Nine years ago, I gained access to the usually restricted Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, intrigued by the potential of AI to revolutionize everything. I attended a meeting where AI researchers and venture capitalists discussed how to “replace all the writers. ” I documented this critical moment, intending to preserve it for those who might be displaced in the future. The write-up remained unpublished until recently, when I revisited it and noted how the discussions foreshadowed our current technological landscape. Below is that dispatch, offering insights from a time when the future was still being conceived. During my visit to the lab, located within the unimposing Gates Computer Science Building at Stanford, I found the atmosphere stark and unremarkable, despite its historical significance in tech advancements like Google. Discussions ranged from visions of an effortless, immortality-enhancing future powered by AI to stark warnings about existential threats posed by the same technology. Elon Musk labeled AI as humanity's "biggest existential threat, " while others worried about increased unemployment and societal inequality stemming from AI innovations. The evening meeting of the lab’s eClub, which partnered AI researchers with venture capitalists from Silicon Valley, focused on journalism and the potential for AI to disrupt writing.

Twenty students, mostly male and casually dressed, gathered as venture capitalists addressed how AI could replace traditional writers. Leaders of the conversation, including venture capitalists Marty and Ashish, primarily centered on the market-driven potential for AI in creating news content, often disregarding the implications for writers and journalistic integrity. While some participants like Manoush believed in AI’s ability to enhance productivity, others, including Euro-humanists like Elek, raised valid concerns about the loss of meaningful jobs and the quality of journalism. The techies debated whether journalism could transition to a model where freelancers would replace traditional journalists, pulling content together through AI aggregation. Discussions leaned towards the notion that technology would dictate the future, dismissing the need to consider moral implications, democracy, or the actual needs of society amidst this technological evolution. The nighttime gathering illustrated a disturbing trend: a group of intelligent individuals discussing the future of work and society without reflecting on the profound societal responsibilities accompanying their innovations. By treating the displacement of writers as an inevitable outcome, they sidelined the broader, essential conversations about the future they were collectively shaping. This snapshot of the lab captures an era when technology's algorithmic promises obscured the human costs, painting a picture of a future dictated by those at the helm, while the human dimension faded into the background. As the meeting concluded, its participants were unaware of how their collective decisions shaped not just their own futures, but the futures of countless others.