3 ms·

The End of the Silicon Valley Myth

6 points by labrador 4y ago

labrador 4y ago
https://archive.vn/xw0md https://archive.vn/xw0md
nonrandomstring 4y ago
I find these mocking "watch it burn" articles a bit shallow. There are deep reasons the wheels are falling off, but little stomach for digging deep and risking any intellectual commentary. Two accounts I do find useful remain "The Trap" and "All watched over..." by Adam Curtis, and "The Californian Ideology" by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron. Only when we understand why the best of motives are always vulnerable to greed and stupidity will we stop creating new monsters to scare away the old ones.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
plaidfuji 4y ago
It’s true, innovation has largely halted at FAANG (which == Silicon Valley in this article), but it’s also not clear to me why that’s a problem. Their products are fully realized - there’s no major societal problem to be solved by a better search engine, smarter smartphone or more connected social network. If I had to pick one major technological advancement being worked on in Silicon Valley that feels like it could be a step change for society, it’d be self-driving cars. Sure, energy and agriculture and biotech are cooking up big stuff as well… but nothing would change day-to-day life more than being able to plug in a destination, sit down and essentially continue your day while you get whisked along - not to mention the incredible reduction in deaths, injury and stress. It would also fundamentally change how cities and suburbs are architected. The problem is that I’m not sure how much of the next steps are technological vs societal/political. My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that if we were to snap our fingers and all be using self-driving teslas or Waymos or whatever tomorrow, traffic accidents would drop precipitously.. like less than 10% of what they are today. But how do we get there? Do we have the stomach as a society to say that a non-zero number of deaths by AI driver are acceptable and even necessary for the greater good? I’m not even sure that I do.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Perhaps, but perhaps a real cure for dementia or type I diabetes or a major cancer or two would have a greater impact. "People not dying" is powerful as you point out. Personally not dying might be more powerful. They're related, in a way. If people truly understand the problem, have a working model for a solution and then deliver said solution, life would be sweet. Billions ride on this kind of research.

6 points by labrador 4y ago

https://archive.vn/xw0md https://archive.vn/xw0md

I find these mocking "watch it burn" articles a bit shallow. There are deep reasons the wheels are falling off, but little stomach for digging deep and risking any intellectual commentary. Two accounts I do find useful remain "The Trap" and "All watched over..." by Adam Curtis, and "The Californian Ideology" by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron. Only when we understand why the best of motives are always vulnerable to greed and stupidity will we stop creating new monsters to scare away the old ones.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

plaidfuji 4y ago

It’s true, innovation has largely halted at FAANG (which == Silicon Valley in this article), but it’s also not clear to me why that’s a problem. Their products are fully realized - there’s no major societal problem to be solved by a better search engine, smarter smartphone or more connected social network. If I had to pick one major technological advancement being worked on in Silicon Valley that feels like it could be a step change for society, it’d be self-driving cars. Sure, energy and agriculture and biotech are cooking up big stuff as well… but nothing would change day-to-day life more than being able to plug in a destination, sit down and essentially continue your day while you get whisked along - not to mention the incredible reduction in deaths, injury and stress. It would also fundamentally change how cities and suburbs are architected. The problem is that I’m not sure how much of the next steps are technological vs societal/political. My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that if we were to snap our fingers and all be using self-driving teslas or Waymos or whatever tomorrow, traffic accidents would drop precipitously.. like less than 10% of what they are today. But how do we get there? Do we have the stomach as a society to say that a non-zero number of deaths by AI driver are acceptable and even necessary for the greater good? I’m not even sure that I do.

jleyank 4y ago
Perhaps, but perhaps a real cure for dementia or type I diabetes or a major cancer or two would have a greater impact. "People not dying" is powerful as you point out. Personally not dying might be more powerful. They're related, in a way. If people truly understand the problem, have a working model for a solution and then deliver said solution, life would be sweet. Billions ride on this kind of research.