These are not merely two different keynote styles: they’re two power structures fighting over the terms of AI use and stewardship. Used here as illustrations of common narratives, the argument concerns systems and incentives, not individuals. On one side, Big Tech scale-first camp (and its admirers) treats AI as the engine of extraction-led growth. Progress in this narrative means shipping models fast, pushing telemetry into every role, and celebrating access to the same tools that, in the next breath, are used to justify head-count cuts, normalize surveillance as productivity, saturate information spaces with synthetic media, and push energy and water costs onto the public. It is blitz-scale automation as civic virtue, asking people to be grateful that where managers once monitored, an automated, polished, and fluent dashboard now does the watching, scoring, and judging.

AI EthicsChristine HaskellNovember 5, 2025DATIVE.WORKSai ethics, camera, calculator, ai is not a toolComment

Built to Hold, Not Hype

Generally speaking, Seattle is where you build the system that can’t fail; SF is where you decide to change the rules. Combine those instincts and you get companies that both ship boldly and stand up to reality.

Seattle’s startup scene is a BigCo-shaped ecosystem. The center of gravity is Amazon/Microsoft/Starbucks training, not YC-style blitzscaling. That produces world-class operators and systems thinkers, but fewer “set the rules, break the market” founders. The “break the market” bit is starting to wear thin with many (but that is another article). Founders and recruiters I know describe SF talent as more default-entrepreneurial; Seattle talent as more “show me how to get started.” Recent founder roundtables echo this: SF tolerates wilder bets and higher risk; Seattle is supportive, “chill,” and a bit less urgent.