> We had a problem of isolation, so we invented the Internet.
Is this real life
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
301–310 of 414 posts
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a little hard to square that enemy with the earlier enemy of "...anti-merit, anti-ambition, anti-striving, anti-achievement, anti-greatness." So we're opposed to credentialed experts in favor of "the real world" but also opposed to those who don't care about merit or achievement? Are credentials and expertise not a reasonable measure of merit and achievement and aren't excessive appeals to the wisdom of the…
I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicative of the former
I'm surprised at how many people took the bait to treat this as an either/or proposition. One criteria of evaluation is never sufficient to make a good decision - why not ask both? A smart consumer reads the product label and the user reviews.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#303This aligns well with the Cyberparadism aesthetic: https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Cyberparadism
> Cyberparadism is a subset of Cyberprep and therefore of Post-Cyberpunk. The word is an amalgam of the prefix "cyber-", referring to cybernetics, and "paradism" as in paradise, meaning that a paradisal aspect has to be present within the cybernetic part of the aesthetic. The paradisal aspect can either manifest itself in literal terms as it would when representing a derivation of a Garden of Eden or the Elysian Fields, or alternatively in a more abstract way as a reflection of a utopia state of things. > > It differs itself from Cyberprep insofar that not only the positive benefits of technological progress are a central tenet, but that said technological progress has reached a level of sophistication where the principles of economics and conventional labour are fundamentally transformed in such that the subjects at hand can and are likely to pursue higher goals of scientific, technological, civilizatory and/or spiritual fulfillment.
There’s also a manifesto for Cyberparadism: https://github.com/zarazinsfuss/cyberparadism-manifesto/blob...
> We believe that technology can be a powerful force for good, when used in a responsible and thoughtful way. By harnessing the power of technology, we can create a world of abundance and prosperity, where all individuals have the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#304Man does not live by bread alone. If you want to make technology and the standard of living a god, that might be rational, just as communism may be an earlier rational attempt in the same vein. But I believe these ideas are naive. The central idea seems to be “eliminate enough of man’s animal suffering and cater to his animal wants and you’ll have paradise” but I think these schemes undervalue the human need for freedom, love, self discovery, and meaning.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#305I agree with the overall thrust of this, or should be easy to convince, but boy does this lack of self-awareness just shout “distance yourself and run, don’t walk!” > Our enemy is the ivory tower, the know-it-all credentialed expert worldview, indulging in abstract theories, luxury beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’…
It's also a little hard to square that enemy with the earlier enemy of "...anti-merit, anti-ambition, anti-striving, anti-achievement, anti-greatness." So we're opposed to credentialed experts in favor of "the real world" but also opposed to those who don't care about merit or achievement? Are credentials and expertise not a reasonable measure of merit and achievement and aren't excessive appeals to the wisdom of the…
> Are credentials and expertise not a reasonable measure of merit and achievement
I think the assumption behind their statement is that this in fact the case.
Media/politics use the words credentials and expertise interchangeably, and credentials invariably means those issued by universities. So a professor is assumed to always be an expert, even if they can't evidence that in reality. The result is a large number of ivory tower academics who call themselves experts in things, but who have no skin in the game and whose theories are never tested against reality. Hence the replication crisis, which Marc Andreessen is on the record as being very concerned/aware about.
Determining actual expertise is the Number 1 problem faced by both VCs and startup founders, and those are both communities who are famously rather indifferent to credentials.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Microsoft famously made deals with laptop vendors to prevent Dell, HP, and so on from selling computers with any operating system other than Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows Similarly, Intel stifled AMD by providing financial incentives to vendors who offered no AMD-based products:…
Government's action did had zero effect against Microsoft. Slap on the wrist. Their monopoly was naturally made irrelevant by the market moving onto the next tech frontier: mobile & cloud. The free market lead to that. Countless startups trying everything under the sun made sure incumbents like Apple or Google had to innovate, acquire and evolve to avoid Microsoft's fate. In a free market there is always a chance a n…
The only reason that mobile went the way it did was because Microsoft was so afraid of government Antitrust action that they let Apple survive
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#307i can't take a16z seriously ever since they were a major driver of all the pump & dump crypto crap, publishing a grandiose manifesto doesn't really help with the perception of being bullshit merchants. stop listening to people just because they have money, it's not a measure for greatness and definitely not as reason to give them any credibility outside of their expertise.
I was thinking that, especially having just read the book Number Go Up.
Andreessen's firm put a bunch of money into the Axie Infinity play to earn ponzi which ended up taking money from thousands of hard up Filipinos and then the company was then hacked by N Korea with the money likely ending up in some weapons program.
I'm a techno optimist and a believer in markets but regulated markets where the worst effects are mitigated.
(some from the Number Go Up author on Axie https://youtu.be/THdU00jutvo?t=1864)
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#308I agree with the overall thrust of this, or should be easy to convince, but boy does this lack of self-awareness just shout “distance yourself and run, don’t walk!” > Our enemy is the ivory tower, the know-it-all credentialed expert worldview, indulging in abstract theories, luxury beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’…
(a) indulge in abstract theories (b) engage in social engineering (c) disconnect from the real world (d) delude themselves (e) appoint themselves (f) play God with anyone else's life with total insulation from the consequences. That seems to describe developers, and this VC was one, Silicon Valley VC and/or SBF-types. Who the heck even comes close to (f) except Big Tech. With respect to (e), "unelected", does anyone…
I think the idea is that VCs and private companies can't force their will onto people. They can indulge in abstract theories, but it never becomes legislation that others have to abide to (e.g. laws that curtail speech meant to "protect democracy")
They can socially engineer but voluntarily, or in other words propose social norms in form of ux and product. But things get out of hand very quickly in a market. For instance, no one designed the method people use for retweeting, it wasn't engineered. Some decisions were made but with limited desires effect.
Similarly the market connects you to the real world. You put a product out there and it loves and dies on its usefulness to others.
Same with the rest. Everything is voluntary, which is kind of the point as opposed to mandated from top down.
Even big tech like Google have trouble controlling their own inventions. Think of SEO spam and bots, which is a constant battle. That's an example of the worse, but there are good things like distributing unfiltered information.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government's action did had zero effect against Microsoft. Slap on the wrist. Their monopoly was naturally made irrelevant by the market moving onto the next tech frontier: mobile & cloud. The free market lead to that. Countless startups trying everything under the sun made sure incumbents like Apple or Google had to innovate, acquire and evolve to avoid Microsoft's fate. In a free market there is always a chance a n…
The only reason that mobile went the way it did was because Microsoft was so afraid of government Antitrust action that they let Apple survive
Apple survived thanks to Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs alone. He could've built his vision in any company or startup though, when he took over Apple was a few weeks away from bankruptcy.
Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason that mobile went the way it did was because Microsoft was so afraid of government Antitrust action that they let Apple survive
Apple survived thanks to Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs alone. He could've built his vision in any company or startup though, when he took over Apple was a few weeks away from bankruptcy.
Without Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer, the Mac would have been dead. Gil Amelio negotiated their continuation (as settlement for the old Look & Feel and QuickTime lawsuits) with Microsoft and Jobs closed the deal by letting up on some of Amelio's demands. Microsoft could have just said no and the Mac would have been useless to both education and business and they would have been dead in weeks as you said.
NeXT would never have built the iPhone, they had given up on hardware.