Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

docs.google.com

101–110 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#101
post #62
post #4

Thiel is interesting to me because he is so different than others in the SV bubble. Whether you agree with him or think he is the devil, at least he has independent views. I find a lot of people don’t think for themselves anymore.

What strikes you as different about him? I can’t really articulate why exactly, but to me he’s right up there on the list of archetypical SV personalities.

honestly I think that's an artifact of how often he is imitated. having read more than my share of seed fund about pages in the past few months, there is particular flavor you encounter over and over again that can only be described like "ah yes, I see you also have read zero to one." heavy emphasis on the transformative over the incremental, hard tech, disinterest in pedigree and traction given a shamanistic insistance that they are uniquely capable of identifying the visionaries of tomorrow, constant reminders they go against the grain and buck consensus, punchy copy talking about bold iconoclasts making the future of tomorrow yadda yadda

the three big aesthetic/intellectual strains of sv thought as I see them are truetype protagonist gleaming tech optimism a la early pmarca blog, folksy practicality a la pg, and dark horse contrarianism a la thiel. leonardo, donatello, raphael (turtles, not painters). but he did originate the kernel of it and can't really be faulted for the imitators

what actually makes him interesting tho is he's a disciple of rene girard, who argued among other things that the basis of socialization and social conflict is mimesis, which goes a long way to explaining his fixation on avoidance of imitation (and makes the raft of imitators that much funnier imo)

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he’s self made. He got rich precisely by being in touch with the needs, desires, and problems of people. And also by being successful at investing, which also requires ability to read trends etc. Would you also argue Warren Buffet (literally nicknamed oracle of Omaha) has no special insight because he’s rich?

Being a good gambler does not make you a good person. Warren Buffet has insight on what it's like to be rich, and insights on how to win at capitalism. That does not qualify him to speak about progress in general. Peter Thiel may be good at reading what trends will make him money, but I don't believe that makes him qualified to say what would make the world better (i.e. progress).

If you agree with the premise that people will spend money for what will make them better off instead of worse (following their own judgements criteria, which can't be dismissed, as flawed as they may be, this is the principle behind democracy), then getting rich by winning at capitalism means this person aggregated the population preferences better than other persons.

This means they became rich as a consequence of everyone being made better off. So I would personally value their insights.

For example, I may not believe that having pizzas or french fries delivered still fresh and hot to my home by having them cooked inside a car means "progress", but if enough people are ready to pay for that, it is progress. We are all better off based on the majority opinion.

Reality is the ultimate judge. What makes people better off will earn money, freely given away by these people ("Shut up and take my money!")

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#103
post #88
post #72

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burden. I don't want to live in a world w/o regulations, I want to know what is in my food, I want to know that the devices I use are safe. We could see what happens, when regulation fails, when two 737MAX crashed due to the fact that Boeing was able to hide MCAS f…

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

I think if you left it up to the market we would have even more misleading food labels than we do now. It’s already hard enough to determine what is and isn’t healthy at the supermarket, regulation ensures that we at least have the most basic calorie, nutrient and ingridient information.

I wouldn’t even disagree that regulation slows down advancement. That is probably the case! But I also know that in the early 1900s you didn’t have the kinds of child labor laws and workplace safety protections in place that we have now. I’d rather a society without child labor even if it runs a little slower and less efficiently.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#104
He's right about process vs substance. There are so many people involved in box-checking in this world, it's amazing. People whose job is substantially to ensure some process is followed, rather than think up better processes. Even when we are talking about ostensibly innovating orgs, there are people there to make sure everything follows a plan that cannot possibly contribute to the discovery of knowledge.

I sound bitter about this, but actually a lot of friends of mine are in that type of position. Heck, I myself have to do process-box-ticking type things in my day-to-day as well.

This ends up being a sort of glue that's poured over all of society. Each checklist on its own seems reasonable, but put together we make change quite hard. We also end up creating a class of people who are incentivized to make sure there are rules and procedures to follow. I don't just mean lawyers, there's a whole slew of pseudo-lawyers handling things such as GDPR policies and IT Security policies, compliance officers, and so on.

