The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

[Leo]

Stan’s world:

The Techno-Optimist Manifesto | Andreessen Horowitz

We are told that technology is on the brink of ruining everything. But we are being lied to, and the truth is so much better. Marc Andreessen presents his techno-optimist vision for the future.

a16z.com

Counterpoint:

Opinion | A Tech Overlord’s Horrifying, Silly Vision for Who Should Rule the World

It’s no mystery why Marc Andreessen thinks people like him should be in charge. But how did he get so many of the rest of us to sign on?

www.nytimes.com

(https://archive.ph/eWVAg)

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah I mentioned this in one of the other threads, and gave some context about Andreessen in the emerging tech industries (a16z is a major VC firm).

Basically I probably agree with some of this, but it does strike me as a bit facile and misguided. There is a partial overlap with the solarpunk public goods movement I’m involved in, but that movement is characterized more by nonprofit and philanthropic applications, whereas this manifesto is spearheaded by the vanguard of unicorn-hunting venture capital.

This lays out my position a lot more re: emerging tech, namely that we can use peer-to-peer governance software to essentially rebuild “capture-resistant” Democratic institutions on the permaweb. Sorta like a Bucky Fuller / Henry George vibe, and very dialectical naturally.

Recuperate the Vanguard: Free Market Collectivism via Self-Regulation in Emerging Technology Sectors

If the spectre of history has anything left to teach the western world, are we willing to learn? Economic liberalism has become the incumbent world order over the twentieth century,

app.t2.world

 

[Clinamenic]

I’m not even sure that manifesto is worth reading, honestly. Maybe some fun stuff from a theory-fiction perspective, but I’m not inclined to take it seriously. That said, I could be wrong - maybe there is more substance there than I assume.

 

[Clinamenic]

But yeah, very much my world.

 

[version]

I’m not even sure that manifesto is worth reading, honestly. Maybe some fun stuff from a theory-fiction perspective,

It's too bland to be read as theory-fiction.

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah probably. This is the sort of thing which is intended to rally the (mostly for-profit) emerging tech sectors, and part of the principle of accelerating industry here is, likely, to stay ahead of regulators. I make a similar point in my little piece there, but with a16z the intentions are probably more around market capture than around strengthening the commons.

 

[version]

Yeah probably. This is the sort of thing which is intended to rally the (mostly for-profit) emerging tech sectors, and part of the principle of accelerating industry here is, likely, to stay ahead of regulators. I make a similar point in my little piece there, but with a16z the intentions are probably more around market capture than around strengthening the commons.

Zuboff talks about this having been Google's strategy. They push further and further into these grey areas, set a precedent in doing so, and worry about any legal difficulties if it comes to that.

 

[Clinamenic]

Zuboff talks about this having been Google's strategy. They push further and further into these grey areas, set a precedent in doing so, and worry about any legal difficulties if it comes to that.

Yeah it just becomes a cost of doing business, lessened further by any revolving-door arrangements with regulators/commissioners.

 

[version]

With Andreessen in particular, I think everyone should be wary of a billionaire who publishes a manifesto approvingly citing Nietzsche, Marinetti and Land.

 

[Leo]

I’m not even sure that manifesto is worth reading, honestly. Maybe some fun stuff from a theory-fiction perspective, but I’m not inclined to take it seriously. That said, I could be wrong - maybe there is more substance there than I assume.

what do you think of the Elizabeth Spiers rebuttal?

 

[Clinamenic]

what do you think of the Elizabeth Spiers rebuttal?

Just read it, and actually I think it’s pretty spot-on. She makes a point of not blaming technology, but the elite stakeholders driving investment in technology, and I think that’s the key distinction with me (and why I take issue with the luddism of people who just blame the technology itself):

“It’s not technology (a term so broad it encompasses almost everything) that’s reducing wages and increasing inequality — it’s the ultrawealthy, people like Mr. Andreessen.”

 

[Clinamenic]

What I’ve been trying to communicate, and why I tend to be offended when I get conflated with some of these people, is that I’m interested in emerging tech mostly in the open-source/peer-to-peer/public-goods sense, and especially how some of this tech can improve how we facilitate and disintermediate (hence peer-to-peer) collective decision-making.

I got into crypto as a retail investor, mostly took a loss, but ultimately became disillusioned about the systemic role of retail investors (dumb money, exit liquidity, etc) and how easy it is for institutions to manipulate markets (especially in crypto). The reason I stick around is all the coordination innovation described above.

