Oct 16, 2023·edited Oct 16, 2023Liked by Gary Marcus
I'm not a Marxist, myself. Many of his ideas have simply not survived the test of time. Mixed market economy with a strong social safety net for the win, at least for the foreseeable future.
That said, it's interesting how Marc identifies communists as "the enemy" when Marx was one of the first techno-optimists. If anything, I would call that very techno-optimism one of Marx's weaknesses, but either way, automation and technological progress were key to his vision of post-capitalism. ("Capitalism was the best and worst thing to ever happen", in the memorably pithy phrasing of Marxist Fredric Jameson.) Some communists, those I can work with, still remember this tendency of their teacher. Others, like the de-growthers (who fail to realize their project would be a humanitarian disaster) follow a left-wing line of thought born as a reaction to and rejection of both canonical Marxism and liberalism.
For, like, 90% of the world, the delineations between these three squabbling factions with rather porous borders are academic at most. Don't worry if your eyes glazed over. But if you're going to be writing broad, grandiose manifestos, it helps to at least have at least some passing, 101-level familiarity with one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th Century... even if only to better oppose him and and his followers.
These sorts of documents are interesting. One would have thought postmodernism would have killed the genre of the manifesto off, but it lives on. Who precisely is the “we” of these documents? I sense the author is hoping to imagine a we into existence, capture an audience or moment with his confident and unsubstantiated claims. The feel of this document is very naive and utopian and lands in a horribly disjointed way in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. What is AI going to do to solve conflicts rooted in thousands of years of human history? I digress... how about a different genre? Just a simple proposal containing concrete next steps on how to best use these tools. There is too much big picture work being done right now when we need more people leaning in the small projects of figuring out the here and now. At least that is how i feel about things today.
If I didn't know who the author was I would imagine this was a spoof of the communist manifesto (ah, the irony, as the enemy are branded as communists). This is not surprising, since both manifestos have the same political goals, and therefore follow a similar strategy and structure of manipulation to implant ideas into the unthinking heads of potential followers (aka useful idiots). Both manifestos start with setting the stage by presenting themselves as the victims - technology is persecuted in one, working people are persecuted in the other. Then they say who they are - techno-optimists in one, communists in the other; and proceed to define their believes and brand their enemies. They both use a factually correct central idea (that technology brings progress, in one, and that there is class struggle in society, in the other) that is then twisted to serve as the pivot of their ideology - that unbridled technological development and absolutely free market is the way forward, in one, and that communism and rule of the working class is the solution, in the other. Both manifestos are just so hilariously similar in structure, style and content, and both manifestos obviously seek a similar end, and we painfully well know from history what that end is.
I am not going to comment on all the inaccuracies and blatant propaganda as that would require an equally or even bigger volume of text as the manifesto itself. But the central point that technology is a universal source of good is obviously misguided - technology is just an enabler, whether it is used for good or bad depends on the people who operate it, and I have very high mistrust in the motives of the people that stand behind that manifesto.
Oct 17, 2023·edited Oct 17, 2023Liked by Gary Marcus
Man his essay really is something. I doubt many people here have enough knowledge of history and actual economics to see how many errors are in it. It's a worthwhile read just to understand how much of a fantasy bubble these silicon valley billionaires live in. I'll write up a tiny fraction of the errors below.
Firstly, I do not see any actual quotes from anyone that is anti-technology. All I see is straw-men (The unabomber recently passed away). However, he does cite "bad ideas":
Some evil ideas that he cites:
“existential risk”,
“sustainability”,
“Sustainable Development Goals”,
“social responsibility”,
“trust and safety”,
“risk management”,
“de-growth”
Firstly, none of these views are anti-technology. They are actually pro-tech, all of them want more investment in green energy technology. Free market capitalism never gave rise to solar energy. it was developed in a capitalist monopoly, ATAT's bell labs, and could not find a market outside of space ships for a very long time. That's a failure of the free market. Not many venture capitalists want to invest in something thats only viable after several decades of RandD.
Secondly, saying social responsibility, trust, safety, and risk management are the bad ideas kinda exposes alot about your moral compass. It sounds somewhat sociopathic, right?
