“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Pictured above: A dining room in Dallas, Texas, designed by Studio Thomas James.As you design (or redesign) a room at home, you may have specific ideas about the paint color, furniture placement, and even the lighting scheme your space requires to truly sing. But, if you're not also considering what type of rug will ground the entire look, this essential room-finishing touch may end up feeling like an afterthought. After all, one of the best ways to ensure your space looks expertly planned from top to bottom is to opt for a rug that can anchor the whole space—and, in many cases, that means a maximalist rug.A maximalist-style rug, or one that has a bold color, an abstract or asymmetrical pattern, an organic shape, distinctive pile texture, or unconventional application (such as functioning as a wall mural), offers a fresh answer to the perpetual design question, "What is this room missing?" Instead of defaulting to a neutral-colored, low-pile rug that goes largely unnoticed, a compelling case can be made for choosing a design that functions more as a tactile piece of art. Asha Chaudhary, the CEO of Jaipur, India-based rug brand Jaipur Living, has noticed many consumers moving away from "safe" interiors and embracing designs that pop with personality. "There’s a growing desire to design with individuality and soul. A vibrant or highly detailed rug can instantly transform a space by adding movement, contrast, and character, all in one single piece," she says.Ahead, we spoke to Chaudhary to get her essential tips for choosing the right maximalist rug for your design style, how to evaluate the construction of a piece, and even why you should think outside the box when it comes to the standard area rug shape. Turns out, this foundational mainstay can be a deeply personal expression of identity.Related StoriesWhen a Maximalist Rug Makes SenseJohn MerklAn outdoor lounge in Healdsburg, California, designed by Sheldon Harte.As you might imagine, integrating a maximalist rug into an existing aesthetic isn't about making a one-to-one swap. You'll want to refine your overall approach and potentially tweak elements of the room already in place, too."I like to think about rugs this way: Sometimes they play a supporting role, and other times, they’re the hero of the room," Chaudhary says. "Statement rugs are designed to stand out. They tell stories, stir emotion, and ground a space the way a bold piece of art would."In Chaudhary's work with interior designers who are selecting rugs for clients' high-end homes, she's noticed that tastes have recently swung toward a more maximalist ethos."Designers are leaning into expression and individuality," she says. "There’s growing interest in bold patterns, asymmetry, and designs that reflect the hand of the maker. Color-wise, we’re seeing more adventurous palettes: think jades, bordeauxes, and terracottas. And there’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory." Jaipur LivingJaipur Living’s Manchaha rugs are one-of-a-kind, hand-knotted pieces woven from upcycled hand-spun yarn that follow a freeform design of the artisan’s choosing.Jaipur LivingJaipur Living is uniquely positioned to fulfill the need for one-of-a-kind rugs that are not just visually striking within a space, but deeply meaningful as well. The brand's Manchaha collection (meaning “expression of my heart” in Hindi) comprises rugs made of upcycled yarn, each hand-knotted by rural Indian artisans in freeform shapes that capture the imagination."Each piece is designed from the heart of the artisan, with no predetermined pattern, just emotion, inspiration, and memory woven together by hand. What excites me most is this shift away from perfection and toward beauty that feels lived-in, layered, and real," she adds.There’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory.Related StoryHow to Choose the Right Maximalist RugBrittany AmbridgeDesign firm Drake/Anderson reimagined this Greenwich, Connecticut, living room. Good news for those who are taking a slow-decorating approach with their home: Finding the right maximalist rug for your space means looking at the big picture first."Most shoppers start with size and color, but the first question should really be, 'How will this space be used?' That answer guides everything—material, construction, and investment," says Chaudhary.Are you styling an off-limits living room or a lively family den where guests may occasionally wander in with shoes on? In considering your materials, you may want to opt for a performance-fabric rug for areas subject to frequent wear and tear, but Chaudhary has a clear favorite for nearly all other spaces. "Wool is the gold standard. It’s naturally resilient, stain-resistant, and has excellent bounce-back, meaning it recovers well from foot traffic and furniture impressions," she says. "It’s also moisture-wicking and insulating, making it an ideal choice for both comfort and durability."As far as construction goes, Chaudhary breaks down the most widely available options on the market: A hand-knotted rug, crafted by tying individual knots, is the most durable construction and can last