I've lost count of how many boardrooms I've sat in where some exec confidently declares AI will "never be able to do X". Usually just a few months before a startup announces they're already doing exactly that.
It's like watching people judge the entire internet based on dial-up speeds. Sure, it took three minutes to load a photo in 1995, but here we are streaming 4K video while complaining it buffers for two seconds.
History tells us this is a dangerous game.
Taxis thought Uber was a fad. The music industry thought CDs were untouchable. Blockbuster laughed Netflix out of their boardroom. Traditional retailers dismissed Amazon as "just an online bookstore.".
All are now case studies in how not to bet against technology.
This is the essence of techno-optimism.
I owe much of my thinking here to Packy McCormick, whose Not Boring newsletter has has significantly shaped how I see the future of technology and the true value of optimism.
His argument is that optimism is not about pretending everything will be perfect. It is about believing that we can make progress despite the setbacks.
That feels right to me.
Optimism is not blind faith. It is the recognition that, over time, technology has a track record of solving more problems than it creates. That is not a hype statement, that is history.
One of the biggest mistakes I see leaders make is their assumption about permanence. They act as if how things are now is how they will always be. In the past, this was a reasonable strategy because enterprise change could be measured in decades.
That is like looking at a Nokia 3310 and assuming Snake and polyphonic ringtones were as good as it would ever get.
Take AI.
Right now, it makes silly mistakes, hallucinates facts, and cannot tell a joke to save itself. However, my view is that looking at those flaws and assuming the technology will never improve is like judging the entire internet by MSN chatrooms (remember those? many wasted childhood hours).
The trajectory matters more than the starting point. Betting against improvement is betting against human ingenuity, and history has shown time and again that is not a good bet.
Adapt or Be Steamrolled
McCormick often talks about being on the right side of inevitability. I think he is spot on.
The taxi industry clung to their expensive taxi plates and street knowledge, only to watch their value plummet once Uber arrived. The music industry built entire empires on CDs, then watched streaming dismantle that model and push physical discs into the margins.
You can rage against disruption. You can sue, lobby, regulate, or stomp your feet… but it does not matter. If a new technology is significantly better for the customer, it wins. Not immediately, but inevitably.
That’s why I believe leaders do not really have a choice. You either ride the wave, or you get steamrolled by it.
There is a comforting myth that governments can “pause” progress. It sounds good in theory, but it collapses the moment you remember that the rest of the world exists. If the United States shackles its AI industry, China, India, or whoever else is willing to move faster will take the lead.
Technology does not respect borders, and it does not wait politely for regulators. Trying to ban it is like trying to ban the internet in 1995.
The pragmatic stance is not to block progress. It is to shape it.
Side note: I believe you can regulate / police the way AI outputs are used, but regulating the technology itself is futile. Something for a future discussion!
The AI Bet
Ultimately, this is why I am all in on AI.
My confidence isn't based on blind faith in today's AI capabilities. It's grounded in a fundamental principle of innovation: if something doesn't violate the laws of physics, it's achievable with sufficient knowledge.
This "Principle of Optimism," as physicist David Deutsch articulates it, suggests that any problem within the bounds of physical law can eventually be solved through technological progress.
In my consulting work, I'm already seeing this principle in action. Tasks that seemed impossible a year ago - auto-generating generating production-ready code, transcribing meetings into tasks & decisions in seconds - are now routine.
There's nothing in physics preventing AI from going much further: discovering drugs in days instead of decades, personalizing education for every child's unique learning style, or optimizing entire energy grids in real-time. These aren't science fiction, they're just engineering challenges waiting to be solved.
McCormick's point that progress is dynamic, not static, resonates with me.
The problems technology creates tend to be solved by more technology. Cars were dangerous, so we invented seatbelts and speed limits. Factories polluted, so we built filters, clean energy, and eventually environmental laws. I believe AI will follow the same pattern.
Critics call this "solutionism," the naive belief that technology can fix everything. They are right to remind us not every problem has a technical solution. However, I would make the argument that constant pessimism is just as dangerous.
When we convince ourselves certain problems are unsolvable, we stop seeking solutions. That's the real risk.
I’m always reminded by a quote from Nat Friendman (former CEO of GitHub):
Pessimists sound smart, but optimists make money.
For me, optimism isn't about ignoring risks or limitations. It's about recognizing that today's impossibilities are tomorrow's breakthroughs as long as we keep pushing the boundaries of what we know and what we can do.
If that sounds naive, so did the idea that Australia could build a multi-billion dollar tech industry. Yet here we are, with Atlassian, Canva, and dozens of other Aussie unicorns proving the doubters wrong.
That's what happens when founders ignore the "it can't be done here" chorus and just get on with building. That is what optimism makes possible.
I’m David Bruce, and this is Optimistic Intelligence.
I write about AI from the perspective of someone who’s been consulting for some of Australia’s biggest businesses over the last 5 years (and another 5 at one the world’s biggest FMCG firms)… including the good, the bad, and the occasionally ridiculous.
The goal’s simple: cut through the hype and talk honestly about how AI is really showing up in work and consulting. This is a space for me to articulate the speed at which the world is changing around us, trying to wrangle the chaos and ground it in reality.
I aim to write one article a week, sometimes more, sometimes less.
If that sounds useful (or at least more interesting than another daily AI news summary email) hit subscribe and join me.