It should be noted that de-growth is actually often about reducing material extraction, not economic growth per say, at least thats what Jason Hickel has said. His book "less is more" actually promotes investment into green energy, but also advocates reduced consumption and advertising with combined investment. But he has specifically said that de-growth isn't actually about reducing GDP growth, rather it's about reducing material footprint and extraction.
Something also to be said about the important role of critics and (constructive) criticism, for any given technology - those who skirt it usually don't "win", in the long run - sure, they may temporarily boost their ego by pretending (and lying to themselves) that the problems raised by the critics don't exist. Well, good news is that these kinds of "hide your head in the sand" optimists eventually become the victim of their own blindness (though at the cost of others, unfortunately).
In a way, one can't really "cheat" their way out of our core problems, as sooner or later those problems would have to be addressed, and the longer we wait to address them the harder it gets, and the more sudden and dramatic the downfall of any given technology (and technologists) becomes.
So it's in the best interest of any given leader or company who wants to have long-term success, is to listen to this early feedback. And if they don't, well the joke is on them, as there's no harsher critic than the time itself.
I for one love the fact that the Marc Andreessen's of the world are finally saying the quiet part out loud...Or starting to at least. I will leave the body of his sophomoric nonsense for everyone else to pick over, but I find it is absolutely priceless that Andreessen Horowitz's corporate homepage now features a manifesto that approvingly quotes Italian Fascists. Not, mind you, recent vintage Italian Fascists like Giorgia Meloni but OG Italian Fascists like, say, Filippo Marinetti!
"Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end for Andreessen's grift...
Andreessen is mad. Pathetically so. His vision and definition of "growth" is on one hand terribly childish and reductive, on the other is the same cancer cells would give. I have seen that manifesto only now, but it is just more of the crap he posted some months ago and I, for pure coincidence just described here as "sociopathic Solaria, all the way down" https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/taking-ai-too-seriously-is-not-intelligent
My favorite part of the Manifesto is that one of the allies is a fictional character because (apparently) he didn’t dare name the author directly as she is too controversial...
This is an important rebuttal. My impression is that Marc has taken on a populist sort of role as of late. He is not interested in writing about deeper topics or conducting full examinations, but maximizing potential for as many people as possible. This involves leaving out important details and watering down his rhetoric. I believe that this is a strategic move with a wider goal in mind. He has become like Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, etc. It’s not a bad move for someone in his position of influence, but it is hard to take him seriously without understanding his intentions.
Hear hear. Couldn't believe the libertarian claptrap when I read it. I imagine Punch cartoon from the 19th century where a wealthy industrialist says to a poverty stricken worker "I'm a technology optimist, are you?" The future is always a long way off.
Oh boy. There is so much naive belief in that piece.
Take "We believe markets are an inherently individualistic way to achieve superior collective outcomes".
From the 1980's on, a vision 'unfettered capitalism' has driven the world economy. The promise was that 'freeing almost everything' would in the end 'benefit almost *all*'. After almost a half century of this, can we finally conclude that this 'all' has turned out to be simply not true? In the US, for instance, where this movement has been strongest, productivity has doubled, but real wages have stagnated. The rich have become richer based on those profits, the rest has stagnated because they depend on wage-related income. The top 10% of US families now own 76% of wealth. The bottom 50% own just 1%.
Regardless of this being a bad or a good thing (that is an ethical choice: is it actually important to have a fair society?), can we finally simply conclude that the theory (that *everyone* profits from unfettered capitalism) at least has definitely been proven dead wrong? How much more data do we need to accept this?
People get sold 'lower taxes' and 'more freedom', but the weaker the collective side of the economy (including government), the more unfettered predatory practices become, and the fewer people get those benefits in a *real* sense. If we really want more people to have real — and not just the marketing of — freedom (i.e. '*all* benefit') what needs to be done? And — given globalisation — can something be done at all?
Andreesen quotes modern capitalism founder Adam Smith. I find it ironical that if you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he actually warns for the fact that entrepreneurs are not to be trusted with the advise they give on what is best for *all* (i.e. society) as they are in the end singularly focused on what is good for *themselves*.
"We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits." First, entrepreneurs do everything to make a profit. Period. Including lying to sell more arms (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex). Or lie to sell more tobacco. Or lie to sell more oil. Or lie to sell hyper-addictive opioids. They even may start religions (i.e. Scientology) to make a profit. In fact, the key lie that unfettered capitalists tell themselves and are convinced of is this lie that unfettered capitalism is by definition good for *all*.
