Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt thinks AI struggles to convince Americans that it’s a net good because of its messaging. After the U.S. election exposed growing public hostility toward AI, particularly the data centers necessary to power the technology, Schmidt argued in an Axios interview that the companies have done a poor job explaining the benefits of their products, but he is underestimating how much people already understand about AI.
“Our industry does a terrible job of marketing our benefits,” Schmidt said. “We talk about all the negatives without talking the positives, and people are much more likely to index their minds on the negatives.”
Millions have experienced ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini firsthand for good and ill. They’re perfectly capable of appreciating those benefits while remaining unhappy about the industry’s growing influence over their lives.
Product or pitch?
AI data centers became increasingly contentious during the November midterms, with voters frustrated by electricity costs and the environmental consequences of large computing facilities. What was once largely a planning dispute has become a political headache for an industry accustomed to presenting technological expansion as an unquestionable public good. Schmidt’s solution is to move the data centers.
“Let me state categorically that large data centers should not be near population centers,” Schmidt said. “Why would this be controversial? And they should have their own power systems. One of the great things about America is we have an awful lot of empty spaces. Put them there.”
But Schmidt’s argument still treats public skepticism as something better marketing might overcome. People worried about rising electricity bills aren’t necessarily confused about what AI can accomplish. They may simply believe that cheaper access to increasingly powerful chatbots isn’t worth paying more to keep the lights on.
The same applies to concerns about employment. A more polished explanation of AI’s productivity benefits won’t necessarily reassure someone whose employer is considering replacing part of their workload with software.
Skepticism over the utopian vision
Schmidt remains deeply optimistic about AI’s potential, particularly in scientific research. He expects researchers to work alongside increasingly capable AI agents, accelerating discoveries that might otherwise take considerably longer. If AI delivers major advances in medicine or scientific research, people may feel more positively disposed toward the technology. But promised breakthroughs don’t automatically offset the problems people are experiencing today.
There’s also something slightly absurd about an industry with enormous marketing budgets complaining that Americans haven’t heard enough about AI’s benefits. ChatGPT has become a household name, while Google and Microsoft have spent years placing AI features in products people already use. The public has had plenty of opportunities to hear how revolutionary the technology is supposed to be.
Public trust can’t be manufactured entirely through better messaging, especially when people legitimately disagree with the industry’s priorities. Sometimes skepticism reflects a reasonably informed judgment about a technology’s consequences.
Schmidt clearly believes the future made with AI will be worth the disruption required to reach it, but Americans don’t necessarily need another explanation of how wonderful AI could become. They need convincing evidence that the revolution will improve their lives enough to justify everything they’re being asked to accept.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
