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

The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

bayareacurrent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#11

Post by Der_Einzige »

jmyeet wrote: post #8

Part of this is just class interests. We now have a bunch of billionaires who--shock, horror--align with billionaire interests. The days of the maverick operating out of their garage are long over. But another part of this is transhumanism, which is a weirdly popular movement in tech circles. The core tenet is transhumanism is that humans will eventually transcend their current form and becomes who knows what exactly…

Hypergamy is eugenics but socially acceptable. The left is trying to embrace its own "prosperity gospel" with "abundance theory", quite a bit before that it was it was "dialectical/historical materialism" with its inevitable contradictions which would eventually lead to a boom/bust cycle too large for capitalists to overcome it, guaranteeing the transition to a socialist state.

I don't see them clearly trying to go transhuman, I see them clearly trying to build AGI. Closer to "I have no mouth and I must scream" than any other particular dystopia IMHO.

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#12

Post by TrainedMonkey »

jmyeet wrote: post #8

Part of this is just class interests. We now have a bunch of billionaires who--shock, horror--align with billionaire interests. The days of the maverick operating out of their garage are long over. But another part of this is transhumanism, which is a weirdly popular movement in tech circles. The core tenet is transhumanism is that humans will eventually transcend their current form and becomes who knows what exactly…

> But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.

There is a whole industry that caters to ultra wealthy and one of their core tenets is that customer is always right. This is problematic because negative feedback is an important mechanism of personal growth and self development. Thus we end up with ultra wealthy people being mostly disconnected from the society.

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#13

Post by [deleted] »

igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

[deleted]

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#14

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#15

Post by lentil_soup »

igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it

"EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried as a notorious benefactor"

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#16

Post by igor47 »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #14
igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.

I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict.

Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#17

Post by igor47 »

lentil_soup wrote: post #15
igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it "EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster…

It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations.

I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#18

Post by Iridescent_ »

igor47 wrote: post #10

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at a…

Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#19

Post by belter »

Silicon Valley was never liberal. It was always pro libertarian, wrapped in some kind of social progress branding. What changed is that the mask slipped...

The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism and strong state fantasies when regulation or taxes appear, like for example Marc Andreessen recent disgusting ideological flip-flops.

Calling this an intelligentsia is too kind, when its more wealthy tech bros with PhDs rediscovering pre 1910s reactionary ideas and mistaking contrarianism for depth. When Peter Thiel bankrolls figures like Eric Weinstein, it is just money confusing confidence for intelligence.

The latest is [1] Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale openly calling for public hangings to show “masculine leadership”, what just proves how unserious this crowd is. They do enterprise software but want medieval justice systems. They are deeply dumb, but in a very well funded way... :-)

[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palantir-j...

Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

#20

Post by mikkupikku »

nyeah wrote: post #7
mikkupikku wrote: post #5

> Samo assures me, he counts Karl Marx among his personal influences, and says Palladium has in fact published a Marxist. What he doesn’t mention is that they prefer to publish monarchists and white supremacists. Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. Not nonexistent but.. Can these claims be substantiated or am I reading breathless hyperbole? Rated as centrist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/palladium…

>Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. That was true once. Today Yarvin is massively influential. (I'm not explaining it, just reporting it.)

I think you're massively overselling "Moldbug"'s influence. Most on the right today dismiss him for being jewish. Older right-leaning people are mostly stuck on the Facebook/Fox News reservation and don't read essays or blogs, ever, and probably aren't even literate enough to understand Yarvin let alone get talking into monarchism by him.

I will grant that he has influence, but definitely not "massive". Maybe he has traction with tech business elite as some say, I don't have a read on the pulse of that ultra-niche demographic.

Post reply on HN