All these process people depend on our continued desire to seem reasonable ("Make sure schools check for child molesters before hiring anyone"), but also abdicate responsibility for those decisions to the new policy expert class. GDPR has been around for not very long, but already you'd better hire someone who is an expert in it if you're going to do serious business (this in fact happened at my day-to-day, there's no way to do business without).

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all your views line up with the mainstream you’re most definitely not thinking for yourself though. Thiel in fact suggests a question framed in way to force people to think for themselves: > What important truth do very few people agree with you on?

> If all your views line up with the mainstream you’re most definitely not thinking for yourself though. This doesn't make sense. You don't have to hold atypical views to think for yourself. Someone who thinks critically and for themselves and arrives at mainstream views is not wrong. In fact, you'd expect that the majority of people who did so would arrive at mainstream views, unless you presuppose that mainstream v…

It's an entropic argument. Mainstream views are the result of many loose assumptions and lots of loose reasoning. Differences compound exponentially, so if you agree with mainstream thinking almost everywhere then either your inputs and thinking must extraordinarily well-defined in precise agreement with everyone else or, more likely, you are human and therefore susceptible to the same groupthink mechanisms as the rest of us.

I'm not fond of this argument because it's easy to formulate poorly and difficult to formulate well.

Instead, I favor a simpler appeal to history: from our point of view, any random person picked from history would be likely to have at at least one closely held belief that would be considered highly problematic by modern standards. What reason do we have to believe that we are somehow above this trend?

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#106
post #72

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burden. I don't want to live in a world w/o regulations, I want to know what is in my food, I want to know that the devices I use are safe. We could see what happens, when regulation fails, when two 737MAX crashed due to the fact that Boeing was able to hide MCAS f…

There are so many points he makes. Which ones do you agree with? I have a hard time understanding your opposition and painting everything he says as some what illogical, unreasonable, impossible or absurd. The examples you've given, I agree with (and even the most far right people would). But the document is massive and I feel like you're painting a broad stroke with a tiny brush. Peter Thiel is a controversial figure, but your comment to me comes across as rather less objective (besides giving strawman examples) and not substantiated enough for the bold claims you lay down.

Happy to listen to you and figure out what points you disagree with, and also understand which ones you agree with.

With respect to the regulations - this is a huge topic. You've picked ones that makes sense. But there are regulations like patent laws, and absurd state laws (can't fill gas in Portland yourself) that need to be abolished. From car dealership lobby to a whole bunch of nasty things in Agriculture, there are protective laws that benefit the small proportionally advantaged people and prevent real innovation. There is a lot of gate-keeping in the regulations lobbied to death by companies with big and deep pockets (Philip Morris for e.g. and even companies like Google who spend millions in lobbying).

This is not fair with all due respect. I am in the same boat as you in some ways, I think Peter Thiel is a weird guy, but there is no denying - he is smart, tactical and he knows how to play the political chess. There are many progressive ideas in there too that align with Bernie sanders (wages section).

Not inclined to you, but I feel like SV folks have tattoed "PROGRESSIVE" in big bold letters and they've stopped thinking for themselves anymore. FYI - I live in SV. Get rid of that label, think from the bottom up - not from left or right.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If all your views line up with the mainstream you’re most definitely not thinking for yourself though. This doesn't make sense. You don't have to hold atypical views to think for yourself. Someone who thinks critically and for themselves and arrives at mainstream views is not wrong. In fact, you'd expect that the majority of people who did so would arrive at mainstream views, unless you presuppose that mainstream v…

If all of your beliefs line up into neat little bundles, you should be suspicious because they’re prepackaged and put together. The vast majority of society have prescribed views, that is their views are derived from their group identity. Why is this an issue? Groups search for consensus, individuals search for truth. The question isn’t to tease out a controversial answer, rather to assert an individual is not a mind…

Groups search for consensus, individuals search for truth.

It can get tiring to talk to yet another person that will explain to you how the theory of relativity is wrong when there's open house at the physics department, though...

