Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 295 posts

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#231

Post by danans »

andsoitis wrote: post #209
danans wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the Apple fandom strong enough to get Tim Cook his own private army of zealots when society breaks down? Society won't break down (in the chaos sense) and resources will still be allocated. Power abhors a vacuum as they say. It's just that resources and power will controlled and distributed in an openly feudal way. Technology's egalitarian objectives will be replaced by overtly oligarchic ones. Tech fandom will…

> access to real resources owned and controlled by the few. What’s an example of such a real resource?

Land, housing, water, energy, food, medicines, healthcare, security, and proximity to influence. I'm sure I forgot a few.

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#232

Post by KPGv2 »

lisper wrote: post #228
demilicious wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mind defending that? I suspect that opinion would only come from one who took philosophy 101 and stopped there. If all you took was philosophy 101, this sounds a lot more reasonable and runs right into the point made by the pos you just responded to

How would you expect me to defend it? It's my opinion. I could give you a long list of things in philosophy that I consider BS, but what good would that do? Do you really doubt that I could provide such a list? The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy and say, "Oh, of course those things are bullshit, but that's not real philosophy." And the fact that I can make…

I think it's ironically telling about your opinion on philosophy that your argument is illogical and boils down to:

1. people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit

2. don't you dare point out people who don't do philosophy shouldn't have their ramblings labeled philosophy

Ayn Rand, a 20th century writer without a university education; Paul Graham, a computer scientist; and the Austrian School, an economics movement, are categorically not entities that have produced or ever will produce philosophy.

That's no a No True Scotsman fallacy. It is a strict application of the definition of philosophy, a deep analysis of certain specific topics. Neither Rand nor Graham is educationally equipped to plumb that depth. And, again, the other name you dropped is not even a philosophical school.

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#234

Post by xg15 »

wdr1 wrote: post #139
yoyohello13 wrote: post #25

In the US at least, we've been brainwashed to think that government, by definition, must be bloated, corrupt and inefficient. Believing this axiom, people vote to hand over every possible service to private enterprise. Now we are in a situation where a handful of unelected business men have more power over our lives than the elected government.

> In the US at least, we've been brainwashed to think that government, by definition, must be bloated, corrupt and inefficient. I don't know that I've been brainwashed, but living most of my life in Chicago & Los Angeles, I've seen a lot of bloat, corruption, & massive inefficiency. Many of friends lost their homes in the Palisades & Altadena fires. If it weren't tragic, it would be laughable the challenges they've f…

Your government clearly is dysfunctional (at least the part that is supposed to serve the ordinary citizens). But look around the world and you can see that it doesn't have to be that way.

Also, in the US, there are a lot of forces who see the government straight-up as the enemy and want to have it as dysfunctional as possible. It's where "starve the beast" and DOGE comes from.

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#235

Post by KPGv2 »

lisper wrote: post #226
epgui wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well “a lot” in volume sure, but that feels unnecessarily (maybe ignorantly) dismissive of the core corpus of the field. Find me any field in which there isn’t “a lot” of BS.

There's a lot of BS in most fields. The problem with philosophy is that it has no criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff. All other fields have some kind of external forcing function. In science, its experimental data. In the arts, it's the ability to produce novelty or exhibit skill or attract an audience. In philosophy there is no external forcing function. The only thing that makes a great philosopher i…

> it has no criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff

This comment does nothing but make you look ignorant.

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#236

Post by zombot »

techblueberry wrote: post #117
steveBK123 wrote: post #3

I don’t even think most of it is deeply philosophical. They just got uberrich and now worry more about the concerns of the uberrich than the concerns they had when they were normies. Rule of law, functioning government providing services, functioning public commons, free press, freedom of speech for all, any social safety net, etc don’t matter when they are so far removed from the public they can just go buy yourself…

I listened to a few Marc Andreesen interviews and occasioned some Thiel talks, and one thing I realized is the difference between philosophy as obligation or compass and philosophy as tool. I realized that when Marc Andreesen said things - specifically he was talking about the political realignment after the 2024 election. He wasn’t making an observation. He was manifesting - to borrow a new age term. It wasn’t propa…

The powerful don't need to convince. They simply command. They get used to it in their personal surroundings and then they expect it to work everywhere.

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#237

Post by defrost »

KPGv2 wrote: post #232
lisper wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you expect me to defend it? It's my opinion. I could give you a long list of things in philosophy that I consider BS, but what good would that do? Do you really doubt that I could provide such a list? The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy and say, "Oh, of course those things are bullshit, but that's not real philosophy." And the fact that I can make…

I think it's ironically telling about your opinion on philosophy that your argument is illogical and boils down to: 1. people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit 2. don't you dare point out people who don't do philosophy shouldn't have their ramblings labeled philosophy Ayn Rand, a 20th century writer without a university education; Paul Graham, a computer scientist; and the Austrian School, an economics movem…

> Neither Rand nor Graham is educationally equipped to plumb that depth

In his defence, Graham does hold a BA (Philosophy) from Cornell University in 1986.

Is your distaste here due to BA degrees rather than PhDs, a dislike of Cornell, or that Graham didn't chase academic philosophy and join a philosophy department?

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#238

Post by xg15 »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #25

In the US at least, we've been brainwashed to think that government, by definition, must be bloated, corrupt and inefficient. Believing this axiom, people vote to hand over every possible service to private enterprise. Now we are in a situation where a handful of unelected business men have more power over our lives than the elected government.

I'm amazed the Ayn Rand books are still part of US school curricula. The world view those books promote is straight-up that the only people in society that count are a few Genius Individuals, the rest is dead weight and leeches. (but everyone is fine with it because they could be one of those Genius Individuals, who knows...)

But sure, socialist ideology is pure evil...

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#239

Post by lisper »

KPGv2 wrote: post #235
lisper wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of BS in most fields. The problem with philosophy is that it has no criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff. All other fields have some kind of external forcing function. In science, its experimental data. In the arts, it's the ability to produce novelty or exhibit skill or attract an audience. In philosophy there is no external forcing function. The only thing that makes a great philosopher i…

> it has no criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff This comment does nothing but make you look ignorant.

Then by all means please do enlighten me: what is that criterion?

Re: Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

#240

Post by lisper »

KPGv2 wrote: post #232
lisper wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you expect me to defend it? It's my opinion. I could give you a long list of things in philosophy that I consider BS, but what good would that do? Do you really doubt that I could provide such a list? The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy and say, "Oh, of course those things are bullshit, but that's not real philosophy." And the fact that I can make…

I think it's ironically telling about your opinion on philosophy that your argument is illogical and boils down to: 1. people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit 2. don't you dare point out people who don't do philosophy shouldn't have their ramblings labeled philosophy Ayn Rand, a 20th century writer without a university education; Paul Graham, a computer scientist; and the Austrian School, an economics movem…

> people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit

Wow, I didn't expect to be vindicated quite so definitively when I predicted: "The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy."

> That's no a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It absolutely is:

> the definition of philosophy, a deep analysis of certain specific topics.

I see nothing in that definition about writing in a particular time period or having a university degree, which are the two features you cited that allegedly disqualify Ayn Rand. I also see an awful lot of wiggle-room in the "specific topics" and how one measures whether one's analysis is sufficiently "deep". You exclude economics and computer science from your list of "certain topics" but you don't say what topics are allowed or on what basis this assessment of admissibility is to be made. Your argument is a paragon of muddled thinking, and does more to support my position than refute it.

Post reply on HN