I notice how Marc doesn’t spend any time talking about the distribution of technology’s upside. All signs point to a natural consequence being more severe wealth accrual to the top, which makes sense since a technology fundamentally gives the operator/owner power without having to convince (i.e. pay) other humans to help them out.
Each new technological advancement seems to be more marginally valuable to the top of our society than to the bottom, and that delta seems to be growing over time not shrinking. I suspect “lower level” innovations in the value chain would be different, e.g. agriculture or energy, but let’s be honest about what actually consumes most of our industry’s talent and capital (as allocated by very very few unelected billionaires).
Even if absolute quality of life/prosperity increases, the delta itself is a really, really serious destabilizing force. In fact we know that people can live stably and happily in fairly destitute conditions, not that that should be the goal.
It doesn’t really matter if the delta shrinks, if, in absolute terms people in the bottom and middle are better off. This is the problem I have with the framing of wealth inequality.
If you're better off than a king was 100 years ago, and there’s a billionaire out there that’s a thousand times richer than you are, what’s the issue? I’d rather live in a high-delta society than a society where everyone is equal, but equally destitute (Venezuela, Cuba, etc).
We've been here before. Italian Futurism, founded shortly before WWI, had a similar kind of attitude and laid the cultural groundwork for fascism later in the century, including vocal, explicit support for the early fascists. The same can be said of a lot of techno-optimist cultural figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
One could be forgiven for feeling like we're caught in a swift tide toward a big, ugly global conflict, the way a lot of currents are flowing right now.
It's probably not fair to say futurism laid the groundwork for fascism. There was an intersection between those two movements. But Futurism wasn't a core principle within Fascism's final form (other than breaking from tradition).
It’s quite concerning to me that nearly everyone wielding influence over AI development has done the same. The ends will always justify the means to them - what is not worth doing when the supposed end is a techno-utopia where trillions live in endless pleasure?
It’s a very convenient fact that up until this techno-utopia, folks like Marc will be well positioned to reap most of the benefits from technology development.
I feel like there has to be a saying that encompass this idea that once you become good at something and apply it to the world, you wield the hammer and everything is a nail.
To be fair to Marc Andreessen, he's not the first to have this grandiose vision, and politically almost every ideology have had their fair share of "manifestos".
With that said, it's not a very interesting manifesto, it tries everything in it's book to justify it:
- Appeal to authority (citing various people, such as Milton friedman)
- Appeal to emotion (every time someone doesn't create an AI, someone dies)
- Dehumanize in the name of humanity (the classical the end justifies the means)
If people were to believe in this drivel, I wouldn't be surprised if it spawned yet another extreme and radical political ideology, as it doesn't seek to try and see the world for what it is but instead reject reality and substitute it with their own vision.
However I'm also a bit skeptical of using "facts and stats" to debunk the manifesto, facts and stats are good but since most manifestos are radical by nature, and as such I think that fact checking only will lead to self-satisfaction instead of an actual debunking, since the supporters will hand-wave it away.
There's been a steady stream of essays against technology innovation but few advocating for it. People in the industry don't debate the subject, so the lack of counter arguments left Andreessen to speaking out about the culture that he's been a part of since childhood. The techno optimism essay is a love letter more than it is a manifesto.
Newsflash: Human beings are an unequal species, giving rise to unequal societies, with unequal outcomes. You can try and mitigate or ease things a little, but you wont alter that reality. Even if everyone on the planet were offered a free Harvard/Oxford/Sorbonne education (and boarding), there would be some people who couldn't get themselves out of bed each morning to attend class.
Indeed. And then they'd never be aware of the "nirvana fallacy".
The only people who argue about perfect equality are those setting up straw man arguments. I have no issues with a hard working person having 10x more than a lazy person. Or even 100x. Hey, why not 1000x even!
It's when it becomes 10,000,000x the amount that a hard working person could realistically make in their lifetime that I think inequality might just have gone a bit far.
We had every equal societies in the world in a lot of places, they didn't have many hierarchies like a lot of tribes in America before they got slaughtered by white invaders. Ignoring a lot of anthropology with your ignorant comment.
> “We believe the techno-capital machine is not anti-human – in fact, it may be the most pro-human thing there is. It serves us. The techno-capital machine works for us. All the machines work for us.”