decades, even with daily use.Hand-tufted rugs offer a beautiful look at a more accessible price point, but typically won’t have the same lifespan. Power-loomed rugs can be a great solution for high-traffic areas when made with quality materials. Though they fall at the higher end of the price spectrum, hand-knotted rugs aren't meant to be untouchable—after all, their quality construction helps ensure that they can stand up to minor mishaps in day-to-day living. This can shift your appreciation of a rug from a humble underfoot accent to a long-lasting art piece worthy of care and intentional restoration when the time comes. "Understanding these distinctions helps consumers make smarter, more lasting investments for their homes," Chaudhary says. Related StoryOpting for Unconventional Applications Lesley UnruhSarah Vaile designed this vibrant vestibule in Chicago, Illinois.Maximalist rugs encompass an impressively broad category, and even if you already have an area rug rolled out that you're happy with, there are alternative shapes you can choose, or ways in which they can imbue creative expression far beyond the floor."I’ve seen some incredibly beautiful applications of rugs as wall art. Especially when it comes to smaller or one-of-a-kind pieces, hanging them allows people to appreciate the detail, texture, and artistry at eye level," says Chaudhary. "Some designers have also used narrow runners as table coverings or layered over larger textiles for added dimension."Another interesting facet of maximalist rugs is that you can think outside the rectangle in terms of silhouette."We’re seeing more interest in irregular rug shapes, think soft ovals, curves, even asymmetrical outlines," says Chaudhary. "Clients are designing with more fluidity and movement in mind, especially in open-plan spaces. Extra-long runners, oversized circles, and multi-shape layouts are also trending."Ultimately, the best maximalist rug for you is one that meets your home's needs while highlighting your personal style. In spaces where dramatic light fixtures or punchy paint colors aren't practical or allowed (in the case of renters), a statement-making rug is the ideal solution. While trends will continue to evolve, honing in on a unique—even tailor-made—design will help ensure aesthetic longevity. Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Ivy Grant, SVP of Strategy & Operations, Twilio June 13, 20255 Min Readpeshkova via alamy stockAsk technologists and enterprise leaders what they hope AI will deliver, and most will land on some iteration of the "T" word: transformation. No surprise, AI and its “cooler than you” cousin, generative AI (GenAI), have been hyped nonstop for the past 24 months. But therein lies the problem. Many organizations are rushing to implement AI without a grasp on the return on investment (ROI), leading to high spend and low impact. Without anchoring AI to clear friction points and acceleration opportunities, companies invite fatigue, anxiety and competitive risk. Two-thirds of C-suite execs say GenAI has created tension and division within their organizations; nearly half say it’s “tearing their company apart.” Most (71%) report adoption challenges; more than a third call it a massive disappointment. While AI's potential is irrefutable, companies need to reject the narrative of AI as a standalone strategy or transformational savior. Its true power is as a catalyst to amplify what already works and surface what could. Here are three principles to make that happen. 1. Start with friction, not function Many enterprises struggle with where to start when integrating AI. My advice: Start where the pain is greatest. Identify the processes that create the most friction and work backward from there. AI is a tool, not a solution. By mapping real pain points to AI use cases, you can hone investments to the ripest fruit rather than simply where it hangs at the lowest. Related:For example, one of our top sources of customer pain was troubleshooting undeliverable messages, which forced users to sift through error code documentation. To solve this, an AI assistant was introduced to detect anomalies, explain causes in natural language, and guide customers toward resolution. We achieved a 97% real-time resolution rate through a blend of conversational AI and live support. Most companies have long-standing friction points that support teams routinely explain. Or that you’ve developed organizational calluses over; problems considered “just the cost of doing business.” GenAI allows leaders to revisit these areas and reimagine what’s possible. 