that and we see an entrepreneur that we think is high integrity and that we would be delighted to be in business with our entire lives, then we get really excited and join forces.
Yeah, that high integrity piece, you know, finding people, founding teams who are absolutely trying to scale and run with their ideas and make a change. But then also will take that moment to step back and and ask the questions about, you know, ethical construction, deployment, et cetera. How do you evaluate for that?
Well, it's not a simple formula, but one of the things we do pretty rigorously is reference checking. You haven't completed your reference checks until you found a negative reference check on everybody in the world. So, for example, if someone was reference checking me in depth, what they would find is, oh my gosh, he's really great creative problem solver, but he's not particularly good at making the trains run on time, right? And obviously, you know, when you're asking the integrity question, you're asking a question of how much do you actually, in fact, walk the walk, not just talk the talk?
How much do you, when you get in positions of stress, do you make decisions? Like, for example, that say, no, no, yeah, that would be the easy decision, but that takes risks and other people's well-being. Let's take the hard decision. Do you honor your commitments? And therefore, you know, when you're saying, hey, we're gonna have a a commitment to make sure that we are tracking how we impact society. And we're gonna have dashboards on it and we're gonna be improving them year by year.
Will you be doing that?
Yeah, talk a little bit about the role that the tech world, the VC world, an industry that is still very much dominated by rich white men, has to play in increasing inclusivity and also decreasing socioeconomic equality.
One of the things that I've been saying for, uh, maybe a decade plus now. Anytime you look at a problem, you go, that's that's important to solve, you go. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. So you need to be saying, how am I as an individual, and also, of course, as a firm and everything else, investing in trying to solve this problem? How am I putting in sweat and blood into trying to make this happen?
And so, relative to diversity and inclusion, in making sure that you have a regular workflow and process by which you're trying to recruit, you're trying to meet entrepreneurs. I mean, we do things at Greylock like have a set of office hours that's only for underrepresented minority entrepreneurs. We do in any recruiting thing, we make sure that we are interviewing disproportionately large numbers of underrepresented minorities, including, unfortunately, venture women, uh, which is like, well, you know, aren't they half the population?
You're like, yes, uh, and doing everything you can. And and so, for example, we've helped stand up kind of new venture firms, cause when they come to us and say, hey, we're gonna. We think that one of the things may just be having a venture firm that's entirely focused on funding women entrepreneurs might be a good way of doing it. Great, we'll help you, right? And so you have to do all that kind of stuff. And would I want progress to be 10x faster than it is going?
Absolutely. And if someone figures out a way to make that happen, we'll help, we'll support. On the economic gaps, it's always a little tricky, cause it's dynamic over time. For example, one of the things that I do the same thing in my philanthropy as I do in my investing, which you find an amazing entrepreneur. In this case, it's it's Byron guest, who says, Look, there's there's all of this massive growth in the tech jobs and tech industry.
And we want to make sure that it works for the communities of color, works for women, works for, you know, other minority groups. Let's go make sure that a whole bunch of these people have pathways into tech jobs and make that happen. And so they at least can begin to bring their families in, understand kind of what the tech opportunities are, have their communities be begin to be able to benefit from participating in these industries. But by the way, when you're, you know, growing a new company, the new company makes, you know, the executives and the founders the most money, and then makes the next group of people the next most money, and you know, et cetera, et cetera, as
as ways it works. So it doesn't necessarily immediately cause distribution economics, but you're trying to get everyone participating, and then you're trying to make sure that that the next generation of founders has the diversity that we have in society.
You mentioned other industry leaders that you respect and admire, who you think are modeling good leadership, you know, not only on the I'm running a great business, but also on the I'm working to improve society front. But, you know, the poster boys for the tech industry, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, you know, they definitely aren't perceived that way, no matter how much money they might give to charity or how many rockets they might launch into space.
Do you get the sense that the good guys, as Kara Swisher might call you, are developing as many accolades as the people who sort of do still cling to that move fast and break things ethos?
Well, you know, and I myself argued with Mark Zuckerberg about, you know, kind of freedom of speech issues and other things. But like, for example, one of the things I do with him is the CZI Biohub, where he's trying to cure infectious disease for people all around the world and putting in a lot of money to that. And that's, you know, because he's such the the poster boy for other, you know, intelligent criticisms. He doesn't get as much credit, neither here, Priscilla, for all this other amazing stuff he does.
And so I just kind of feel it's important to make that gesture.
Yeah, and there's no question that, you know, a lot of the people who make a lot of money then do a lot of good. You know, I guess it's just trying to marry the two is what we're talking about.
Yeah, well, that that's important to do, too. But like, for example, there is a differentiation between people who go all of my economics is for my own self glorification and people who go, Oh, look, I'm making a bunch of economics and I'm also doing a bunch of things that I'm caring for a bunch of communities that has nothing to do with my self glorification. And, you know, I just, I, I say that in part because it's too easy to get on the criticism bandwagon.
