At a recent WSJ Tech Live conference, Garman spoke with Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker about AI and other critical issues, including government regulation and the potential of Amazon’s decision to eliminate remote work for corporate staff. (e.g., the influence of In the new year.
Below are edited excerpts from that conversation.
big bet
WSJ: Like many big tech companies, Amazon is investing heavily in the AI boom. Are you worried that all this competitive spending is creating a bubble, or do you think it’s leading to tangible results?
Matt Garman: I strongly believe that AI, especially generative AI, is a transformative technology that will change every company, every job, and every workflow in the world.
WSJ: I think the general perception is that Amazon was a little late to the game when it came to generative AI. What are you doing to catch up?
Garman: I think the whole world was surprised when ChatGPT first came out. So we saw a lot of providers rushing to release something to the market. We took a slightly different approach.
We strongly believe that data is what ultimately differentiates one company from another as our customers actually apply these models within their businesses. So businesses want to make sure that their data is highly secure and that they can control how that data is accessed when they use it in their applications. And we also wanted to enable people to build interesting models and interesting technologies.
So we had the basic view that there was no one model that would be the rule, but that there would be many different models that would work together to build interesting applications. And people will need a rich set of tools to produce interesting business results. So we took a step back.
We’re basically trying to help enterprise customers, startup customers, government customers not just bring something to market quickly, but build those applications and build their own. I said I was going to build a platform.
WSJ: The other big challenge, and I’m sure you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it, and Amazon even bought its own mini-nuclear reactor, is energy. I think I read that these small modular reactors won’t be operational until 2036 at the latest. So what are you going to do in the meantime to meet your energy needs?
Garman: I think it will be hopefully 2030, not 2036. We’re optimistic that they can deliver a little faster than that. However, they are only part of the portfolio.
In the short term, there are projects underway that can meet all your needs over the next few years. By the way, many of them are renewable.
And we think nuclear power could be a big part of this problem. There are many nuclear power plants around the world, but they have been shut down because people didn’t need that source of power. So our first project was a partnership with Talend (a data management company) in Pennsylvania to ultimately bring almost a gigawatt of power back online that was sitting idle.
Some of these small modular reactors won’t solve anything in the 2020s, but they could be a great source of energy in the 2030s.
Too regulated?
WSJ: Are you concerned that too much regulation will hinder the development of these new AI-related technologies, or do you think the U.S. gets it mostly right?
Garman: We’re happy to handle whatever rules the government wants.
What we’re advocating is to think seriously about not setting regulations and policies that inadvertently lead us to the places you’re trying to avoid. I think we need to pay close attention to this point. Because it’s very easy to create a scenario where by accidentally holding back a company that’s doing this incredible innovation, it actually gives China an advantage in what it’s trying to stop.
That’s a difficult question. I don’t think we know the answer, and I don’t think zero regulation is probably the right answer. we have to think about it.
return to office
WSJ: In September, CEO Andy Jassy ordered everyone to return to the office five days a week starting in January. You were talking about this last week and you were very clear. Basically, your message was “shape it or ship it.”
Garman: That’s not exactly what I said.
WSJ: That was definitely the message. So were people shipped or was there a lot of backlash?
Garman: Let me be clear about what I actually said: I think it’s very important for us to meet in person. We believe our team is more innovative. Especially when we think about how we want to disrupt and how we want to invent on behalf of our customers, we find that there is no substitute for doing it directly, just being creative. Energy and how fast you can repeat. When you’re sitting there writing on a whiteboard, when you’re talking to people in the cubicle next to you, or when you run into people from another department that you see in the coffee line or something. —It’s just that when you’re remote, interaction doesn’t happen.
At first we tried three days a week, but then what happened was that Bob would work on Monday and Sally would work on Tuesday. And because everyone chose different three days, we didn’t achieve what we wanted.
So if that’s not for you, that’s okay. We could look for another company if we wanted to, but we decided that for us, that was the best way to run our company.
WSJ: So can you give us some numbers on what percentage of your workforce you expect to leave in January or before?
Garman: I don’t know. A lot of people have contacted me and said that one of the reasons I started working at Amazon was because I wanted to work with and be around a lot of smart people. I’m optimistic that most employees are excited to actually work in-person.