2. The need for (dual) speed We hear stories of leaders pushing an “all or nothing” version of AI transformation: Use AI to cut functional headcount or die. Rather than leading with a “stick” through wholesale transformation mandates or threats to budgets, we must recognize AI implementation as a fundamental culture change. Just as you wouldn't expect to transform your company culture overnight by edict, it's unreasonable to expect something different from your AI transformation. Related:Some leaders have a tendency to move faster than the innovation ability or comfort level of their people. Most functional leads aren’t obstinate in their slow adoption of AI tools, their long-held beliefs to run a process or to assess risks. We hired these leaders for their decades of experience in “what good looks like” and deep expertise in incremental improvements; then we expect them to suddenly define a futuristic vision that challenges their own beliefs. As executive leaders, we must give grace, space and plenty of “carrots” -- incentives, training, and support resources -- to help them reimagine complex workflows with AI. And, we must recognize that AI has the ability to make progress in ways that may not immediately create cost efficiencies, such as for operational improvements that require data cleansing, deep analytics, forecasting, dynamic pricing, and signal sensing. These aren’t the sexy parts of AI, but they’re the types of issues that require superhuman intelligence and complex problem-solving that AI was made for. 3. A flywheel of acceleration The other transformation that AI should support is creating faster and broader “test and learn” cycles. AI implementation is not a linear process with start here and end there. Organizations that want to leverage AI as a competitive advantage should establish use cases where AI can break down company silos and act as a catalyst to identify the next opportunity. That identifies the next as a flywheel of acceleration. This flywheel builds on accumulated learnings, making small successes into larger wins while avoiding costly AI disasters from rushed implementation. Related:For example, at Twilio we are building a customer intelligence platform that analyzes thousands of conversations to identify patterns and drive insights. If we see multiple customers mention a competitor's pricing, it could signal a take-out campaign. What once took weeks to recognize and escalate can now be done in near real-time and used for highly coordinated activations across marketing, product, sales, and other teams. With every AI acceleration win, we uncover more places to improve hand-offs, activation speed, and business decision-making. That flywheel of innovation is how true AI transformation begins to drive impactful business outcomes. Ideas to Fuel Your AI Strategy Organizations can accelerate their AI implementations through these simple shifts in approach: Revisit your long-standing friction points, both customer-facing and internal, across your organization -- particularly explore the ones you thought were “the cost of doing business” Don’t just look for where AI can reduce manual processes, but find the highly complex problems and start experimenting Support your functional experts with AI-driven training, resources, tools, and incentives to help them challenge their long-held beliefs about what works for the future Treat AI implementation as a cultural change that requires time, experimentation, learning, and carrots (not just sticks) Recognize that transformation starts with a flywheel of acceleration, where each new experiment can lead to the next big discovery The most impactful AI implementations don’t rush transformation; they strategically accelerate core capabilities and unlock new ones to drive measurable change. About the AuthorIvy GrantSVP of Strategy & Operations, Twilio Ivy Grant is Senior Vice President of Strategy & Operations at Twilio where she leads strategic planning, enterprise analytics, M&A Integration and is responsible for driving transformational initiatives that enable Twilio to continuously improve its operations. Prior to Twilio, Ivy’s career has balanced senior roles in strategy consulting at McKinsey & Company, Edelman and PwC with customer-centric operational roles at Walmart, Polo Ralph Lauren and tech startup Eversight Labs. She loves solo international travel, hugging exotic animals and boxing. Ivy has an MBA from NYU’s Stern School of Business and a BS in Applied Economics from Cornell University. See more from Ivy GrantReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Google and OpenAI struck a cloud computing deal in May, according to a Reuters report. The deal surprised the industry as the two are seen as major AI rivals. Signs of friction between OpenAI and Microsoft may have also fueled the move. The partnership is a win-win.OpenAI gets more badly needed computing resources while Google profits from its $75B investment to boost its cloud computing capacity in 2025. In a surprise move, Google and OpenAI inked a deal that will see the AI rivals partnering to address OpenAI’s growing cloud computing needs. The story, reported by Reuters, cited anonymous sources saying that the deal had been discussed for months and finalized in May. Around this time, OpenAI has struggled to keep up with demand as its number of weekly active users and business users grew in Q1 2025. There’s also speculation of friction between OpenAI and its biggest investor Microsoft. Why the Deal Surprised the Tech Industry The rivalry between the two companies hardly needs an introduction. When OpenAI’s ChatGPT launched in November 2022, it posed a huge threat to Google that triggered a code red within the search giant and cloud services provider. Since