That reads as either naive or ominous, depending on whether "us" is interpreted as "the entire human race" or "Marc and his billionaire cronies"
What went down historically for alchemy? Its latter-day practitioners (Paracelsus, Robert Boyle) adopted the scientific method and those who went along with it eventually became known as "chemists".
"Fox turned into a hardcore porn channel so gradually I didn't even notice."
If there would be techno pessimism we wouldn't have many life saving medicines, cars, heating and other comforts.
But on the other hand: are humans more content with life? Social media is cancer in 95% of cases.
Tech will solve many things, but the problem of the human mind and it's emotional and irrational tendencies is what actually needs to be solved and understood.
It probably is a null question in the first place, 'technology' isn't even entirely determined by humans, and attaching moral valence to abstract concepts seems philosophically iffy anyways.
For example, the terms 'Orbital-mechanics-optimism' or 'Orbital-mechanics-pessimism' would sound ridiculous, at most it can be said that certain groups are optimistic or pessimistic about asteroids and comets hitting the Earth, or space probes being sped up using certain manoeuvres, etc...
There is little difference between “no citations” of the original text, and the assortment of links to Guardian, Jacobin, and a purchase page for a Neo-Marxist economics book (referred to as “empirical evidence”) that this rebuttal article references.
Almost every paragraph has some questionable claims, but one of the more laughable ones is the claim that the free market “killed millions” when rich countries didn’t share Covid vaccines worldwide. Or that markets are ineffective for lifting people out of poverty because global inequality exists.
Really the source material, regardless of its flaws struck me fundamentally as a well deserved reaction to the vast bullshit grievance mongering fields of sinecures for pseudo-intellectuals. Those who do absolutely nothing to improve upon anything at all yet climb up upon the cross and act like they are the savior of us all. All those who shout for generic caution and claim profundity. Those who shame actual useful and productive work as fundamentally unethical, as if doing absolutely nothing in the face of problems would be preferable.
In truth they are all the same thing. The utterly useless casting themselves as essential like the typical liberal arts professor, but with less use for general writing writing. A billion "critiques of capitalism" have done less for the poor than one outsourcing to a third world nation. What has the "precautionary principle" wrought for anybody?
Are the people who can write code (or write checks to people who can write code) the only ones with a legitimate stake in our future?
Might it be that those “useless” people are doing what they can to try to steer toward good outcomes?
“All those goddamn useless people writing articles about dumping chemicals into the river and they’ve never even dumped any chemicals into the rivers themselves!”
i had this thought that the age of the overly optimistic is over and that llm's will bring the rise of the naysayer. We look at results and say NO to refine them endlessly
I rather object to the phrase 'Techno-Optimism' being assumed to refer to Andressen's recent vaguely fascist rant. Techno optimism was a thing before then. See for example 'How to be a techno-optimist' from Big Think 2022 https://bigthink.com/the-future/techno-optimism/
Continue to advance technology and criticize it thoroughly and honestly the whole way through, to try to steer it toward positive outcomes and away from negative outcomes?
Yeah i couldn’t even read the original “manifesto” without gagging. It reminds me of the South Park when everyone starts loving the smell of their own farts. The author here is correct. Techno-capitalism creates more and worse problems than it solves. It’s pretty shocking how someone as intelligent as Marc can pan something so deeply naive. But as they say, “it is difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it”
ethanbond|2 years ago
Each new technological advancement seems to be more marginally valuable to the top of our society than to the bottom, and that delta seems to be growing over time not shrinking. I suspect “lower level” innovations in the value chain would be different, e.g. agriculture or energy, but let’s be honest about what actually consumes most of our industry’s talent and capital (as allocated by very very few unelected billionaires).
Even if absolute quality of life/prosperity increases, the delta itself is a really, really serious destabilizing force. In fact we know that people can live stably and happily in fairly destitute conditions, not that that should be the goal.
oceanplexian|2 years ago
If you're better off than a king was 100 years ago, and there’s a billionaire out there that’s a thousand times richer than you are, what’s the issue? I’d rather live in a high-delta society than a society where everyone is equal, but equally destitute (Venezuela, Cuba, etc).
mbgerring|2 years ago
One could be forgiven for feeling like we're caught in a swift tide toward a big, ugly global conflict, the way a lot of currents are flowing right now.
bartimus|2 years ago
cma|2 years ago
skepticATX|2 years ago
It’s quite concerning to me that nearly everyone wielding influence over AI development has done the same. The ends will always justify the means to them - what is not worth doing when the supposed end is a techno-utopia where trillions live in endless pleasure?
