5 ms·

This one was also a good critique: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy

by davidw 3y ago

gooseus 3y ago
Also this one https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/why-cant-our-tech-billionaires-learn https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/why-cant-our-tech-billionai...
- kaycebasques 3y ago
  Thanks. That guy seems well-read: lots of interesting cross-references. I was getting fascist vibes from Andreesen for example and it was helpful to see the historical connections. Technological Pragmatism is an ethos I can probably get behind [1]. It ties in well with the book [2] that's had the most impact on me, which basically says that the best path to increasing self-esteem is to honestly appreciate your good side and honestly reckon with your bad side. I also like this approach because it acknowledges that good / bad / ugly all contain information. Andreesen, with his refusal to look at bad / ugly, is basically blocking himself off from two sources of information. The same goes for toxic positivity people who block out painful emotions. My best chance of success in general is to stay open to all the info available to me. [1] If there was a way to also work in the idea that I believe I'm better off leaning optimist rather than pessimist then it would be perfect for me. But that's probably too complicated / nuanced. [2] The Six Pillars Of Self-Esteem. I'm aware the author has some dubious historical connections himself (he was "Ayn Rand's lover", his own words) but nonetheless I still stand firm in saying that this book had the most positive impact on my life of any book I've read.
- kamikaz1k 3y ago
  This one feels a bit overstated. Yglesias focused on attacking blind optimism, which makes sense. Karpf is engaging in character attacks. It’s okay to not like Andreeson, not trying to say otherwise. But this essay reads more like a class warfare piece than a good argument for why techno optimism is bad. Hollowing out of the American middle class isn’t Google’s fault. My read, anyway.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    I appreciate your comment, because even though I came to the opposite conclusion, I like seeing how our own experiences color our interpretations. First off, the thing I really connected to with Karpf's piece was how this techno-optimist manifesto might have made sense in the mid 90s, but it seems baffling to write this with 30 years of hindsight. And as someone who was a techno-optimist in the mid 90s, I don't just see how you couldn't be at least moderately disillusioned with the promise of tech. But to your point specifically, "Hollowing out of the American middle class isn’t Google’s fault" - yeah, it kinda is, at least partially. Tech isn't the only reason for the decline of the middle class, but the Internet specifically has made markets huge and is directly responsible for "winner take all" dynamics in these larger markets. There used to be "regional winners" in lots of different retail categories, for example, and thus there were many smaller and midsized cities with vibrant main streets where the money went back to local proprietors. Now most of that goes to Amazon (or Walmart before that, but Walmart is still tech).
    - kukkeliskuu 3y ago
      Do you consider Google to be responsible for "winner take all" dynamics? I also think they have contributed to it, but my intuition says this dynamics would have happened even without Google. Before Google, there were other dominant search engines and portals.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        Yes, to be clear, I don't blame Google specifically, and I agree the Internet would have created this dynamic regardless. But, for one specific example, Google vacuumed up a huge amount of advertising dollars that used to support local journalism and advertising jobs. The death of local journalism has been written about many, many times, so no need to rehash that. I'm also not saying Google is "evil" for being a better advertising platform than local classifieds, but I'm just saying a natural consequence of this tech change is more concentration of wealth (small number of high paid Google employees but way less middle class newspaper and support jobs).
    - 3y ago
- balaji1 3y ago
  I may be reading the critiques rather than the original "techno-optimist manifest". Either way, I want to avoid the original article for some reason. "Optimists" may just be inevitable. But we need a few generations of intentional stewards. We need to engineer resilience and sustainability in our systems. Else we would have to rely on "Apollo missions" in the future (government setting the specific moonshot goals and creating highways to achieve those); rather than on "optimists" inside the macroeconomic structures to achieve those.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    >Either way, I want to avoid the original article for some reason. Because you might form your own thoughts and realize all of the people spilling ink over a billionaire’s pro capitalist position are mainly overblown to generate clicks and “contrarian thought lead” from the side lines?
  - fch42 3y ago
    The hope/belief "stewards" may steer things to where "we" cannot is also a form of optimism. It reminds me strongly of Asimov's "Foundation" novels and their "psychohistory" concept.
  - alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
    To borrow from Samuel Johnson, it's worth having read, but not worth reading.
    - balaji1 3y ago
      Also Samuel Johnson "A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience." totally unrelated but still, heard this recently ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This one was also a good critique: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy

by davidw 3y ago

This one was also a good critique: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-techno-optimists-fallacy

gooseus 3y ago

Also this one https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/why-cant-our-tech-billionaires-learn https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/why-cant-our-tech-billionai...