then, Google has launched Bard (now known as Gemini) to compete with OpenAI head-on. However, it had to play catch up with OpenAI’s more advanced ChatGPT AI chatbot. This led to numerous issues with Bard, with critics referring to it as a half-baked product. A post on X in February 2023 showed the Bard AI chatbot erroneously stating that the James Webb Telescope took the first picture of an exoplanet. It was, in fact, the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope that did this in 2004. Google’s parent company Alphabet lost $100B off its market value within 24 hours as a result. Two years on, Gemini made significant strides in terms of accuracy, quoting sources, and depth of information, but is still prone to hallucinations from time to time. You can see examples of these posted on social media, like telling a user to make spicy spaghetti with gasoline or the AI thinking it’s still 2024.  And then there’s this gem: With the entire industry shifting towards more AI integrations, Google went ahead and integrated its AI suite into Search via AI Overviews. It then doubled down on this integration with AI Mode, an experimental feature that lets you perform AI-powered searches by typing in a question, uploading a photo, or using your voice. In the future, AI Mode from Google Search could be a viable competitor to ChatGPT—unless of course, Google decides to bin it along with many of its previous products. Given the scope of the investment, and Gemini’s significant improvement, we doubt AI + Search will be axed. It’s a Win-Win for Google and OpenAI—Not So Much for Microsoft? In the business world, money and the desire for expansion can break even the biggest rivalries. And the one between the two tech giants isn’t an exception. Partly, it could be attributed to OpenAI’s relationship with Microsoft. Although the Redmond, Washington-based company has invested billions in OpenAI and has the resources to meet the latter’s cloud computing needs, their partnership hasn’t always been rosy.  Some would say it began when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was briefly ousted in November 2023, which put a strain on the ‘best bromance in tech’ between him and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Then last year, Microsoft added OpenAI to its list of competitors in the AI space before eventually losing its status as OpenAI’s exclusive cloud provider in January 2025. If that wasn’t enough, there’s also the matter of the two companies’ goal of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Defined as when OpenAI develops AI systems that generate $100B in profits, reaching AGI means Microsoft will lose access to the former’s technology. With the company behind ChatGPT expecting to triple its 2025 revenue to $12.7 from $3.7B the previous year, this could happen sooner rather than later. While OpenAI already has deals with Microsoft, Oracle, and CoreWeave to provide it with cloud services and access to infrastructure, it needs more and soon as the company has seen massive growth in the past few months. In February, OpenAI announced that it had over 400M weekly active users, up from 300M in December 2024. Meanwhile, the number of its business users who use ChatGPT Enterprise, ChatGPT Team, and ChatGPT Edu products also jumped from 2M in February to 3M in March. The good news is Google is more than ready to deliver. Its parent company has earmarked $75B towards its investments in AI this year, which includes boosting its cloud computing capacity. In April, Google launched its 7th generation tensor processing unit (TPU) called Ironwood, which has been designed specifically for inference. According to the company, the new TPU will help power AI models that will ‘proactively retrieve and generate data to collaboratively deliver insights and answers, not just data.’The deal with OpenAI can be seen as a vote of confidence in Google’s cloud computing capability that competes with the likes of Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services. It also expands Google’s vast client list that includes tech, gaming, entertainment, and retail companies, as well as organizations in the public sector. As technology continues to evolve—from the return of 'dumbphones' to faster and sleeker computers—seasoned tech journalist, Cedric Solidon, continues to dedicate himself to writing stories that inform, empower, and connect with readers across all levels of digital literacy. With 20 years of professional writing experience, this University of the Philippines Journalism graduate has carved out a niche as a trusted voice in tech media. Whether he's breaking down the latest advancements in cybersecurity or explaining how silicon-carbon batteries can extend your phone’s battery life, his writing remains rooted in clarity, curiosity, and utility. Long before he was writing for Techreport, HP, Citrix, SAP, Globe Telecom, CyberGhost VPN, and ExpressVPN, Cedric's love for technology began at home courtesy of a Nintendo Family Computer and a stack of tech magazines. Growing up, his days were often filled with sessions of Contra, Bomberman, Red Alert 2, and the criminally underrated Crusader: No Regret. But gaming wasn't his only gateway to tech.  