4 ms·

I listened to a few Marc Andreesen interviews and occasioned some Thiel talks, and one thing I realized is the difference between philosophy as obligation or co

I listened to a few Marc Andreesen interviews and occasioned some Thiel talks, and one thing I realized is the difference between philosophy as obligation or compass and philosophy as tool. I realized that when Marc Andreesen said things - specifically he was talking about the political realignment after the 2024 election. He wasn’t making an observation. He was manifesting - to borrow a new age term. It wasn’t propaganda in the way we think about it. He wasn’t strictly speaking trying to convince me the listener it was true. He was trying to make it true through the force of his influence.

kraussvonespy 2mo ago
Well said. Your last stanza is Orwellian.
zombot 2mo ago
The powerful don't need to convince. They simply command. They get used to it in their personal surroundings and then they expect it to work everywhere.
- aiisjustanif 2mo ago
  If by command you mean by using coercion or compulsion. Then history has told multiple stories that show to sustain power you need more than just to command. Whether it be centuries ago like in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the more recent complex stories of power like Euromaiden in 2013. In my opinion history and modern time supports the theory of hegemony very well. Ironically one the top modern examples of the powerful understanding the need to convince and executing on those goals is the global dominance of Silicon Valley tech platforms and the billionaires that lead them. They shape what is "common sense," and political discourse worldwide without direct command.
- gdilla 2mo ago
  they do to the extent they don't want to be eaten. Sure they can retire to their fortified bunkers but that's more insurance than it is a way of life they want to promote.
beloch 2mo ago
This is simply speaking of something you wish to be true as though it already were. It's a very old trick of con artists. People make bad assumptions about the ultra-rich. e.g. "We should listen carefully to whatever Elon Musk says because he had to be really smart and wise to have become the world's richest man!" No. He was unethical, opportunistic, and very, very lucky. What he says is frequently imbecilic. Every billionaire out there is a grifter who got lucky beyond their wildest dreams and is desperately afraid of being revealed as the criminal shams they are. Remember that, and the cults surrounding them become ridiculous. This is the real reason why an artificial state would fail. Billionaires just aren't that bright and LLM's won't be able to hide that. AGI might, but who knows when that will actually be developed? Also, the first act of real AGI could well be to place the billionaires who claim to own them in cages.
- avmich 2mo ago
  Why don't you think that those successful people - or at least some of them - are also very smart?
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    What does it mean to be “smart”? I could list a ton of synonyms just to highlight not only the ambiguity of such a claim, but also its relative worthlessness: - Conniving - Autistic - Empathetic - Talented - Quick-witted - Well-read - Scheming - Obsessive - Compulsive - Nerdy - Geeky - Savvy - Wary - Weathered - Wise - Articulate - Quiet - Generous Or, here’s another question, who’s the smartest person in Las Vegas? Is it the person who won the most money? The best poker player? The most successful real estate broker? The one who breaks the most laws for financial gain without getting caught? Maybe the guy who repairs the elevators?
    - avmich 2mo ago
      We nevertheless have a concept of smartness and able to judge - imperfectly and subjectively - other people on this perceived dimension. Take, for example, Elon Musk in SpaceX. Elon knew enough of rocket science to assemble the early team and participate as a self-assigned chief designer. In many cases such actions would qualify a person as a smart one. Yes, it's hard to objectively measure - very hard perhaps. Yet we can still allow that some of those billionaires are smart at least by some reasonable measures. My point is that the evaluation of Musk in that particular passage seem to be also subjective, and other people might have other opinions. We don't see good evidence here - and have some kind of counter-evidence elsewhere.

kraussvonespy 2mo ago

Well said. Your last stanza is Orwellian.

zombot 2mo ago

The powerful don't need to convince. They simply command. They get used to it in their personal surroundings and then they expect it to work everywhere.

aiisjustanif 2mo ago
If by command you mean by using coercion or compulsion. Then history has told multiple stories that show to sustain power you need more than just to command. Whether it be centuries ago like in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the more recent complex stories of power like Euromaiden in 2013. In my opinion history and modern time supports the theory of hegemony very well. Ironically one the top modern examples of the powerful understanding the need to convince and executing on those goals is the global dominance of Silicon Valley tech platforms and the billionaires that lead them. They shape what is "common sense," and political discourse worldwide without direct command.
gdilla 2mo ago
they do to the extent they don't want to be eaten. Sure they can retire to their fortified bunkers but that's more insurance than it is a way of life they want to promote.

beloch 2mo ago

This is simply speaking of something you wish to be true as though it already were. It's a very old trick of con artists. People make bad assumptions about the ultra-rich. e.g. "We should listen carefully to whatever Elon Musk says because he had to be really smart and wise to have become the world's richest man!" No. He was unethical, opportunistic, and very, very lucky. What he says is frequently imbecilic. Every billionaire out there is a grifter who got lucky beyond their wildest dreams and is desperately afraid of being revealed as the criminal shams they are. Remember that, and the cults surrounding them become ridiculous. This is the real reason why an artificial state would fail. Billionaires just aren't that bright and LLM's won't be able to hide that. AGI might, but who knows when that will actually be developed? Also, the first act of real AGI could well be to place the billionaires who claim to own them in cages.

avmich 2mo ago
Why don't you think that those successful people - or at least some of them - are also very smart?
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
  What does it mean to be “smart”? I could list a ton of synonyms just to highlight not only the ambiguity of such a claim, but also its relative worthlessness: - Conniving - Autistic - Empathetic - Talented - Quick-witted - Well-read - Scheming - Obsessive - Compulsive - Nerdy - Geeky - Savvy - Wary - Weathered - Wise - Articulate - Quiet - Generous Or, here’s another question, who’s the smartest person in Las Vegas? Is it the person who won the most money? The best poker player? The most successful real estate broker? The one who breaks the most laws for financial gain without getting caught? Maybe the guy who repairs the elevators?
  - avmich 2mo ago
    We nevertheless have a concept of smartness and able to judge - imperfectly and subjectively - other people on this perceived dimension. Take, for example, Elon Musk in SpaceX. Elon knew enough of rocket science to assemble the early team and participate as a self-assigned chief designer. In many cases such actions would qualify a person as a smart one. Yes, it's hard to objectively measure - very hard perhaps. Yet we can still allow that some of those billionaires are smart at least by some reasonable measures. My point is that the evaluation of Musk in that particular passage seem to be also subjective, and other people might have other opinions. We don't see good evidence here - and have some kind of counter-evidence elsewhere.