 

[version]

What I’ve been trying to communicate, and why I tend to be offended when I get conflated with some of these people, is that I’m interested in emerging tech mostly in the open-source/peer-to-peer/public-goods sense, and especially how some of this tech can improve how we facilitate and disintermediate (hence peer-to-peer) collective decision-making.

I got into crypto as a retail investor, mostly took a loss, but ultimately became disillusioned about the systemic role of retail investors (dumb money, exit liquidity, etc) and how easy it is for institutions to manipulate markets (especially in crypto). The reason I stick around is all the coordination innovation described above.

I read something earlier you might like re: Baudrillard's use of "seduction".

"In one of his books Baudrillard quotes a classic systems theorist (can’t for the life of me find where or who it was), talking about orders of logic, and how resistance always has to be on a higher order of logic than what it resists. Resistance cannot be expressed in terms of the system resisted, there needs to be creative, positive, active creation of an alternative, superior logic. Knowing the logic of the first system is essential to building a system of resistance, if for no other reason than that the second logic has to interface with and subsume the first logic."

"Look at marketing and organisation theory today (you won’t but trust me). They’re talking so deep about how economic coordination and flows of information and so on are limited by the constraints of the system itself, doing extremely advanced research on how organisations can be adapted to cooperate and such. My feeling is more and more that these people are practically screaming for communism, they just don’t know it! Why not give it to them? In a different packaging of course, and piece by piece . . . let me recommend googling for business ecosystems, network and service perspectives in marketing, process philosophical organisation theory, and business model innovation. Last decade has been crazy with the almost pseudo-deleuzian stuff put out in business studies. Nordic and Baltic countries especially are ahead on this front, with strong semiotics departments, process philosophy, and systems theory along with strong social democratic heritage giving a push I guess?"

 

[Clinamenic]

I read something earlier you might like re: Baudrillard's use of "seduction".

"In one of his books Baudrillard quotes a classic systems theorist (can’t for the life of me find where or who it was), talking about orders of logic, and how resistance always has to be on a higher order of logic than what it resists. Resistance cannot be expressed in terms of the system resisted, there needs to be creative, positive, active creation of an alternative, superior logic. Knowing the logic of the first system is essential to building a system of resistance, if for no other reason than that the second logic has to interface with and subsume the first logic."

"Look at marketing and organisation theory today (you won’t but trust me). They’re talking so deep about how economic coordination and flows of information and so on are limited by the constraints of the system itself, doing extremely advanced research on how organisations can be adapted to cooperate and such. My feeling is more and more that these people are practically screaming for communism, they just don’t know it! Why not give it to them? In a different packaging of course, and piece by piece . . . let me recommend googling for business ecosystems, network and service perspectives in marketing, process philosophical organisation theory, and business model innovation. Last decade has been crazy with the almost pseudo-deleuzian stuff put out in business studies. Nordic and Baltic countries especially are ahead on this front, with strong semiotics departments, process philosophy, and systems theory along with strong social democratic heritage giving a push I guess?"

That first one sounds like the Bucky Fuller quote, who may have been the one referenced:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

But yeah in any case, that sentiment of focusing revolutionary efforts on upstream/supervenient planes of logic also very much characterizes the space I’m in, hence all the abstract and mechanical talk about “coordination infrastructure” IE the peer-to-peer software tools people are building to re-orient how individuals are even able to coordinate.

 

[version]

That first one sounds like the Bucky Fuller quote, who may have been the one referenced:

Someone else brought up Niklas Luhmann, but no one seems to have pinned down who it actually was.

 

[WashYourHands]

Stan’s world:

The Techno-Optimist Manifesto | Andreessen Horowitz

We are told that technology is on the brink of ruining everything. But we are being lied to, and the truth is so much better. Marc Andreessen presents his techno-optimist vision for the future.

a16z.com

Counterpoint:

Opinion | A Tech Overlord’s Horrifying, Silly Vision for Who Should Rule the World

It’s no mystery why Marc Andreessen thinks people like him should be in charge. But how did he get so many of the rest of us to sign on?

www.nytimes.com

(https://archive.ph/eWVAg)

QR codes are really rubbish

1. whose idea was it to make this non-human readable thing? 2. what's to stop you from scanning the code for the hipster menu or public info display and then replacing it with a sticker with a code diverting to a malware attack on the way to the genuine destination?? that seems like a simple hack

www.dissensus.com