He devoured every T3, PCMag, and PC Gamer issue he could get his hands on, often reading them cover to cover. It wasn’t long before he explored the early web in IRC chatrooms, online forums, and fledgling tech blogs, soaking in every byte of knowledge from the late '90s and early 2000s internet boom. That fascination with tech didn’t just stick. It evolved into a full-blown calling. After graduating with a degree in Journalism, he began his writing career at the dawn of Web 2.0. What started with small editorial roles and freelance gigs soon grew into a full-fledged career. He has since collaborated with global tech leaders, lending his voice to content that bridges technical expertise with everyday usability. He’s also written annual reports for Globe Telecom and consumer-friendly guides for VPN companies like CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, empowering readers to understand the importance of digital privacy. His versatility spans not just tech journalism but also technical writing. He once worked with a local tech company developing web and mobile apps for logistics firms, crafting documentation and communication materials that brought together user-friendliness with deep technical understanding. That experience sharpened his ability to break down dense, often jargon-heavy material into content that speaks clearly to both developers and decision-makers. At the heart of his work lies a simple belief: technology should feel empowering, not intimidating. Even if the likes of smartphones and AI are now commonplace, he understands that there's still a knowledge gap, especially when it comes to hardware or the real-world benefits of new tools. His writing hopes to help close that gap. Cedric’s writing style reflects that mission. It’s friendly without being fluffy and informative without being overwhelming. Whether writing for seasoned IT professionals or casual readers curious about the latest gadgets, he focuses on how a piece of technology can improve our lives, boost our productivity, or make our work more efficient. That human-first approach makes his content feel more like a conversation than a technical manual. As his writing career progresses, his passion for tech journalism remains as strong as ever. With the growing need for accessible, responsible tech communication, he sees his role not just as a journalist but as a guide who helps readers navigate a digital world that’s often as confusing as it is exciting. From reviewing the latest devices to unpacking global tech trends, Cedric isn’t just reporting on the future; he’s helping to write it. View all articles by Cedric Solidon Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

In a nutshell: As nations set ever more ambitious targets for renewable energy and electrification, the humble high-voltage cable has emerged as a linchpin – and a potential chokepoint – in the race to decarbonize the global economy. A Bloomberg interview with Claes Westerlind, CEO of NKT, a leading cable manufacturer based in Denmark, explains why. A global surge in demand for high-voltage electricity cables is threatening to stall the clean energy revolution, as the world's ability to build new wind farms, solar plants, and cross-border power links increasingly hinges on a supply chain bottleneck few outside the industry have considered. At the center of this challenge is the complex, capital-intensive process of manufacturing the giant cables that transport electricity across hundreds of miles, both over land and under the sea. Despite soaring demand, cable manufacturers remain cautious about expanding capacity, raising questions about whether the pace of electrification can keep up with climate ambitions, geopolitical tensions, and the practical realities of industrial investment. High-voltage cables are the arteries of modern power grids, carrying electrons from remote wind farms or hydroelectric dams to the cities and industries that need them. Unlike the thin wires that run through a home's walls, these cables are engineering marvels – sometimes as thick as a person's torso, armored to withstand the crushing pressure of the ocean floor, and designed to last for decades under extreme electrical and environmental stress. "If you look at the very high voltage direct current cable, able to carry roughly two gigawatts through two pairs of cables – that means that the equivalent of one nuclear power reactor is flowing through one cable," Westerlind told Bloomberg. The process of making these cables is as specialized as it is demanding. At the core is a conductor, typically made of copper or aluminum, twisted together like a rope for flexibility and strength. Around this, manufacturers apply multiple layers of insulation in towering vertical factories to ensure the cable remains perfectly round and can safely contain the immense voltages involved. Any impurity in the insulation, even something as small as an eyelash, can cause catastrophic failure, potentially knocking out power to entire cities. // Related Stories As the world rushes to harness new sources of renewable energy, the demand for