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#108
post #72

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burden. I don't want to live in a world w/o regulations, I want to know what is in my food, I want to know that the devices I use are safe. We could see what happens, when regulation fails, when two 737MAX crashed due to the fact that Boeing was able to hide MCAS f…

>> This is very visible when Thiel dismisses incremental progress with wind turbines and photovoltaic cells. I think you've missed his point which he lays out in the opener. If you've listened to him speak on podcasts about this topic (I recommend episode 1 of The Portal with Eric Weinstein) you will realize that his ENTIRE point is that incremental progress is simply refinement of things we already have since the 60…

I think it's a mistake to assume that technology advancements will come in great leaps and bounds since the day of the wright brothers are over... we've been out of our atmosphere and to the bottom of the sea and made nukes++ and transistors at nm levels. Humanity has been so experienced in the domain of physics for so long that there is no low-hanging fruit left within the periodic table. The physical world has limits that our higher order thinking has identified and relentlessly struggled against. This is done every day by independent humans in labs and dreams around the world and seems by it's distributed nature to be incremental. I think Thiel's being quite foolish for lamenting/admonishing a trend that I believe will only getting stronger as the sophistication of collective human knowledge increases...

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#109
Almost every time I see an SV libertarian try to discuss social issues from an apparently disinterested, logical standpoint, they always seem trapped inside of libertarian bubble and unable to expand this viewpoint to consider other possible causes.

1) What's the evidence that technological progress has slowed? Is this nostalgia? Thiel is weighting more heavily "big" engineering projects like military hardware or aerospace above "soft" engineering projects. The Moon landing was a $150 billion project by the government BTW. Is LHC and LIGO not huge achievements? All three were science experiments, not consumer technological progress.

2)"only 3.5% unemployment". Quantitative vs Qualitative fallacy. Majority of new jobs created since 2005 are temp or gig economy jobs.

3) Is it regulation, or is it just diminishing returns in a cycle that is a punctuated equilibrium. Thiel expects steady progress, but between big cycles you have iteration and incrementally. Most of the low hanging fruit has been picked and reaching the next local maxima will require time. But SV libertarians always start out with the premise that government is the problem, and then try to tie their thesis at the end back to that.

4) Thiel criticizes Steven Chu for backing Solyndra. Fine, post-facto due diligence shows it was a bad investment. But the DoE's investment portfolio has better success rates than most VC funds, it's not that Thiel himself has never made any dumb investments. Broadening your portfolio over a large number of companies (some of them starting with a dumb idea) is not necessarily a bad strategy and even companies with unworkable ideas can sometimes pivot to companies that are big hits. Solyndra didn't, but there are numerous examples of others who did. Even PayPal is an example of a pivot, I did technical due dilligence on the original idea, Confinity, in 1998, when it was about peer-to-peer payments between Palm Pilots. Switching to Digital Wallets was also a failure. None of the eWallets that were installable apps on the desktop got traction. It was only when it pivoted to email that it worked.

5) Thiel himself built Palantir on the backs of US taxpayer money. Hypocritical for him to criticize the government and government investment. He also got lucky from a serendipitous meeting between him and Zuckerberg, did he really know then when he gave seed money to Zuck Facebook would be so big? Was FB technological progress?

So in summary: 1) we don't have a way to measure technological progress in a way that permits computing the rate. Lots of flawed proxies, e.g # of patents, etc It's subjective, and your wonderment as a child at changes in technology become disillusioned and nonplussed as an adult.

2) wages are stagnated. Unemployment isn't "low", not when your replace a big chunk of stable middle class jobs with benefits with temp/gig work.

3) public transport is successful all over the world, and Thiel ignores the billions spent on other modes (like airports). e.g. California government has spent $60 billion on SFO/LAX/OAK/SJC/ec

4) no evidence regulations are stopping technological progress, there is evidence that risk aversion from conservatives attacking government R&D for decades has, especially in areas of renewable energy or climate (e.g. ARPA-E program)

The only thing I agree with him on is that our Sci-Fi is predominantly dystopian now. The United Federation of Planets (ironically, post-capitalist according to Picard), a multicultural society of tolerance and freedom from want, has been replaced with cyberpunk misery.

But this is largely a reflection is the fact that 40 years of wage stagnation, and continued attacks on collective action in building a better future, gave way to rugged individualism and survivalism. In Sci-Fi, grand utopias usually aren't built by spontaneous order, but by collective action.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#110
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

Why is it not permitted to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits?

There's nothing saying you can't. You just can't call it a jam or a marmalade as that has a very specific definition in people's minds. The law itself is detailed here[1].

[1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFR...

Post reply on HN