It’s a very convenient fact that up until this techno-utopia, folks like Marc will be well positioned to reap most of the benefits from technology development.
0dayz|2 years ago
To be fair to Marc Andreessen, he's not the first to have this grandiose vision, and politically almost every ideology have had their fair share of "manifestos".
With that said, it's not a very interesting manifesto, it tries everything in it's book to justify it:
- Appeal to authority (citing various people, such as Milton friedman)
- Appeal to emotion (every time someone doesn't create an AI, someone dies)
- Dehumanize in the name of humanity (the classical the end justifies the means)
If people were to believe in this drivel, I wouldn't be surprised if it spawned yet another extreme and radical political ideology, as it doesn't seek to try and see the world for what it is but instead reject reality and substitute it with their own vision.
However I'm also a bit skeptical of using "facts and stats" to debunk the manifesto, facts and stats are good but since most manifestos are radical by nature, and as such I think that fact checking only will lead to self-satisfaction instead of an actual debunking, since the supporters will hand-wave it away.
say_it_as_it_is|2 years ago
bezier-curve|2 years ago
nickdothutton|2 years ago
olddustytrail|2 years ago
The only people who argue about perfect equality are those setting up straw man arguments. I have no issues with a hard working person having 10x more than a lazy person. Or even 100x. Hey, why not 1000x even!
It's when it becomes 10,000,000x the amount that a hard working person could realistically make in their lifetime that I think inequality might just have gone a bit far.
TotalCrackpot|2 years ago
throwawaymanbot|2 years ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas|2 years ago
That reads as either naive or ominous, depending on whether "us" is interpreted as "the entire human race" or "Marc and his billionaire cronies"
sfpotter|2 years ago
Uhh, does Marc Andreesen know how things went down historically for alchemy…? Or how the word “alchemy” is used colloquially?
tomjakubowski|2 years ago
"Fox turned into a hardcore porn channel so gradually I didn't even notice."
NotGMan|2 years ago
If there would be techno pessimism we wouldn't have many life saving medicines, cars, heating and other comforts.
But on the other hand: are humans more content with life? Social media is cancer in 95% of cases.
Tech will solve many things, but the problem of the human mind and it's emotional and irrational tendencies is what actually needs to be solved and understood.
MichaelZuo|2 years ago
For example, the terms 'Orbital-mechanics-optimism' or 'Orbital-mechanics-pessimism' would sound ridiculous, at most it can be said that certain groups are optimistic or pessimistic about asteroids and comets hitting the Earth, or space probes being sped up using certain manoeuvres, etc...
sneak|2 years ago
Something like two billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last 25 years. That’s the direct result of technology.
It’s a little bit ridiculous to bring up social media discontent in the same breath. These problems are not remotely the same.
mypastself|2 years ago
Almost every paragraph has some questionable claims, but one of the more laughable ones is the claim that the free market “killed millions” when rich countries didn’t share Covid vaccines worldwide. Or that markets are ineffective for lifting people out of poverty because global inequality exists.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith|2 years ago
In truth they are all the same thing. The utterly useless casting themselves as essential like the typical liberal arts professor, but with less use for general writing writing. A billion "critiques of capitalism" have done less for the poor than one outsourcing to a third world nation. What has the "precautionary principle" wrought for anybody?
ethanbond|2 years ago
Might it be that those “useless” people are doing what they can to try to steer toward good outcomes?
“All those goddamn useless people writing articles about dumping chemicals into the river and they’ve never even dumped any chemicals into the rivers themselves!”
throwaway14356|2 years ago
tim333|2 years ago
darthrupert|2 years ago
ethanbond|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
kbelder|2 years ago
stuaxo|2 years ago
aaron695|2 years ago
[deleted]
zenapollo|2 years ago
tticvs|2 years ago
Citation needed
ChainOfFools|2 years ago
apex parasites, Marc. that's all you are.
dang|2 years ago
You may not owe "Marc" better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html