And I just, you know, I think it's important to note. Now, I'd say that the the folks who are perhaps not beating these drums as extremely tend to have less. I think the word you used was accolades, you know, I think it's because it's the principal way that you get accolades is by defining something pretty extreme and beating that drum. And then people who, you know, think that you're the messiah for beating the drum in that direction, then come follow you.
If you're kind of like, measured and saying, you know, like things I've been saying here, which is, look, it's a net benefit, is the is the goal. I think you do have to move fast, I think you have to build things quickly, I think you will break things, including things that you don't want to break in doing it. I think you have to do it with care and and attention. But I think if you don't do it with speed, then the people who do it with speed who don't care about what the impact is, you know, set the rules.
And so I tend to think that, you know, it's it's less good, call it media coverage, to talk about the people who are trying to be thoughtful than the people who are being extreme.
Do you think that Silicon Valley still sort of leads the world in terms of what the tech industry is thinking about, or do you see sort of different ecosystems developing their own ethoses around purpose and profits?
Well, I'd say the two areas in the world that are the most tech leading are both Silicon Valley and a set of cities in China, mostly along the coast. I try as much as I possibly can to help create other tech innovation centers in other areas of the world, like I was just in Italy, France and the UK, you know, high principled democracies that have a really good concept of kind of like what the human rights should be and so forth.
I try to help as much as possible in facilitating the creation of entrepreneurial basis and tech industries. But I do think Silicon Valley continues to be, along with the like, we learn a whole bunch of stuff from China, the kind of driving drumbeat. And it's one of the reasons why I think it's a very good thing that the discourse is like, I, I'm at dinner parties in Silicon Valley where, you know, part of the discussion is to say, Well, how do we?
Now that tech is continuing to have larger and larger impact, what is the way that we make sure that we're doing the right thing?
Let's talk about China. Are those questions being asked over there? Also,
Well, not being a native Chinese speaker and not having been there for a few years. Um, you know, I would say I think any group of people, hey, you've got a million people, you've got a distribute of smart people, you got a distribution of ethical people, you've got a, you know, a whole bunch of different things. I would say that their environment is more tuned at the moment to the, as it were, the rise of China and the success of the business, and somewhat less to, you know, like, for example, you know, what does this mean for disadvantaged minorities within society?
You know, in China, I don't think you have any discussion in the tech and companies of like, what it means for the Uyghurs or what it means for, you know, other kinds of things. I think people are people. I'm not saying anything about the quality of the people in doing that, I just think it's the environment that they're operating in.
are there opportunities for more collaboration, interaction, knowledge sharing?
So, for example, one of the things I've been, you know, highly focused along on, along with the open AI and Microsoft folks, which is like AI safety. And making sure that when you build these new, very large, very capable systems, that the, uh, net impact is very good, that there are no really bad impacts. And you say, okay, well, how do we make sure that the work that we're doing, even though, you know, we've put in a whole bunch of work and energy and cost and and hiring?
I think there's hundreds of people at Microsoft who work on AI safety. How do we essentially just distribute it for free? How do we offer it to everybody, including our competitors and so forth in China, in order to try to get to good places, because that's part of being intentional and good people.
So I do want to turn to your new show. It's a very interesting, you know, your sort of addition of the show possible to your Masters of Scale franchise. Cause one is sort of the founders, the entrepreneurs, the leaders of companies who, you know, made it big, basically. And then possible seems to feature people behind the scenes working on these really difficult problems you mentioned earlier, you know, so on democratizing higher education through technology, nuclear fusion, you know, to help solve some of our climate issues.
Talk about why you wanted to launch the show and focus on those people as opposed to the famous corporate leaders.
So, you know, one of the things that I see a lot in the US. and see in some places of the rest of the world is what is referred to as techlash, which is more negativity and uncertainty about what technology is bringing versus the positive sides. And I believe, as a hypothesis, but very strongly and can argue for that. Whatever scale problem you're trying to solve, whether it's climate change, whether it's economic justice, whether it's criminal justice, other things, 30 to 80 of the solution is technology.
What I mean by that is technology changes the scope of what's possible, it changes cost curves, it changes what you might be able to pull off with the resources that we have. We can help solve these really fundamental problems with technology, and it isn't technology is the only solution, part of the solution. It's also how we organize ourselves as a society, what we value, what we invest in versus other things, other kinds of things. But technology is an essential part of making that scale solution work.
And so we want to go to essentially the leaders, the innovators, the imaginers of what the world could be in this really good new way. And to talk to them and to share that sense of here is where we should row towards. And I think we can, for example, solve these really big problems, climate change. And oh my gosh, we could build a world that's so much better than we are today. Let's get to it.
Does the new generation of founders seem excited about that, even if it means, you know, their big paydays m might be two decades in the future, as opposed to, you know, becoming a unicorn within five years?
