8VC Founder Joe Lonsdale: AI on Par with the Industrial Revolution
Venture capitalist and 8VC founder Joe Lonsdale stated on The Rubin Report that the current AI-driven productivity growth is in the "early stages" comparable to the Industrial Revolution from 1870 to 1900. His core argument is that the only sustainable way for society to become wealthier in the long term is to achieve more output with less input, and this productivity increase is first manifesting in the fastest-growing parts of the economy.
Lonsdale referenced the wealth changes of American wage earners from 1870 to 1900, claiming that during this period, the actual wealth of ordinary workers more than doubled. When host Dave Rubin pressed him on whether this growth is fundamentally driven by technology and AI, Lonsdale did not shy away, directly stating that the story of productivity is about AI and finding better ways to do things, noting that we have previously experienced such transformations.
Lonsdale believes that school history education still portrays that "Gilded Age" as a villainous story, but the real historical pattern is that such technological transformations benefit ordinary people overall, destroying old jobs while creating new ones; he predicts that this AI-driven cycle may progress faster than the last Industrial Revolution.
Investor Patrick Feeley, who shared and commented on Lonsdale's remarks, proposed his own stock selection logic: companies that can translate AI into measurable "per capita output" increases should be prioritized, rather than those that simply describe automation as "demand destruction"; attention should be focused on industries where productivity improvements are already evident in small-scale, rapidly expanding segments, as this data often reflects first in economic indicators related to Federal Reserve decisions and stock valuation expansions.
Feeley's conclusion is that if Lonsdale's assessment holds true and this process accelerates in the coming years, the current market error lies in pricing AI as a "cultural crisis" rather than as early-stage productivity growth akin to the Industrial Revolution—implying that he believes some market sentiment or valuation logic may underestimate AI's impact on actual output.
The funding logic behind this statement reflects a divergence between growth stocks and AI-themed investors regarding whether "narrative pricing is correct": some funds remain cautious due to fears that AI will lead to mass unemployment and demand contraction, thus lowering valuations in related sectors; while Lonsdale and Feeley represent another segment of funds betting that AI will first drive productivity, then release purchasing power, and are therefore more willing to pay a premium for companies that can demonstrate "per capita output improvement" data. If this judgment is adopted by more funds, beneficiaries will be AI application companies that have shown evidence of efficiency improvements, while those under pressure will be sectors that still adhere to the "AI brings demand destruction" narrative without concrete output data support.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Joe Lonsdale co-founded the big data analytics company Palantir in 2004 (along with Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, and others), and later founded the venture capital firm 8VC, focusing on early investments in enterprise software, defense technology, and AI infrastructure; he also hosts the interview program "American Optimist," consistently advocating for technological optimism and endorsing the large-scale application of AI and reduced regulatory friction.
Comparing AI to the Industrial Revolution of 1870-1900 essentially lays the narrative groundwork for its current trajectory—if the market accepts the framework of "AI as a productivity revolution rather than demand destruction," early investment firms like 8VC that have long bet on enterprise-level AI applications and infrastructure will directly benefit, as their valuation logic relies on the proposition that "AI can translate into measurable output" being widely accepted by the market; this also explains why he repeatedly emphasizes output data in public programs rather than remaining at the level of technical narrative.
This kind of debate is not new—economist Robert Solow famously proposed the "productivity paradox" in the late 1980s: "You can see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics," and indeed, the productivity dividends of personal computers and the internet lagged macro data by nearly a decade. The current debate about whether AI will repeat this lag is at the core of the divergence between Lonsdale and market pessimists, as AI investment is still in the "narrative first, data lagging" early validation stage.
The essence of this debate is the recalibration of the logic of technological substitution in the capital market pricing mechanism—when a new technology begins to replace old production methods, the market often prices it pessimistically under the framework of "employment and demand being destroyed" until specific industries provide empirical data showing per capita output improvements, at which point the valuation logic switches to the "productivity-driven growth" framework; Lonsdale and Feeley's remarks are essentially attempting to shift this pricing framework from "AI is a threat" to "AI is a new round of productivity dividends."
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- The market fears not technology, but the data lagging behind.
- Every productivity revolution is first written as a villain story in history books.
- The phase where narratives outpace data is the window for repricing.