Vlad Tenev argues that unlike crypto, which built a powerful grassroots advocacy block through widespread retail ownership, the AI industry is vulnerable to negative sentiment and regulation because it lacks a "retail army" of investors. With no financial stake, the public is more susceptible to fear-based narratives.
Robinhood's CEO contrasts the COVID-era retail trading craze, driven by 'ephemeral' theses like nostalgia, with today's more 'meaningful' activity. He observes that current retail investors are focused on substantive tech waves like AI, backing companies with real revenue, indicating a market maturation.
The AI industry is failing at public perception because it lacks a figure like Steve Jobs who can communicate an earnest, optimistic vision. Current leaders often provoke negative reactions, leaving a narrative void filled with fear about job loss and misuse, rather than excitement about AI's potential to empower humanity.
New technologies perceived as job-destroying, like AI, face significant public and regulatory risk. A powerful defense is to make the general public owners of the technology. When people have a financial stake in a technology's success, they are far more likely to defend it than fight against it.
Unlike previous technologies like the internet or smartphones, which enjoyed years of positive perception before scrutiny, the AI industry immediately faced a PR crisis of its own making. Leaders' early and persistent "AI will kill everyone" narratives, often to attract capital, have framed the public conversation around fear from day one.
Individual investors buying shares in private AI companies through brokerage platforms are at a significant disadvantage. They are typically last in line behind institutional investors, resulting in higher entry prices and fees, making it a poor strategy for accessing the AI boom.
AI leaders' messaging about world-ending risks, while effective for fundraising, creates public fear. To gain mainstream acceptance, the industry needs a Steve Jobs-like figure to shift the narrative from AI as an autonomous, job-killing force to AI as a tool that empowers human potential.
Despite broad, bipartisan public opposition to AI due to fears of job loss and misinformation, corporations and investors are rushing to adopt it. This push is not fueled by consumer demand but by a 'FOMO-driven gold rush' for profits, creating a dangerous disconnect between the technology's backers and the society it impacts.
Public market investors feel compelled to buy into major AI IPOs, even if they doubt a company's fundamentals. The strategy is driven by market dynamics: the expectation of a 'pop' from massive retail investor demand forces funds to participate to avoid underperforming their benchmarks.
Unlike the dot-com bubble, which was fueled by widespread, leveraged participation from retail investors and employees, the current AI boom is primarily funded by large corporations. A downturn would thus be a contained corporate issue, not a systemic economic crisis that triggers a deep, society-wide recession.
Unlike other tech rollouts, the AI industry's public narrative has been dominated by vague warnings of disruption rather than clear, tangible benefits for the average person. This communication failure is a key driver of widespread anxiety and opposition.