Recall the Time When Nanotechnology Emerged as the pending Major Innovation
In the early 2000s, following the dotcom bubble's collapse, a new technology blazed a trail to redefine humanity and line inventors' pockets. Venture capitalists poured billions into this burgeoning sector. Josh Wolff of the VC firm Lux Capital proclaimed, "This field will offer the biggest and most important breakthrough of the century. It will bring about real economic changes."
The technology, the venture capital, and these companies promised to revolutionize our living and working conditions. They held the power to elevate humanity. Multiple U.S. presidents jumped on the bandwagon, setting up agencies and initiatives to back the tech and direct its evolution. Conferences popped up globally, all sharing a name with the technology and promoting discussions on ethics.
That was the era when people talked about nanotechnology with unbridled enthusiasm. In the mid-2000s, Steve Jurvetson, then a managing director at Draper Fisher Jurvetson, stated, "At DFJ, we believe that nanotech is the next great technology wave, the next phase of Moore's Law, and the nexus of scientific innovation that revolutionizes most industries, indirectly affecting society..." The hype surrounding nanotechnology mirrors how individuals speak about AI today.
I was reminded of nanotechnology yesterday, amid the stock market tumble, after the revelation that a Chinese AI company had developed a ChatGPT competitor on a shoestring budget. The week isn’t over, but NVIDIA — the corporation responsible for manufacturing GPUs vital to AI development — took a $600 billion hit. This is the most substantial financial loss ever recorded on the market.
In the 1990s, as the internet assumed its place as a significant market force, Wall Street was lured in by the lure of opportunity. Any company sporting “dot com” or “e” in its name received millions in funding. Pets.com frenzy gripped the nation, with its mascot becoming a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade star. Regretfully, by 2000, people came to realize many of these websites boasted little to no profitability, driving Pets.com's investors into financially perilous situations.
Yet, all that venture capital and hype nestled somewhere. For a while, it flowed into nanotechnology. Scientists had already been tinkering with nanoscale materials for years, but attention was scarce until then. After the dot-com crash, nanotechnology was ubiquitous in the vernacular. Billions in funding began pouring into the field.
"Nano" became a buzzword, like "dot-com" before it and "AI" after, capturing researchers' hearts as the money flowed in. Investors convinced that nanotechnology would usher in a new age of prosperity. Fears of self-replicating nanotech robots plagued the minds of naysayers. Michael Crichton authored a novel, "Prey," detailing this very scenario.
President Bill Clinton made a speech about nanotechnology at CalTech in 2000. He announced the National Nanotechnology Initiative, an ambitious 20-year venture to shepherd the technology. President George W. Bush approved the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in 2003, allocating extra funds for nanotechnology research.
However, the anticipated "revolution" didn't materialize, and the VC hype dwindled. By the market's adjustment, nanotechnology remained static. Advances in the production of small molecules continue, significantly benefiting our lives. Nanotechnology is now vital in sectors like semiconductor manufacturing, food production, and medicine. The difference lies in the reduction in VC hype.
Artificial intelligence finds itself in a similar position that nanotechnology occupied in the early 2000s. But the numbers vary. Thousands of AI startups compete against nanotech's meager 1,200. Billions have been poured into AI, far surpassing nanotechnology's investment. Nanotechnology revolutionized nuclear energy market economics, but AI has yet to make a significant impact in that area.
It's a strange spectacle happening in the stock market this week. I won't call it a bubble bursting, but a shift in market sentiment is undeniably underway. An upstart Chinese company challenged ChatGPT's position atop Apple's App Store, sending shares of the company responsible for training both AI models tumbling. It's a clear indication that, like nanotechnology before it, AI is delivering on promises.
Yet, like nanotechnology before it, I believe AI will endure. It's not brand-new; AI has been around for decades. Early AI systems like spellcheck flew under the radar, improving our lives without drawing much attention. Principally, the spellcheck system, which was developed at Stanford's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, debuted in 1971.
What we must attend to is caution against false prophets. It's not a challenging task. They rely on worn-out language and, from nanotechnology to AI, they rarely deviate from their pattern. Ponder on Jurvetson’s speech, quoted at article's start, and the writings of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Altman penned a lengthy blog titled "Moore's Law for Everything," echoing Jurvetson's sentiments.
Altman professed that AI would usher in a new phase of Moore's Law, underscoring its potential to revolutionize humanity. He, like Jurvetson before him, was trying to sell a dream. But in the case of AI, it's no longer just a dream; it's an app that's free.
The future of technology, specifically in the realm of nanotechnology and AI, promises significant changes in various sectors such as semiconductor manufacturing, food production, and medicine. As investors continue to pour funds into AI, it's delivering on its promises, much like nanotechnology did in the early 2000s.
In the tech sector, buzzwords like "nanotech" and "AI" have captivated researchers and investors, who believe these technologies will usher in a new era of prosperity. However, it's important to remain cautious when interpreting the claims of these "false prophets" and to consider the long-term implications of these technologies on society.