kaycebasques 3y ago
Thanks. That guy seems well-read: lots of interesting cross-references. I was getting fascist vibes from Andreesen for example and it was helpful to see the historical connections. Technological Pragmatism is an ethos I can probably get behind [1]. It ties in well with the book [2] that's had the most impact on me, which basically says that the best path to increasing self-esteem is to honestly appreciate your good side and honestly reckon with your bad side. I also like this approach because it acknowledges that good / bad / ugly all contain information. Andreesen, with his refusal to look at bad / ugly, is basically blocking himself off from two sources of information. The same goes for toxic positivity people who block out painful emotions. My best chance of success in general is to stay open to all the info available to me. [1] If there was a way to also work in the idea that I believe I'm better off leaning optimist rather than pessimist then it would be perfect for me. But that's probably too complicated / nuanced. [2] The Six Pillars Of Self-Esteem. I'm aware the author has some dubious historical connections himself (he was "Ayn Rand's lover", his own words) but nonetheless I still stand firm in saying that this book had the most positive impact on my life of any book I've read.
kamikaz1k 3y ago
This one feels a bit overstated. Yglesias focused on attacking blind optimism, which makes sense. Karpf is engaging in character attacks. It’s okay to not like Andreeson, not trying to say otherwise. But this essay reads more like a class warfare piece than a good argument for why techno optimism is bad. Hollowing out of the American middle class isn’t Google’s fault. My read, anyway.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I appreciate your comment, because even though I came to the opposite conclusion, I like seeing how our own experiences color our interpretations. First off, the thing I really connected to with Karpf's piece was how this techno-optimist manifesto might have made sense in the mid 90s, but it seems baffling to write this with 30 years of hindsight. And as someone who was a techno-optimist in the mid 90s, I don't just see how you couldn't be at least moderately disillusioned with the promise of tech. But to your point specifically, "Hollowing out of the American middle class isn’t Google’s fault" - yeah, it kinda is, at least partially. Tech isn't the only reason for the decline of the middle class, but the Internet specifically has made markets huge and is directly responsible for "winner take all" dynamics in these larger markets. There used to be "regional winners" in lots of different retail categories, for example, and thus there were many smaller and midsized cities with vibrant main streets where the money went back to local proprietors. Now most of that goes to Amazon (or Walmart before that, but Walmart is still tech).
  - kukkeliskuu 3y ago
    Do you consider Google to be responsible for "winner take all" dynamics? I also think they have contributed to it, but my intuition says this dynamics would have happened even without Google. Before Google, there were other dominant search engines and portals.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Yes, to be clear, I don't blame Google specifically, and I agree the Internet would have created this dynamic regardless. But, for one specific example, Google vacuumed up a huge amount of advertising dollars that used to support local journalism and advertising jobs. The death of local journalism has been written about many, many times, so no need to rehash that. I'm also not saying Google is "evil" for being a better advertising platform than local classifieds, but I'm just saying a natural consequence of this tech change is more concentration of wealth (small number of high paid Google employees but way less middle class newspaper and support jobs).
  - 3y ago
balaji1 3y ago
I may be reading the critiques rather than the original "techno-optimist manifest". Either way, I want to avoid the original article for some reason. "Optimists" may just be inevitable. But we need a few generations of intentional stewards. We need to engineer resilience and sustainability in our systems. Else we would have to rely on "Apollo missions" in the future (government setting the specific moonshot goals and creating highways to achieve those); rather than on "optimists" inside the macroeconomic structures to achieve those.
- kortilla 3y ago
  >Either way, I want to avoid the original article for some reason. Because you might form your own thoughts and realize all of the people spilling ink over a billionaire’s pro capitalist position are mainly overblown to generate clicks and “contrarian thought lead” from the side lines?
- fch42 3y ago
  The hope/belief "stewards" may steer things to where "we" cannot is also a form of optimism. It reminds me strongly of Asimov's "Foundation" novels and their "psychohistory" concept.
- alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
  To borrow from Samuel Johnson, it's worth having read, but not worth reading.
  - balaji1 3y ago
    Also Samuel Johnson "A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience." totally unrelated but still, heard this recently ¯\_(ツ)_/¯