high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cables has skyrocketed. HVDC technology, initially pioneered by NKT in the 1950s, has become the backbone of long-distance power transmission, particularly for offshore wind farms and intercontinental links. In recent years, approximately 80 to 90 percent of new large-scale cable projects have utilized HVDC, reflecting its efficiency in transmitting electricity over vast distances with minimal losses. But this surge in demand has led to a critical bottleneck. Factories that produce these cables are booked out for years, Westerlind reports, and every project requires custom engineering to match the power needs, geography, and environmental conditions of its route. According to the International Energy Agency, meeting global clean energy goals will require building the equivalent of 80 million kilometers (around 49.7 million miles) of new grid infrastructure by 2040 – essentially doubling what has been constructed over the past century, but in just 15 years. Despite the clear need, cable makers have been slow to add capacity due to reasons that are as much economic and political as technical. Building a new cable factory can cost upwards of a billion euros, and manufacturers are wary of making such investments without long-term commitments from utilities or governments. "For a company like us to do investments in the realm of €1 or 2 billion, it's a massive commitment... but it's also a massive amount of demand that is needed for this investment to actually make financial sense over the next not five years, not 10 years, but over the next 20 to 30 years," Westerlind said. The industry still bears scars from a decade ago, when anticipated demand failed to materialize and expensive new facilities sat underused. Some governments and transmission system operators are trying to break the logjam by making "anticipatory investments" – committing to buy cable capacity even before specific projects are finalized. This approach, backed by regulators, gives manufacturers the confidence to expand, but it remains the exception rather than the rule. Meanwhile, the industry's structure itself creates barriers to rapid expansion, according to Westerlind. The expertise, technology, and infrastructure required to make high-voltage cables are concentrated in a handful of companies, creating what analysts describe as a "deep moat" that is difficult for new entrants to cross. Geopolitical tensions add another layer of complexity. China has built more HVDC lines than any other country, although Western manufacturers, such as NKT, maintain a technical edge in the most advanced cable systems. Still, there is growing concern in Europe and the US about becoming dependent on foreign suppliers for such critical infrastructure, especially in light of recent global conflicts and trade disputes. "Strategic autonomy is very important when it comes to the core parts and the fundamental parts of your society, where the grid backbone is one," Westerlind noted. The stakes are high. Without a rapid and coordinated push to expand cable manufacturing, the world's clean energy transition could be slowed not by a lack of wind or sun but by a shortage of the cables needed to connect them to the grid. As Westerlind put it, "We all know it has to be done... These are large investments. They are very expensive investments. So also the governments have to have a part in enabling these anticipatory investments, and making it possible for the TSOs to actually carry forward with them."

Ivy Grant, SVP of Strategy & Operations, Twilio June 13, 20255 Min Readpeshkova via alamy stockAsk technologists and enterprise leaders what they hope AI will deliver, and most will land on some iteration of the "T" word: transformation. No surprise, AI and its “cooler than you” cousin, generative AI (GenAI), have been hyped nonstop for the past 24 months. But therein lies the problem. Many organizations are rushing to implement AI without a grasp on the return on investment (ROI), leading to high spend and low impact. Without anchoring AI to clear friction points and acceleration opportunities, companies invite fatigue, anxiety and competitive risk. Two-thirds of C-suite execs say GenAI has created tension and division within their organizations; nearly half say it’s “tearing their company apart.” Most (71%) report adoption challenges; more than a third call it a massive disappointment. While AI's potential is irrefutable, companies need to reject the narrative of AI as a standalone strategy or transformational savior. Its true power is as a catalyst to amplify what already works and surface what could. Here are three principles to make that happen. 