Report: https://www.ark-invest.com/big-ideas-2024
The key term in this amazing report is ‘disruptive technologies', i.e. AI, energy storage, robotic blockchain, and multiomic sequencing. The report is 163 pages long and I will not go into detail below. Instead, I will share a few thoughts and impressions. I hope to encourage the reader to read it himself or herself ( see link above).
First, some general impressions: it is an amazing document. It offers virtually a utopian (sic) view of the near future where the ‘norm’ (i.e. today's world) will be disrupted by the emerging technologies mentioned above. There is much to admire in this literal utopia, and much to criticize as well. Cathie Wood & Ark clearly have an axe to grind. The report is beautifully and impressively illustrated by dozens of graphs. It makes ambitious claims. It often does not back those claims with sufficient data, even though it mentions (in-house) research. The works cited cover a mere two pages at the end, and include almost a dozen reports by McKinsey, a consultancy. The report, as I will argue below in detail, in fact offers scant evidence of any thorough research, be it in the economic or technological realm.
It is however chokeful with authoritative-sounding trite statements: ‘With superhuman performance….AI models should catalyze an unprecedented boom in productivity' (p. 20). On page 25, we learn that ‘the cost of authoring content has collapsed with Chat GPT 4 + Claude 2.’ (p.25). The following sounds laughable, to say the least, in view of what we know about Meta, and the recent Elon Musk lawsuit against OpenAI:
Challenging closed-source models from OpenAI and Google, the open-source community and its corporate champion, Meta [sic], are democratizing access to generative AI [sic]. (p. 29)
This statement is unsupported by any evidence and reeks of propaganda. It gets worse: the report literally waxes lyrical about bitcoin, praising its purported advantages to the skies (p. 51). This sounds almost ominous in view of recent news about world giant Blackrock buying bitcoin:
Bitcoin's volatility can obfuscate its long-term returns (p. 38).
What long-term returns? The reader is left befuddled - and, yes, obfuscated - by this seemingly unfounded statement. The report quickly moves on to ‘smart contracts on public blockchains’ and then comes the cherry on the icing, namely, ‘digital leisure' (sic). What a wonderfully crafted misnomer for wasting one's time online engaging in videogame creation with the help of AI, ‘social commerce', sports betting, and the creation of AI-enabled hardware (p. 64 ff).
The utopia of enhanced ‘digital consumption’ (a new kind of illness, no doubt) is emphasized: fewer working hours, more time spent online (of course, forget about time spent out in nature - it is not income generating, but merely health & well-being enhancing). Upon reflection, bandying around fewer working hours in a time of rapid technological change that will almost certainly require strenuous adaptation and self-reinvention in the labour market for millions sounds lackadaisical and even downright irresponsible. The report accordingly tritely pontificates:
Online experiences are becoming more immersive and monetizable (p. 70).
‘Virtual reality’ is then rolled out (p. 72).
To me, one of the worst bits is about ‘precision therapies' with ‘target protein degraders'. Utopian ‘digital biology’ (NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang in fact recommends that parents should tell their children to get into digital biology instead of learning how to code).1 The report states:
The human genome contains ~20,000 protein coding-genes, of which only 864 (4.3%) are associated with drugs FDA has approved. Human Protein Atlas estimates that 79% (~15,800) of human proteins are undrugable. Our research [sic - no reference nor details] indicates that TPDs and adjacent technologies [no details] could treat 56% (~11,200) of human protein-coding genes. (p. 92).
This is a tall claim, to say the least, especially considering that ARK hardly qualifies as a scientific research outfit ( it does not seem to have any scientists on board either). Though exciting-sounding, this is largely unexplored ground. Also, needless to add, this belongs to a model of centralized medicine & research dependant on Big Pharma that is increasingly being challenged.2. It is also the model that is directly implicated in the on-going multi-billion dollar Covid vaccine imbroglio.
The report is also unstintingly optimistic about robotics ( perhaps Musk should consider hiring Wood to advertise his robots). On robotaxis:
Safer than human drivers, robotaxis hold the promise of safer and cleaner streets. ( p.123).
In the the domain of ‘autonomous logistics’, there is this intriguing example in relation to Rwanda:
In geographies without road infrastructure, Zipline drones can deliver blood in fewer than 15 min, improving the mortality associated with post-partum hemorrhages by 80%. (p. 139)
This is certainly exciting and important. However, as in many other instances in this report, one really wonders whether such optimistic figures (80%!) are warranted. What strikes the reader as possible arithmetic hyperbole goes in fact hand-in-hand with verbal hype throughout the report. The veritable shower of apparent attractive techno-sounding neologisms (whether or not they are new or merely rehashed) peppers virtually every single page of the report. There is mention, for instance, of ‘precision agriculture' vastly enhancing crop yields for basic staples. This interestingly comes with an important, elaborate caveat in a footnote (my rephrasing): none of this is to be taken as God-given truth, much less as investment advice (sic) (p. 142). The very last page of the report contain a much more elaborate generic caveat and disclaimer, basically saying that none of the utopian propositions are to be taken at face-value. In sum, you believe in anything in this report strictly at your own risk (sic).
Outer space then makes its entrance, and with it reusable rockets and hypersonic flight point-to-point (p. 145. I personally doubt Rwanda might get this, especially without a good road network. My feeling is that the two somehow come together).
By 2030, Hypersonic Flight could be a ~$35 billion market, ready to scale to ~$350 billion longer term. (p. 152).
This is literally hypersonic scaling of a completely untested market & fledgeling technology.
ARK's report is not really the result of research in any field, though it purportedly peddles facts and data. The processes and objects mentioned do have more than a modicum of a claim of being part of the world already out there or lurking just around the corner. Their conjunction however somehow does not really add up, except if we get entranced (sic) by Wood’s vision. Wood - and ARK - is a magician of words (‘precision agriculture', ‘autonomous logistics', ‘immersive and monetizable') and, alas, graphs (one of the most gripping features of the report).
Who is she working for, besides, obviously, herself? Whose utopia is she peddling? I very much doubt it is her own. She strikes me more as a media personality hired as a deft marketeer for the masses, rather than a utopian wizard. She is seemingly always articulate, fluent, and trutworthy in her media appearances. She literally seems to read from a script. Who gave it to her? I can only speculate here. Suffice to say that the direct beneficiaries seem to be those who have most to gain from wider acceptance of this utopia. Instead of a sober laying out of the possibilities ahead, the report narrates a utopia. It is a PR and marketing exercise. True, what it unveils is fascinating.
For instance, it claims in regard to 3D Printing:
According to ARK’s research, 3D printing revenues could scale ~40% at an annual rate during the next seven years, from ~$18 billion today to ~$180 billion [sic] in 2030. (p. 154)
Number prestidigitation is a major feature of the report.
In fact, the one domain's importance that stands out is AI - and AI only, as indicated inARK's own graph below.
But then we hardly need ARK to remind us of the growing importance of AI.
Overall, the report is a tour de force that is both unconvincing and unnecessary.
https://x.com/Carnage4Life/status/1761483377365152234?s=09"
See for instance Jack Kruse' s work in this regard: https://jackkruse.com