Alex Bates: The Impact of AI
This week, the TTI Interview Series covers our member Alex Bates. Alex is the managing director of Neocortex Ventures, an investment fund for AI technologies. Alex co-founded Mtelligence (Mtell) in 2006, which was acquired by AspenTech (NASDAQ: AZPN) in 2016.
In this interview, Alex explores his philosophy in impact investing, what he envisions for the future and how humans can leverage AI to solve big impact & sustainability issues.
Where AI meets impact
Alex, tell us a little about your work in AI technology and how it intersects with the impact space.
I spent a decade on the front lines of AI adoption, as co-founder and CTO of an AI company (Mtell, acquired by NASDAQ:AZPN) in the manufacturing sector, deploying solutions in the field and working directly with end users. Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, we focused on upstream oil and gas rigs to predict and prevent equipment failures and associated catastrophes. I have also been closely involved in ocean conservation and the future of work (human — AI partnership). I’m excited about the role Top Tier Impact can play, and the potential that humans and AI have to solve the world’s biggest problems in the impact space.
Defining impact in the tech world
Based on the experience you’ve had to date, what is your own definition of “impact”?
My definition would be quantifiable benefits beyond pure financial return over a specific time horizon. The overall goal of impact is to tap into the talent and financial capital of private markets to address the challenges facing our planet today. Historically, you were either a non-profit and focused on positive impact (using philanthropy), or you were for-profit (using private investment capital) and positive impact was an afterthought. The idea of private capital being used to address positive impact, affecting issues such as climate change and other UN SDGs, is a relatively recent innovation. Last year I participated in the 1st Annual Family Office Impact Investing Summit at the UN which included Bain Capital, The Carlyle Group, JP Morgan, and also venture capital houses, private equity firms, and family office foundations with an interest in impact funds.
Some types of AI could be considered impact (e.g., using computer vision to monitor biodiversity changes in the ocean, or AI-assisted psychotherapy for those who can’t afford to see a therapist), and many types of neurotech would qualify as impact (e.g., EEG monitoring of depressive brain states coupled with neuromodulation to provide drug-free intervention).
Impact gaps
What are some of the misconceptions you’ve noticed regarding what “impact” is all about?
There are some perception issues with philanthropy because some think it is about legacy and image (which can make it difficult to attract some of the top talent), and some corporations think about measuring “impact” in terms of concrete brand awareness (e.g., media coverage of their impact activities). The newimpact investing trend is disrupting this, enabling impact ventures to tap into trillions of dollars of investment capital and some of the best talent. Within impact investing, there is some investor skepticism, including what’s called the duration mismatch problem (some deep tech impact technologies take longer to come to fruition). Part of the challenge is getting capital markets to adapt their typical investment horizons of a few years to support investments that can have positive returns above and beyond pure profit. This is one of the most important conversations of our time.
AI and climate change
What do you believe is one of the most important issues that needs to be solved over the next 10 years?
I think that climate change is a top existential risk that will eclipse other perceived crises once superstorms hit. I believe we should focus on using human augmentation with AI to solve climate change. Augmented humans move up Maslow’s hierarchy, and are equipped with a new set of tools to solve problems. It might sound Panglossian, but during a time of increased divisiveness, in-group vs. out-group behavior, whether the perceived divide is by ethnicity or by nation-state, I think we need all the augmentation we can get. Humans are the ones designing AI. What is coming in the not-too-distant future are superhuman capabilities we can only dream of today — which can either be used to solve planetary issues like climate, or be weaponized for warfare and further economic inequality.
“Humans and AI are complementary”
Tell us more about the long-term vision you have for your work and how you measure & quantify your impact.
I think we can both accelerate innovation to solve environmental challenges, and free people for more creative and fulfilling pursuits, by leaning in to a future augmentation with AI and neurotechnology. Humans and AI are complementary and, when combined, will be so much greater than the sum of their parts. The question is, how do we give people better creative environments in which to have sparks of intuition, aha moments, epiphanies — and automate away the things that actually distract and disempower them from having all that? In terms of measuring impact, a radically different future of work would emerge, and we would see less zero sum thinking (economy vs. environment), and more progress on positive sum solutions (economic and environmental abundance). A world in which self-actualization and collective growth are achieved, a Game B scenario, would be the ultimate end goal.
