To my surprise I found myself reading the entire rather long piece. His thoughts on AI, San Francisco, China, and other topics, are well worth the time.
Agreed! He’s a great writer stylistically and w.r.t information density.
2025 Letter
171–180 of 340 posts
Re: 2025 Letter
#172> For tragedies too widely experienced in modern times to be censored — the Cultural Revolution, the one-child policy, Zero Covid ... this part has me confused can someone explain to me why Zero Covid - the most successful program that minimized Covid deaths - is a tragedy? imo it was better than whatever clusterfuck was happening pretty much everywhere else
Zero-COVID was an absolute disaster. It involved severe human rights violations and caused immense social and economic damage, including unnecessary displacement, homelessness, and even deaths. The number is lower sure, but China had the capacity to do much better
again, how is it a disaster if nobody else managed to do better?
and it's kinda stupid to say "even deaths" on the background of Italy, India and even million dead in the US
Re: 2025 Letter
#173> Beijing has been preparing for Cold War without eagerness for waging it, while the US wants to wage a Cold War without preparing for it. great line
I don't care who the next hegemon will be; US or China. But please pray, can these people tell what their next strategy is for the rest of the world after the Cold War ends. Will the next regime advance sciences further after whichever side wins the Cold War? Can't that be done without the war? US has been hegemon since last 5 or so decades; has it worked out best even ONLY for the Americans if not for the rest of th…
from my understanding, US strategy "for the world" is "you sell me things, I sell you dollars, do democracy or else" - while best China guess seems to be "build business, together, don't push your agenda on others or else" (as with anything, these will change over several decades tho)
but main divide seems to form on "ngo vs government" lines, imo - and ironically the exact opposite way of the proclaimed "authoritarian China vs USAID america" of the previous decade-or-two. (As always, best path is somewhere in the middle between the two)
the main thing that will happen for sure - globalization, unification into bigger and bigger pieces will continue. Sure, big pieces might go further from each other - but smaller ones will will get closer and closer (unless we all die, of course)
Re: 2025 Letter
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care who the next hegemon will be; US or China. But please pray, can these people tell what their next strategy is for the rest of the world after the Cold War ends. Will the next regime advance sciences further after whichever side wins the Cold War? Can't that be done without the war? US has been hegemon since last 5 or so decades; has it worked out best even ONLY for the Americans if not for the rest of th…
I don't know if it's that hard to figure out, at least in the short-term. China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their currency stable and push hard on the neoliberal expansionist path. If the United States' financialized economy starts to sag, this is China's opportunity to provide discount stability to the nations that China needs as allies.
> China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their currency stable
this kinda goes against the very policy of China for the last decade-2-3 of almost-manual depreciation of RMB to make export easier
> this is China's opportunity to provide discount stability to the nations that China needs as allies
and it's US strat to boost allies with money donations - while China seems to be more about joint infrastructure and industry building
Re: 2025 Letter
#175I have nonspecific positive associations with Dan Wang's name, so I rolled my eyes a bit but kept going when "If the Bay Area once had an impish side, it has gone the way of most hardware tinkerers and hippie communes" was followed up by "People aren’t reminiscing over some lost golden age..." But I stopped at this: > “AI will be either the best or the worst thing ever.” It’s a Pascal’s Wager That's not what Pascal's…
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Is it that he misuses the term Pascal's Wager? Or more generally that he doesn't extend enough credibility to the ideas in AI 2027?
Re: 2025 Letter
#176> I believe that Silicon Valley possesses plenty of virtues. To start, it is the most meritocratic part of America. Oh come on, this is so untrue. Silicon Valley loves credentialism and networking, probably more than anywhere else. Except the credentials are the companies you’ve worked for or whether you know some founder or VC, instead of what school you went to or which degrees you have. I went to a smaller college…
Judging you based on the work you've done seems... very meritocratic to me?
meritocratic means "judgement on merit (aka skill)"
and the story told is "no judgement on skill, only on being in-group. It's just the in-group is caused by previous employment and not birth-right/nationality/etc"
Re: 2025 Letter
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero-COVID was an absolute disaster. It involved severe human rights violations and caused immense social and economic damage, including unnecessary displacement, homelessness, and even deaths. The number is lower sure, but China had the capacity to do much better
again, how is it a disaster if nobody else managed to do better? and it's kinda stupid to say "even deaths" on the background of Italy, India and even million dead in the US
many people especially those with chronic illnesses died because Zero-COVID blocked access to basic medical care and food. Those deaths were policy-driven and avoidable.
Re: 2025 Letter
#178A fascinating and eye-opening read. One of my intentions for this coming year is to critically examine and (if appropriate) alter or dispel some preconceptions I have. To that end, I'm curious about this part: > You don’t have to convince the elites or the populace that growth is good or that entrepreneurs could be celebrated. Meanwhile in Europe, perhaps 15 percent of the electorate actively believes in degrowth. I…
it is prisoners' dilemma
if you grow - you increase total progress (and your influence on it)
but if you degrow - you concentrate your progress into smaller amount of hands, making their life better
seems reminiscent of "left vs right" debate in politics with its "wealth disperse vs wealth squeeze" - but with humans themselves instead
Re: 2025 Letter
#179I have nonspecific positive associations with Dan Wang's name, so I rolled my eyes a bit but kept going when "If the Bay Area once had an impish side, it has gone the way of most hardware tinkerers and hippie communes" was followed up by "People aren’t reminiscing over some lost golden age..." But I stopped at this: > “AI will be either the best or the worst thing ever.” It’s a Pascal’s Wager That's not what Pascal's…
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Is it that he misuses the term Pascal's Wager? Or more generally that he doesn't extend enough credibility to the ideas in AI 2027?
seems to be yes and yes
Pascal's wager isn't about "all or nothing", it is about "small chance of infinite outcome" which makes narrow-minded strategizing wack
and commenter is much more pro-ai2027 than article author (and I have no idea what it even is)
Re: 2025 Letter
#180I read the whole post. Really revealing - so much analysis but not a single mention of a global system that is reaching a singularity in wealth concentration, and maybe how that might be an important dimension to reflect on. Its like using so many words to deeply analyze the speed differentials in a car race, but not looking up to see that all the drivers are racing towards a brick wall.
those articles were written a plenty about the Davos Elite - even precovid. It’s a tad lazy now.
Sure there was some evidence of wealth concentration mattering. But there was also evidence against it (like Jack Ma). Power is still the ring to kiss.
And hopefully it’s very understood to the parent comment and agreers, wealth creation is not zero sum. When something new is created the pie gets bigger. All wealth inequality discourse is driven by that misunderstanding and a lack of building more homes https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...
Maybe your brick wall is the singularity instead and I misread you but I don’t think so.