A 2016 Stanford Meeting Plotted How to Replace All the Writers
Ten years ago, a venture capitalist at Stanford's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory posed a direct question to a room of researchers and investors: "If Uber wants to replace all the drivers by robots, do we want to replace all the writers by A.I.?"
The question wasn't rhetorical. For roughly ninety minutes, about twenty computer science students, two venture capitalists with billions in assets, and a handful of researchers debated whether and how artificial intelligence could eliminate the need for human writers. No journalists were invited to the conversation.
The meeting revealed how Silicon Valley's approach to disruption works: present the future as inevitable, cast yourself as merely observing forces you cannot control, and avoid discussing the choices you're actually making.
The Setup: Technology Meets Money
The Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory occupies two floors of the Gates Computer Science Building. The space looks unremarkable - gray offices and conference rooms that could belong to any mid-size company. Yet the lab had spawned Google and was home to researchers whose work would shape how information moves through society.
The eClub meeting brought together researchers with venture capitalists from Sand Hill Road. The investors represented billions in capital seeking the next big opportunity. The students represented the talent those investors wanted to fund.
Pizza disappeared quickly. The Pinot Noir sat unopened. One woman attended. She did not speak for the entire meeting.
The Argument: Following the Curve
A student named Manoush opened the discussion by noting that 85 percent of new online advertising money was flowing to just two companies: Facebook and Google. His conclusion: news should move toward whoever controls the most data and advertising dollars.
One researcher objected. If Facebook took a larger share of an already-shrinking news market, he said, the outcome wouldn't be better journalism. It would be mass layoffs. "All the writers get fired," he said. "And then there's no news for anyone."
The venture capitalist Marty found this objection useful. He reframed the question: "If Uber wants to replace all the drivers by robots, do we want to replace all the writers by A.I.?" Now the room could discuss writer replacement directly.
The other venture capitalist, Ashish, offered a path forward. He praised Buzzfeed's use of algorithms to identify trending topics, then assign writers to cover them. The system works because people click on the content. In the future, he suggested, A.I. could generate content entirely, with humans only curating or editing.
For writers who wanted to survive, Ashish had advice: join Patreon and crowdfund your own income. In other words, become an entrepreneur.
The European Objection
Several researchers pushed back, mostly those from Europe. They argued that journalism served purposes beyond what algorithms could measure - informing citizens, holding power accountable, elevating public discourse.
One researcher asked: could A.I. help build tools that kept people away from clickbait, toward higher-quality content?
This was considered extreme. Another European researcher said it was hard to change human behavior. People want McDonald's, not broccoli. The market is what it is. We're powerless.
A colleague countered that tastes do shift. Before McDonald's dominated, people ate from organic farms. Then they switched. Now they're switching back. The same could happen with news.
What Wasn't Discussed
The meeting avoided certain questions entirely. No one discussed democracy or the role of a free press within it. No one asked what happens to art when everything is free. No one examined Amazon's market power over books and ideas. No one questioned whether Facebook's algorithm designers could introduce their own biases into the system.
To ask these questions would require admitting something uncomfortable: the room held real power over the future. The researchers and investors could choose what kind of information system to build. They could prioritize different values. They could say no.
Instead, the conversation treated the future as predetermined. The Curve - the inevitable arc of technological progress - would decide. The job of smart people was simply to ride it.
The Rhetoric of Powerlessness
This was the meeting's central move. Brilliant people with real agency over society's future presented themselves as powerless observers.
They optimized for variables because those were the variables they knew how to optimize. They imagined away entire professions because technical questions crowded out human ones. They accumulated what others would experience as enormous power while insisting they had none.
This rhetoric served a purpose. If the future is inevitable, no one can blame you for building it. If you're merely riding the Curve, you bear no responsibility for who gets hurt.
But the Curve doesn't move on its own. People build it. People choose what to optimize for. People decide which problems matter.
For Writers
The meeting showed how A.I. tools could reduce demand for human writers in certain contexts - particularly in content aggregation, listicles, and data-driven reporting.
It also showed the limits of that replacement. The researchers acknowledged that original reporting still requires humans. Someone has to go out and gather information. Someone has to decide what matters.
The more immediate threat wasn't A.I. replacing all writers. It was the consolidation of media power among platforms optimized for engagement over accuracy, and the economic pressure that forces writers toward those platforms or toward precarious freelance arrangements.
Understanding how this conversation happened - in rooms without journalists, among people optimizing for metrics rather than truth - matters for anyone whose work depends on how information moves through society.
The future of writing isn't predetermined. But it will be shaped by choices made in rooms like this one, often without input from the people most affected.
Your membership also unlocks:
