6 ms·

The Religion of Techno-Optimism

26 points by conanxin 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago
And the associated "Techno-Pessimism" (e.g. "singularity" BS, from "AI doomsday" fear-mongering all the way to inanities like Roko's Basilisk) -- still based on grandiose ideas about technological development.
DarkNova6 3y ago
From: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ >TRUTH: > We are being lied to. > We are told that technology takes our jobs, reduces our wages, increases inequality, threatens our health, ruins the environment, degrades our society, corrupts our children, impairs our humanity, threatens our future, and is ever on the verge of ruining everything. > We are told to be angry, bitter, and resentful about technology. > We are told to be pessimistic. > The myth of Prometheus – in various updated forms like Frankenstein, Oppenheimer, and Terminator – haunts our nightmares. > We are told to denounce our birthright – our intelligence, our control over nature, our ability to build a better world. > We are told to be miserable about the future. Yep, Silicon Valley has become its own cult now. Maybe even worse, they are still best friends with big finance.
- ddkper 3y ago
  I mean it has some substance if you take those statements and then start to look at any news aggregator. I find the internet to be quite depressing and focused on the bad side of everything. I try to actively cultivate a more positive and optimistic information pool of which usually HackerNews is a good source, though ironically this post is pessimistic. Even still it is impossible to avoid the constant deluge of how bad and dystopian technology is or will be. One of my favorite examples was going to Wired's website and seeing front page an article about how the NASA Dart mission could be negative because of space debris. Here we have humans developing a way to defend ourselves against meteoric extinction and we are looking at the downsides of a small amount of byproduct space debris in the infinite expanse of space. Go to the technology subreddit and count how many upvoted posts have positive sentiment versus negative sentiment. You don't have to agree with the rest of what Mark says to see the validity in how pessimistic the views presented to us are about technology.
HPsquared 3y ago
We have neo-Malthusians, neo-Luddites, neo-this, neo-that. Nothing new under the sun.
keiferski 3y ago
A pretty shallow analysis. I think these "movements" like e/acc are mostly a distraction, a pseudo-culture of people arguing with each other online. Most of them seem to have cartoon characters as avatars, which makes the entire thing seem like a silly game without much effect on the real world. So when people like the author start claiming that Andreesen is "embracing fascism" it rings a little hollow. It's more like a trendy VC firm is chasing trends and trying to appear hip. I don't think there's much more to it than that and over-analyzing whatever manifesto they pump out this year to seem relevant is missing the point. The Futurists were seen as a “a church of speed and violence,” wrote Eveleth, or we might say of moving fast and breaking things. P.S., this author doesn't know much about Futurism, as this sentence should make clear. What I would really like to see is a deeper analysis of how historical American religious trends (the Protestant Work ethic, for example) have shaped attitudes toward wealth, success, and so on in Silicon Valley.
- simiones 3y ago
  > So when people like the author start claiming that Andreesen is "embracing fascism" it rings a little hollow. It's more like a trendy VC firm is chasing trends and trying to appear hip. I don't think there's much more to it than that and over-analyzing whatever manifesto they pump out this year to seem relevant is missing the point. When someone with his power and wealth starts quoting proto-fascists among other far right-wing figures, even ridiculous ones like Ayn Rand, I think we need to start paying attention.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I think if you had followed Andreesen over the last ±5 years, you would have seen that he quotes random people that he thinks are hip all the time. He also likes to go on podcasts that are perceived as "edgy" in order to get more attention. There is no pattern to any of it. Last year, all of their essays were about decentralization and crypto. The year before it was about "rebuilding America" after COVID. It's a media operation, not an intellectual one. The Italian Futurists were also not "proto-fascists", they were an art movement of which a small proportion of which later became involved with fascism. And hell, if quoting Ayn Rand is cause for concern, then half of American entrepreneurs must be political radicals. The fact that he supposedly quotes Italian "fascists" and Ayn Rand (who are essentially on opposite sides of the political compass) should make it obvious that there is no ideology at work here.
elicash 3y ago
I thought the Ezra Klein response to it was better: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/opinion/marc-andreessen-reactionary-futurism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/opinion/marc-andreessen-r...
ddkper 3y ago
Pessimists are so wrapped up in their ideology that you get the feeling they actively desire for humans to fail to improve things in the world. All technology is is the application of scientific knowledge to make something easier than it was before. Thats it. These pessimists like the writer are usually committed to an ideology that views humans as evil and wasteful (as if those values hold any value to an inert universe) and that we must fail in order to show us our evil ways. The writer is claiming that technology has failed to produce large productivity gains. He's not clear on the timeframe but yet he's typing on a laptop utilizing micro-processors and the internet to share his message. He's writing on a blog enabling him to reach audiences across the whole world and get paid to do so. He's sitting in a post-covid world where our economies were saved by advanced telecommunications networks and video-conferencing technologies. Where millions of lives were saved from MRNA vaccines (technology), that were developed in record time. They were developed in record time by sharing the data realtime via the internet (technology), and Moderna even used AI (technology) to develop the vaccine in 2 days within computer space before physical production. Yep, an effective vaccine designed in 2 days certainly isn't a productivity boost /s People that are pessimistic about human's abilities to solve problems with the application of science (technology) usually do so for moralistic or philosophical reasons, not for anything grounded in reality. If something isn't ruled out by the laws of physics it is possible to do given the right scientific knowledge.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  > technology is is the application of scientific knowledge to make something easier than it was before Even taking this at face value, their point still holds that "improving things" is not a positive or even a neutral value in itself. If the something you make easier is stalking or genocide you've made the world worse. You need a viewpoint outside of mere technological improvement to decide which changes are valuable and which are not. Valuing technology for its own sake absent this viewpoint will have you enabling atrocity. Which is, I think, exactly the "pessimist" position here. Andreesen & co are saying that mere advance is inherently good and they are saying no, it obviously is not.
  - ddkper 3y ago
insickness 3y ago
> For Andreessen... you’re either a techno-optimist who won’t question the faith, or you’re one of their enemies: the Communist boogeymen, After complaining about this extremist point of view, the author goes on to compare tech optimism with fascism. Equally droll.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Andreesen favorably quotes Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, one of the authors of the literal fascist manifesto. So sure, that doesn't mean Andreesen is a fascist, necessarily, I guess. But the comparison is neither spurious nor preposterous given that context.
starbugs 3y ago
In my opinion, you will be much better off if you either do not even read or, if you've already read it, ignore both this article and the original manifesto. If this demonstrates anything at all, it's that we somehow lost or are in the process of losing all nuance. Reality is rarely black and white. You can have both sides of the medal at the same time, or at different times, overshooting to one side or to the other. The only truth here is that nobody gives a click/like for the hard process of working with real reality. It's much easier to fall for the trap of one side vs. the other. But there are no easy solutions.
Denote6737 3y ago
" Silicon Valley will deliver a future of wonders far beyond what we could ever imagine." This is the point in which I closed the article. The end of the first paragraph.
- analognoise 3y ago
  If you had finished the article, it's about how that message is all BS...
incomingpain 3y ago
I hadn't see this manifesto. Honestly never seen anything 'techno-optimist' before today. I am aware of Andreessen, who isnt? >Silicon Valley has made faith-based appeals for years, if not decades. I've never been to silicon valley. I hear it's beautiful though. I'm going to respond more toward the manifesto from here. Not so much OP anymore, their negativity isn't useful. Somehow going from an optimistic manifesto to Andreessen is Benito Mussolini and fascist is more a reflection on OP and not anything else. They project their own mental health issues here. >We are being lied to. We are, and it's so bad for humanity. People believe completely incorrect things. They are told to distrust their neighbour and never help each other. It's so sad. They are told to turn up their nose to the homeless, step over them or avoid them. So sad. >Our civilization is built on technology. Welcome to the tech revolution. We have for the first time ever been able to communicate with each other at scale. We have learnt that the media has been lying to us and pinning us against each other. When in reality everyone in my community is a really good person. Completely unlike we are taught to believe. >We are told to be miserable about the future. We are at the precipice of a major food breakthrough which should eliminate world hunger; soon. High quality food might end up at a nominal cost where advertising will cover the cost of a meal. Science/technology is saving humanity. I literally cant fathom a reason to be miserable. I just wish I can contribute to this in some way. We now know the cure to cancer. We now know the fix to heart disease. We must deal with this reality of eliminating most of the major causes of early death. We must go into an amazing future with far greater life expectancy. Scary, world population about to climb a great deal. We don't know what this future looks like. No doubt this is triggering the malthusians, they do seem to be pushing birth control, abortion, and telling you not to have kids. They are trying to convince you to go against your own nature. Bizarre how successful they have been. >I am here to bring the good news. So far I'm loving everything about this manifesto. >We believe not growing is stagnation, which leads to zero-sum thinking, internal fighting, degradation, collapse, and ultimately death. I'm like 10% into this manifesto and frankly I feel like I'm 100% aligned. Dare I even just say I'm right there with the rest of it and not go line by line lol? Without even reading it? Dare I say I'm a techno-optimist without finishing reading this? It has been that correct so far. >You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks. Guess I'm not allowed to be supportive of this manifesto? I'm getting shadow banned on HN? I barely even came back... checking my posts I haven't been able to post 2 in hours. What exactly is 'too fast' about posting nothing for 2 hours. Why is HN not allowing discussions? While I remain shadow banned, I continued to read. I did find something I didn't agree with... took some effort. I really wanted to find something I disagreed with. >We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder. I think perhaps murder isn't the right word. Unethical? Immoral? Sure. Murder? Probably not. I don't agree with the statement as it stands. >Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism I guess it is a religion? There isn't a church near me, but I'm a convert. Am I allowed to open a church? I literally found nothing else to disagree with here. If this is a religion I'm joining. 3 hours, still shadow banned on HN. Let's see if I can post.
tivert 3y ago
The article is worth it for the quotes from "David Noble['s] 1997 book The Religion of Technology." I'll have to check that out, because everything quoted there rings very true. Another good book in the same vein is Technopoly by Neil Postman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly. > There’s ample evidence that neither Andreessen, nor Musk, nor any of the rest of them will be able to realize the futures they promise. Those visions only exist to keep us distracted from the real harms caused by their companies. I agree that they won't be able to deliver on their promises, and those promises serve as a distraction. However I'm not so sure the distraction is a deliberate deception. I think it's quite possible the "Silicon Valley elite" are delusional ("high on their own supply") and engaging in a lot of self-serving self-deception. It's also possible their promises are knowing lies. The reality is probably some combination of the two.
ls612 3y ago
There’s a kernel of truth to what Andressen says which is that modern American culture is relentlessly pessimistic about almost everything and that is frankly ridiculous. I suspect this is because for a lot of the new left types any sort of optimism is defeating for their cause, which says good change can only happen by overthrowing the system. Therefore they have a strong incentive to push overwhelming negativity.
- ddkper 3y ago
  I'd argue they subconsciously but actively desire for things to go badly. Because anything that goes bad is an indictment of the system (usually capitalism). They are committed to an idea that our current system is evil and exploitative and if technological progress actually makes everyone's lives way better that would start to eat at their theory. Look at any major technology and you'll have armies of people talking about the downsides. You'll see that a cure for sickle cell is created and then you'll see everyone complaining that it's only for the rich. Ignoring every cost curve in history and the fact that these companies make the most money by being able to sell to the average consumer. Apple is worth a 3 trillion because its products can be afforded by almost anyone in the first world and a large number in developing countries (especially if a few years old).
TedHerman 3y ago
The main objection I have to this essay is the running metaphor of religion. Cult maybe, but is it a religion? You need to study the history of religions and their hallmarks to establish the metaphor.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  What do you perceive to be the hallmarks of religions that cults don't share? My understanding is that people who study them mostly consider it to be a matter of cultural legitimacy, and so don't use the term cult. They call them new religious movements, since their novelty is their main tangible attribute and it's impossible to know in advance which ones will catch on and become reputable religions.

26 points by conanxin 3y ago

And the associated "Techno-Pessimism" (e.g. "singularity" BS, from "AI doomsday" fear-mongering all the way to inanities like Roko's Basilisk) -- still based on grandiose ideas about technological development.

DarkNova6 3y ago

From: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ >TRUTH: > We are being lied to. > We are told that technology takes our jobs, reduces our wages, increases inequality, threatens our health, ruins the environment, degrades our society, corrupts our children, impairs our humanity, threatens our future, and is ever on the verge of ruining everything. > We are told to be angry, bitter, and resentful about technology. > We are told to be pessimistic. > The myth of Prometheus – in various updated forms like Frankenstein, Oppenheimer, and Terminator – haunts our nightmares. > We are told to denounce our birthright – our intelligence, our control over nature, our ability to build a better world. > We are told to be miserable about the future. Yep, Silicon Valley has become its own cult now. Maybe even worse, they are still best friends with big finance.

ddkper 3y ago
I mean it has some substance if you take those statements and then start to look at any news aggregator. I find the internet to be quite depressing and focused on the bad side of everything. I try to actively cultivate a more positive and optimistic information pool of which usually HackerNews is a good source, though ironically this post is pessimistic. Even still it is impossible to avoid the constant deluge of how bad and dystopian technology is or will be. One of my favorite examples was going to Wired's website and seeing front page an article about how the NASA Dart mission could be negative because of space debris. Here we have humans developing a way to defend ourselves against meteoric extinction and we are looking at the downsides of a small amount of byproduct space debris in the infinite expanse of space. Go to the technology subreddit and count how many upvoted posts have positive sentiment versus negative sentiment. You don't have to agree with the rest of what Mark says to see the validity in how pessimistic the views presented to us are about technology.

HPsquared 3y ago

We have neo-Malthusians, neo-Luddites, neo-this, neo-that. Nothing new under the sun.

keiferski 3y ago

A pretty shallow analysis. I think these "movements" like e/acc are mostly a distraction, a pseudo-culture of people arguing with each other online. Most of them seem to have cartoon characters as avatars, which makes the entire thing seem like a silly game without much effect on the real world. So when people like the author start claiming that Andreesen is "embracing fascism" it rings a little hollow. It's more like a trendy VC firm is chasing trends and trying to appear hip. I don't think there's much more to it than that and over-analyzing whatever manifesto they pump out this year to seem relevant is missing the point. The Futurists were seen as a “a church of speed and violence,” wrote Eveleth, or we might say of moving fast and breaking things. P.S., this author doesn't know much about Futurism, as this sentence should make clear. What I would really like to see is a deeper analysis of how historical American religious trends (the Protestant Work ethic, for example) have shaped attitudes toward wealth, success, and so on in Silicon Valley.

simiones 3y ago
> So when people like the author start claiming that Andreesen is "embracing fascism" it rings a little hollow. It's more like a trendy VC firm is chasing trends and trying to appear hip. I don't think there's much more to it than that and over-analyzing whatever manifesto they pump out this year to seem relevant is missing the point. When someone with his power and wealth starts quoting proto-fascists among other far right-wing figures, even ridiculous ones like Ayn Rand, I think we need to start paying attention.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think if you had followed Andreesen over the last ±5 years, you would have seen that he quotes random people that he thinks are hip all the time. He also likes to go on podcasts that are perceived as "edgy" in order to get more attention. There is no pattern to any of it. Last year, all of their essays were about decentralization and crypto. The year before it was about "rebuilding America" after COVID. It's a media operation, not an intellectual one. The Italian Futurists were also not "proto-fascists", they were an art movement of which a small proportion of which later became involved with fascism. And hell, if quoting Ayn Rand is cause for concern, then half of American entrepreneurs must be political radicals. The fact that he supposedly quotes Italian "fascists" and Ayn Rand (who are essentially on opposite sides of the political compass) should make it obvious that there is no ideology at work here.

elicash 3y ago

I thought the Ezra Klein response to it was better: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/opinion/marc-andreessen-reactionary-futurism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/opinion/marc-andreessen-r...

ddkper 3y ago

Pessimists are so wrapped up in their ideology that you get the feeling they actively desire for humans to fail to improve things in the world. All technology is is the application of scientific knowledge to make something easier than it was before. Thats it. These pessimists like the writer are usually committed to an ideology that views humans as evil and wasteful (as if those values hold any value to an inert universe) and that we must fail in order to show us our evil ways. The writer is claiming that technology has failed to produce large productivity gains. He's not clear on the timeframe but yet he's typing on a laptop utilizing micro-processors and the internet to share his message. He's writing on a blog enabling him to reach audiences across the whole world and get paid to do so. He's sitting in a post-covid world where our economies were saved by advanced telecommunications networks and video-conferencing technologies. Where millions of lives were saved from MRNA vaccines (technology), that were developed in record time. They were developed in record time by sharing the data realtime via the internet (technology), and Moderna even used AI (technology) to develop the vaccine in 2 days within computer space before physical production. Yep, an effective vaccine designed in 2 days certainly isn't a productivity boost /s People that are pessimistic about human's abilities to solve problems with the application of science (technology) usually do so for moralistic or philosophical reasons, not for anything grounded in reality. If something isn't ruled out by the laws of physics it is possible to do given the right scientific knowledge.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
> technology is is the application of scientific knowledge to make something easier than it was before Even taking this at face value, their point still holds that "improving things" is not a positive or even a neutral value in itself. If the something you make easier is stalking or genocide you've made the world worse. You need a viewpoint outside of mere technological improvement to decide which changes are valuable and which are not. Valuing technology for its own sake absent this viewpoint will have you enabling atrocity. Which is, I think, exactly the "pessimist" position here. Andreesen & co are saying that mere advance is inherently good and they are saying no, it obviously is not.
- ddkper 3y ago

insickness 3y ago

> For Andreessen... you’re either a techno-optimist who won’t question the faith, or you’re one of their enemies: the Communist boogeymen, After complaining about this extremist point of view, the author goes on to compare tech optimism with fascism. Equally droll.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Andreesen favorably quotes Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, one of the authors of the literal fascist manifesto. So sure, that doesn't mean Andreesen is a fascist, necessarily, I guess. But the comparison is neither spurious nor preposterous given that context.

starbugs 3y ago

In my opinion, you will be much better off if you either do not even read or, if you've already read it, ignore both this article and the original manifesto. If this demonstrates anything at all, it's that we somehow lost or are in the process of losing all nuance. Reality is rarely black and white. You can have both sides of the medal at the same time, or at different times, overshooting to one side or to the other. The only truth here is that nobody gives a click/like for the hard process of working with real reality. It's much easier to fall for the trap of one side vs. the other. But there are no easy solutions.

Denote6737 3y ago

" Silicon Valley will deliver a future of wonders far beyond what we could ever imagine." This is the point in which I closed the article. The end of the first paragraph.

analognoise 3y ago
If you had finished the article, it's about how that message is all BS...

incomingpain 3y ago

I hadn't see this manifesto. Honestly never seen anything 'techno-optimist' before today. I am aware of Andreessen, who isnt? >Silicon Valley has made faith-based appeals for years, if not decades. I've never been to silicon valley. I hear it's beautiful though. I'm going to respond more toward the manifesto from here. Not so much OP anymore, their negativity isn't useful. Somehow going from an optimistic manifesto to Andreessen is Benito Mussolini and fascist is more a reflection on OP and not anything else. They project their own mental health issues here. >We are being lied to. We are, and it's so bad for humanity. People believe completely incorrect things. They are told to distrust their neighbour and never help each other. It's so sad. They are told to turn up their nose to the homeless, step over them or avoid them. So sad. >Our civilization is built on technology. Welcome to the tech revolution. We have for the first time ever been able to communicate with each other at scale. We have learnt that the media has been lying to us and pinning us against each other. When in reality everyone in my community is a really good person. Completely unlike we are taught to believe. >We are told to be miserable about the future. We are at the precipice of a major food breakthrough which should eliminate world hunger; soon. High quality food might end up at a nominal cost where advertising will cover the cost of a meal. Science/technology is saving humanity. I literally cant fathom a reason to be miserable. I just wish I can contribute to this in some way. We now know the cure to cancer. We now know the fix to heart disease. We must deal with this reality of eliminating most of the major causes of early death. We must go into an amazing future with far greater life expectancy. Scary, world population about to climb a great deal. We don't know what this future looks like. No doubt this is triggering the malthusians, they do seem to be pushing birth control, abortion, and telling you not to have kids. They are trying to convince you to go against your own nature. Bizarre how successful they have been. >I am here to bring the good news. So far I'm loving everything about this manifesto. >We believe not growing is stagnation, which leads to zero-sum thinking, internal fighting, degradation, collapse, and ultimately death. I'm like 10% into this manifesto and frankly I feel like I'm 100% aligned. Dare I even just say I'm right there with the rest of it and not go line by line lol? Without even reading it? Dare I say I'm a techno-optimist without finishing reading this? It has been that correct so far. >You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks. Guess I'm not allowed to be supportive of this manifesto? I'm getting shadow banned on HN? I barely even came back... checking my posts I haven't been able to post 2 in hours. What exactly is 'too fast' about posting nothing for 2 hours. Why is HN not allowing discussions? While I remain shadow banned, I continued to read. I did find something I didn't agree with... took some effort. I really wanted to find something I disagreed with. >We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder. I think perhaps murder isn't the right word. Unethical? Immoral? Sure. Murder? Probably not. I don't agree with the statement as it stands. >Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism I guess it is a religion? There isn't a church near me, but I'm a convert. Am I allowed to open a church? I literally found nothing else to disagree with here. If this is a religion I'm joining. 3 hours, still shadow banned on HN. Let's see if I can post.

tivert 3y ago

The article is worth it for the quotes from "David Noble['s] 1997 book The Religion of Technology." I'll have to check that out, because everything quoted there rings very true. Another good book in the same vein is Technopoly by Neil Postman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly. > There’s ample evidence that neither Andreessen, nor Musk, nor any of the rest of them will be able to realize the futures they promise. Those visions only exist to keep us distracted from the real harms caused by their companies. I agree that they won't be able to deliver on their promises, and those promises serve as a distraction. However I'm not so sure the distraction is a deliberate deception. I think it's quite possible the "Silicon Valley elite" are delusional ("high on their own supply") and engaging in a lot of self-serving self-deception. It's also possible their promises are knowing lies. The reality is probably some combination of the two.

ls612 3y ago

There’s a kernel of truth to what Andressen says which is that modern American culture is relentlessly pessimistic about almost everything and that is frankly ridiculous. I suspect this is because for a lot of the new left types any sort of optimism is defeating for their cause, which says good change can only happen by overthrowing the system. Therefore they have a strong incentive to push overwhelming negativity.

ddkper 3y ago
I'd argue they subconsciously but actively desire for things to go badly. Because anything that goes bad is an indictment of the system (usually capitalism). They are committed to an idea that our current system is evil and exploitative and if technological progress actually makes everyone's lives way better that would start to eat at their theory. Look at any major technology and you'll have armies of people talking about the downsides. You'll see that a cure for sickle cell is created and then you'll see everyone complaining that it's only for the rich. Ignoring every cost curve in history and the fact that these companies make the most money by being able to sell to the average consumer. Apple is worth a 3 trillion because its products can be afforded by almost anyone in the first world and a large number in developing countries (especially if a few years old).

TedHerman 3y ago

The main objection I have to this essay is the running metaphor of religion. Cult maybe, but is it a religion? You need to study the history of religions and their hallmarks to establish the metaphor.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
What do you perceive to be the hallmarks of religions that cults don't share? My understanding is that people who study them mostly consider it to be a matter of cultural legitimacy, and so don't use the term cult. They call them new religious movements, since their novelty is their main tangible attribute and it's impossible to know in advance which ones will catch on and become reputable religions.