Well, again, I think some are, and more s more are right. It won't be all are, it won't be, you know, some people will still be, you know, creating, you know, I'm not gonna. I try not to throw entrepreneurs under the bus, but, you know, various things. And I go well, that's not a particularly great thing to create. Um,
Delivering liquor to your front door or something along those lines.
yeah, what, whatever, whatever the thing might be, you know, I guess the the one I most often pick on is Juul. But like creating electric cigarettes or vape things, I think are net not positive. But go and and have the imagination that through entrepreneurship, through technology, through invention, you could solve these things. And as we get, there's a super amount of very talented people in the world, and we just want more of them working on these problems and thinking about the fact they could make a difference by creating a technology, a business, a project that could focus on this and make it work.
And that's the dialogue we're hoping to increase and the, you know, kind of applying our imagination to how we create the future.
Yeah, we haven't yet talked about the role of government in innovation, you know, and in regulation. So, you know, some of the greatest technologies, GPS, for one, you know, stemmed from government investment initially. So do we need more of that? Is part A of this question, and part B is, you know, where do you stand on regulation for emerging technologies like generative AI? Should there have been more regulation on social media, et cetera?
Uh, one of the things when people say, for example, what do I believe that most Silicon Valley, or a lot of Silicon Valley people don't believe? It's like, actually, in fact, government's absolutely essential. It helped creates a lot of things, help create not just rule of law and a society and healthy functioning economy, but also baseline investment in universities and technologies. And and so I'm a big believer in those. I also think that regulation can be an important part of that.
One of the challenges of regulation is that the baseline conception of how most people tend to think of regulation is to ask for permission, not forgiveness, to tell you that you continue to do things the way you've done them in the past. And you're kind of locked in with very slow change from that and tend to be done by people who don't necessarily understand what the innovation clock looks like. And so the principle that I usually articulate here is when is bad regulation better than no regulation?
And by the way, the answer is not. That's not a rhetorical question or never. Because, like, for example, when you get to the financial system, the absolute necessity of the financial system continuing to run, you say, well, actually, in fact, bad regulation is better than no regulation to make sure that the banking system doesn't break and other kinds of things. That's cause it's just too critical otherwise. Now, when you get to a lot of technology and you say, well, you're enshrining the past.
The problem is, is well, if the actual solution is technology in the future, then a regulation that that particularly slows you down or anchors you to the past will be potentially more damaging to humanity than not doing it in various ways. And to say, well, do you say no regulation? It's like, of course not, but what you do is start by defining, like, what are the outcomes that you're looking for? And can you set those outcomes to essentially the innovators, the companies, the other things, to say more of these outcomes and less of these outcomes?
And we'd like to see a dashboard, we'd like to see it tracked by your auditors. And so, for example, when we'd like to see less violence on video, so do you say, well, I'm gonna have a regulation to say you must have a five minute delay between uploading the video and the broadcast of it. And you say, okay, well, that may not actually solve your violence and video problem, because, you know, terrorists or whatever else might trick or hack the system for it.
And your regulation really just created a whole bunch of processes that didn't do anything. Whereas what you said to companies is said, well, okay, I recognize you can't get to zero, cause again, large scale systems. But let's say for the first hundred views, it's a thousand dollar fine, for the next thousand views, it's 10,000 dollar fine, and for every view after that, it's 100,000 dollar fine. You figure out how not to show, you know, murders on video, right?
And that's what I mean by defining outcomes in ways and then having the innovation do that. And that's the kind of thing that I think is the pattern that we need to apply when it gets to technology.
So what advice do you give to people who are early in their tech careers right now? What are some of the pitfalls to watch out for, and how can they become great, more responsible builders of technology?
I think everybody needs to think about their own life path with the tool set of an entrepreneur. Doesn't mean they have to be an entrepreneur. I think another thing is to realize that the, you know, all the way back to the beginning of our discussion, that the creation of technology can be itself a great good if you're asking the right questions. I think that even, you know, questions when you say, well, you know, obviously, like, take an area that's fraught with a whole bunch of things, genetic modification, genetic engineering.
So, oh, that could be really bad, obviously, but of course, it could be really good, getting rid of genetic diseases in ways that just cause suffering. So if you're asking the right questions and you're doing it the right way, and you're thinking about how do you shape it the right way, you can have a scale impact in the world that leaves humanity much better because of your effort. And I think that's the, you know, ask the right questions and help create the future.
Reid, thank you so much for being on the show.
My pleasure, thank you.
That's Reid Hoffman, entrepreneur, investor, and podcaster with the new show Possible. And we have more episodes and more podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization, and your career, including an upcoming IdeaCast bonus series about how artificial intelligence will change work. Find them at hbr.org slash podcasts or search HBR on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. This episode was produced by Mary Du. We get technical help from Rob Eckert. Our audio product manager is Ian Fox, and Hannah Bates is our audio production assistant.
Thanks for listening to the HBR IdeaCast. We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I'm Alison Beard.