In This Story
Reid Hoffman wants you to stop worrying and learn to love AI — just not too much. The LinkedIn (MSFT-0.90%) co-founder and venture capitalist’s new book “Superagency,” co-authored with tech writer Greg Beato, makes a case for AI’s potential to dramatically enhance human capabilities while also acknowledging the need for thoughtful development.
In an interview with Quartz, Hoffman positioned himself as a “bloomer” on AI — somewhere between the “doomers” prophesying robot apocalypse, the “gloomers” stocking their bunkers just in case, and the “zoomers” who’ve never met an AI model they didn’t want to accelerate. It’s a stance he calls “tech optimist” rather than “tech utopian,” a distinction he sees as a sweet spot between innovation and responsibility.
Read on to learn why he’s betting on AI’s future, what he thinks of the new administration’s tech policy, and why he’s choosing to build businesses rather than “make overtures” to President Donald Trump.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Quartz: How do tech doomers and tech optimists (or “zoomers”) mischaracterize the current state and future of AI?
Reid Hoffman: “The doomers are heavily populated by folks who either view there’s an existential risk — like the Terminator robot scenario — or see AI firmly in the hands of human beings doing bad things, whether it’s military or destruction of society through jobs. The zoomers tend to believe technology is always great, arguing we just have to hit the accelerator and get it fully adopted, and the end result will be much better. Those are the two bracketing concerns, between which you put the “bloomers,” who are a bit less extreme on either of those two sides.”
Quartz: You’ve described yourself as a tech optimist rather than a tech utopian. Can you explain the distinction and how it shapes your perspective on AI development?
Hoffman: “Tech utopian, which is a little bit like being a zoomer, believes that anytime you’re creating new technology, it’s just great and we should do it and work it out – it’s almost like a certain form of techno determinism. I think we’re better described as Homo tech than Homo sapiens because we evolve through technology, but we have to shape the technology because we can shape it in ways that are better and worse for human futures.
“When we look at the history of technology, part of the reason I’m a bloomer is that the first iterations are not necessarily that good, not only because of competence but because we figure out how to make the technology best shaped for maximum positive impact, together with the limitations to make sure we don’t damage people with it.”
Quartz: Which AI tools do you personally use most frequently?
Hoffman: “I use ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude a lot in different circumstances, and I’m constantly trying them against each other. I use Gemini (GOOGL+1.00%) some, and I use Llama (META+1.48%) some, partially to get a sense of how they operate. I plan to try out DeepSeek, too, in the next couple weeks, but the most common tools I use are ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude.”
Quartz: Looking ahead to 2025, what capabilities do you expect to see in AI agents and other AI tools?
Hoffman: “The coding stack is what many major players are working on with intensity, but to think it’s just coding underplays the benefit. When you get coding capabilities, that extends an agent’s ability to do things for you by its ability to write its own tools. For example, if you wanted to analyze different news sources about South Korea’s presidency, it could write a mini agent to hunt for information and do web searches, write another agent to analyze numbers from reports, do cross-check analysis on which facts are most cited, and then write a report bringing it all together. This capability extends beyond just amplifying engineers to amplifying everyone’s use of these tools across various professional tasks – from journalism to financial analysis, law, medicine, and more.”
Quartz: Given the substantial costs associated with AI development, as highlighted by Sequoia Capital’s “$600 billion question” analysis, do you have concerns about funding constraints impacting future progress?
Hoffman: “I think that for some startups, the faucet will be turned off or unavailable. For some startups, it’ll be turned down – a little bit more constrained, like ‘prove it as you go.’ But among the leaders demonstrating they’re part of the AI future, there’s enough diversity and breadth and depth of investors who want to be part of that vision. I think there will be lots of AI capital available, just as there was for years with the internet before we began seeing which patterns really proved out and which ones were later or never materialized.”
Quartz: What’s your assessment of the new Trump administration’s tech policy approach?
Hoffman: “I think it’s a good thing that they’re bringing a lot of people with technical depth and interest in creating the new technologies of the future. It’s one of the things that I think we should all do as a society, as industries, as corporations, and as individuals. And so I think that that’s a huge positive. A personal interest that I hope that we’ll see, for example, is refactoring the nuclear energy regulation to take advantage of all the clean energy that’s there to both increase the energy supply and increase the green energy supply.”
Quartz: Given your past political stances, did you ever consider engaging with the new administration to advance your tech policy views?
Hoffman: “Look, obviously in ‘24, I was advocating for a different pattern, a different path forward. I think now, in ‘25, the best thing I could do is really help contribute to great American businesses by thinking about how we maintain and grow our technology and business leadership positions in ways that help the whole country.
“I think being high integrity and all the rest like, I think that’s the simplest way for me to positively contribute, which is what all of us should be working on doing. I don’t know if I were even to make any particular overtures how they would be received. So I’m just doing the classic American thing of focusing on building the businesses.”