1. Start with friction, not function Many enterprises struggle with where to start when integrating AI. My advice: Start where the pain is greatest. Identify the processes that create the most friction and work backward from there. AI is a tool, not a solution. By mapping real pain points to AI use cases, you can hone investments to the ripest fruit rather than simply where it hangs at the lowest. Related:For example, one of our top sources of customer pain was troubleshooting undeliverable messages, which forced users to sift through error code documentation. To solve this, an AI assistant was introduced to detect anomalies, explain causes in natural language, and guide customers toward resolution. We achieved a 97% real-time resolution rate through a blend of conversational AI and live support. Most companies have long-standing friction points that support teams routinely explain. Or that you’ve developed organizational calluses over; problems considered “just the cost of doing business.” GenAI allows leaders to revisit these areas and reimagine what’s possible. 2. The need for (dual) speed We hear stories of leaders pushing an “all or nothing” version of AI transformation: Use AI to cut functional headcount or die. Rather than leading with a “stick” through wholesale transformation mandates or threats to budgets, we must recognize AI implementation as a fundamental culture change. Just as you wouldn't expect to transform your company culture overnight by edict, it's unreasonable to expect something different from your AI transformation. Related:Some leaders have a tendency to move faster than the innovation ability or comfort level of their people. Most functional leads aren’t obstinate in their slow adoption of AI tools, their long-held beliefs to run a process or to assess risks. We hired these leaders for their decades of experience in “what good looks like” and deep expertise in incremental improvements; then we expect them to suddenly define a futuristic vision that challenges their own beliefs. As executive leaders, we must give grace, space and plenty of “carrots” -- incentives, training, and support resources -- to help them reimagine complex workflows with AI. And, we must recognize that AI has the ability to make progress in ways that may not immediately create cost efficiencies, such as for operational improvements that require data cleansing, deep analytics, forecasting, dynamic pricing, and signal sensing. These aren’t the sexy parts of AI, but they’re the types of issues that require superhuman intelligence and complex problem-solving that AI was made for. 3. A flywheel of acceleration The other transformation that AI should support is creating faster and broader “test and learn” cycles. AI implementation is not a linear process with start here and end there. Organizations that want to leverage AI as a competitive advantage should establish use cases where AI can break down company silos and act as a catalyst to identify the next opportunity. That identifies the next as a flywheel of acceleration. This flywheel builds on accumulated learnings, making small successes into larger wins while avoiding costly AI disasters from rushed implementation. Related:For example, at Twilio we are building a customer intelligence platform that analyzes thousands of conversations to identify patterns and drive insights. If we see multiple customers mention a competitor's pricing, it could signal a take-out campaign. What once took weeks to recognize and escalate can now be done in near real-time and used for highly coordinated activations across marketing, product, sales, and other teams. With every AI acceleration win, we uncover more places to improve hand-offs, activation speed, and business decision-making. That flywheel of innovation is how true AI transformation begins to drive impactful business outcomes. Ideas to Fuel Your AI Strategy Organizations can accelerate their AI implementations through these simple shifts in approach: Revisit your long-standing friction points, both customer-facing and internal, across your organization -- particularly explore the ones you thought were “the cost of doing business” Don’t just look for where AI can reduce manual processes, but find the highly complex problems and start experimenting Support your functional experts with AI-driven training, resources, tools, and incentives to help them challenge their long-held beliefs about what works for the future Treat AI implementation as a cultural change that requires time, experimentation, learning, and carrots (not just sticks) Recognize that transformation starts with a flywheel of acceleration, where each new experiment can lead to the next big discovery The most impactful AI implementations don’t rush transformation; they strategically accelerate core capabilities and unlock new ones to drive measurable change. About the AuthorIvy GrantSVP of Strategy & Operations, Twilio Ivy Grant is Senior Vice President of Strategy & Operations at Twilio where she leads strategic planning, enterprise analytics, M&A Integration and is responsible for driving transformational initiatives that enable Twilio to continuously improve its operations. Prior to Twilio, Ivy’s career has balanced senior roles in strategy consulting at McKinsey & Company, Edelman and PwC with customer-centric operational roles at Walmart, Polo Ralph Lauren and tech startup Eversight Labs. She loves solo international travel, hugging exotic animals and boxing. Ivy has an MBA from NYU’s Stern School of Business and a BS in Applied Economics from Cornell University. See more from Ivy GrantReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like