LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has been immersed in Silicon Valley since his August 1967 birth in Palo Alto, California, in the shadow of Stanford University, where he and fellow technology luminary Peter Thiel became friends as college students during the 1980s.
They went on to start PayPal during the late 1990s while working alongside a coterie of other bright-eyed entrepreneurs who went on to even bigger things, just as Hoffman did. That group — dubbed the “PayPal Mafia” — included Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, and YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.
Now worth an estimated $2.6 billion, Hoffman has been at the forefront of the artificial intelligence craze while investing in trailblazing startups such as ChatGPT maker OpenAI and Inflection. Unlike other prominent technologists who are worried about AI destroying humanity, Hoffman has co-written a new book called “Superagency” that makes an optimistic case for AI. He recently talked with The Associated Press.
Q: Are humans creating something smarter than themselves with AI?
A: You already have some version of superintelligence right now. Obviously, we will be increasing that superintelligence, so we need to be thinking about which ways it’s going to be making great additions and which ways it’s going to make things more challenging.
Humans are generally bad at transitions, and that is part of the reason for writing books like “Superagency,” to try to say there are some positive design principles, some positive outcomes that we should be trying to work our way toward.
Q: Do you think there is a chance that these superintelligent AI agents eventually may seem omniscient?
A: AI agents are pretty useful for coaching and advising. Like if you were to say, “Hey, how should I approach this thorny problem?” An AI agent can be a pretty good advice-giving coach. And so you can imagine it being a useful tutor across a wide variety of subjects, including even spiritual or counseling or mental ones. And I think that could be positive for the evolution of humanity, having something talking to us that is infinitely patient and is trying to help us get to our better selves. So, yes, you could have a “Consult the Oracle” situation with AI agents.
Q: What’s the risk of some people embracing AI as a bosom buddy and becoming more socially isolated?
A: Some of that will happen for sure, the same way some people isolated themselves with TV or the internet. Part of this will be about the design focus. If you go to Inflection’s AI agent, Pi, and say, “Hey you’re my best friend,” Pi, will say, “No, I am your AI companion, let’s talk about your friendships. Have you seen any of your friends recently or want to see them?” We want AI agents being softly and gently encouraging, to be tied into the human circumstance, which I think is what most people really want.
Q: On the flip side, as these AI agents become more human-like, could that get people more in touch with their own humanity?
A: Our humanity is expressed in how we incorporate technology in our lives, just as we are communicating through Zoom for this interview. I think that is part of our humanity.
Q: Switching topics, are you worried about President Trump retaliating against you for being one of Kamala Harris’ biggest supporters in Silicon Valley leading up to last year’s election?
2024 obviously was a very intense year and what I am trying not to do is speculate too much about that because in 2025 I am going to really focus on how I build and fund really interesting AI companies and other areas that help build industries that make a difference. My obvious hope is that the incoming administration will turn to a positive agenda. I kind of feel at this point that speculation is not really helpful. We will see in a couple of months how it’s all going to play out.
Q: Were you surprised by how much support President Trump got from other technology billionaires like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen?
A: It wasn’t surprising that the people who were very intensely pro-cryptocurrency were pro-Trump because the Biden administration was so negative on crypto. Also the fact that the Biden administration — unlike the Obama administration — was not putting in a lot of energy into saying, “Hey we think that new technology and new technology companies of the future are really important.” And I think a bunch of the Biden administration staff was somewhat negative on large, tech companies.
What did surprise me — and now I am very much hoping they are right — is that they thought the Trump administration would be very strongly and thoughtfully pro business across the arena. Let’s see what happens with tariffs, let’s hope that it doesn’t play out in a particularly challenging way.
A: Do you think your old PayPal colleagues Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are playing a form of political chess?
The thing that is so important about Silicon Valley is the broadly held belief — even if it’s manifested differently in Peter versus me or other people — is that the creation of new technology companies is how progress is made. And I think it’s an important mission for the country and the world as well as Silicon Valley. The degree to which they are playing chess around that, I don’t know. But I think they are driven on that mission and part of what they are doing is trying to make sure that mission is fully realized in the Trump administration.
Q: Do you agree with Trump’s supporters in Silicon Valley that it’s time to ease up on the rigorous regulation of tech that we had during President Biden’s administration?
A: I do. I hope there will be much more enablement of technology innovation.
Q: Going back to your book, what do you say about AI pioneers like Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton who now see the technology as a threat to humanity?
A: I tend to rate a lot of risks based on how does it compare to my risk to driving to the airport because every time you get in a car and drive to the airport, the highest risk of the journey is on the drive and not on the plane. If the risk is in the automobile-level of percentage, then I don’t worry about it that much. And, if you say, “Well this is much bigger, this could be an existential human risk.” Then I say, “Well, yeah, that’s part of the reason you put more energy into being protective in navigating and steering it.”