"Our enemy is speech control and thought control – the increasing use, in plain sight, of George Orwell’s “1984” as an instruction manual." *Cough*. Surveillance capitalism. *Cough*. Google dropping "don't be evil" as it is bad for profit. Letting evil types manipulate elections for profit.
The free market is absolutely a good thing for innovation. It is important, nobody believes we can plan everything. But ignoring the (moral and collective) downsides or the conditions for it is hyper-naive.
And Kelly? Kurzweil? Really?
And nuclear fission and fusion to give us all 1000x as much energy to use? Fine (but realistic?). And suppose that works after several decades, does that mean you're going to forbid fossil fuels? Or is that against the maximally free entrepreneurial dogma?
Techno-optimism is not necessarily bad. I like technology. I like innovation. How can we be against improvement? But religious 'free marketism' is *very* bad. A free market is an essential part of what I would think is the ideal society. But one thing it is not in any way is 'moral'. That has to come from somewhere else.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer's analysis that stupidity is much more dangerous than malice.
"Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack." It is not a lack of intellect he is talking about: "There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid."
Gary, I would like to know how you can be an optimist about the prospect of AI actually working. Suppose everyone starts working on neuro-symbolic AI, or G-flow nets, or whatever, and we eventually succeed in having real human level artificial intelligence. Do you really expect that, with the price of cognitive work, the last thing we have available to sell, going down the drain, the average person will be able sustain themselves? How? Do you really think our democracies are strong enough to maintain a situation in which the great majority of people are maintained by the system, "for free"?
"We had a problem of isolation, so we invented the Internet" is so awful it feels like it must be self-parody.
I'm not a Marxist, myself. Many of his ideas have simply not survived the test of time. Mixed market economy with a strong social safety net for the win, at least for the foreseeable future.
That said, it's interesting how Marc identifies communists as "the enemy" when Marx was one of the first techno-optimists. If anything, I would call that very techno-optimism one of Marx's weaknesses, but either way, automation and technological progress were key to his vision of post-capitalism. ("Capitalism was the best and worst thing to ever happen", in the memorably pithy phrasing of Marxist Fredric Jameson.) Some communists, those I can work with, still remember this tendency of their teacher. Others, like the de-growthers (who fail to realize their project would be a humanitarian disaster) follow a left-wing line of thought born as a reaction to and rejection of both canonical Marxism and liberalism.
For, like, 90% of the world, the delineations between these three squabbling factions with rather porous borders are academic at most. Don't worry if your eyes glazed over. But if you're going to be writing broad, grandiose manifestos, it helps to at least have at least some passing, 101-level familiarity with one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th Century... even if only to better oppose him and and his followers.
These sorts of documents are interesting. One would have thought postmodernism would have killed the genre of the manifesto off, but it lives on. Who precisely is the “we” of these documents? I sense the author is hoping to imagine a we into existence, capture an audience or moment with his confident and unsubstantiated claims. The feel of this document is very naive and utopian and lands in a horribly disjointed way in light of the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. What is AI going to do to solve conflicts rooted in thousands of years of human history? I digress... how about a different genre? Just a simple proposal containing concrete next steps on how to best use these tools. There is too much big picture work being done right now when we need more people leaning in the small projects of figuring out the here and now. At least that is how i feel about things today.
The manifesto is 'something', full of name-dropping of dead people that would never agree with him.
But that's Andreesen: full of quotes, full of himself, full of shit.
If I didn't know who the author was I would imagine this was a spoof of the communist manifesto (ah, the irony, as the enemy are branded as communists). This is not surprising, since both manifestos have the same political goals, and therefore follow a similar strategy and structure of manipulation to implant ideas into the unthinking heads of potential followers (aka useful idiots). Both manifestos start with setting the stage by presenting themselves as the victims - technology is persecuted in one, working people are persecuted in the other. Then they say who they are - techno-optimists in one, communists in the other; and proceed to define their believes and brand their enemies. They both use a factually correct central idea (that technology brings progress, in one, and that there is class struggle in society, in the other) that is then twisted to serve as the pivot of their ideology - that unbridled technological development and absolutely free market is the way forward, in one, and that communism and rule of the working class is the solution, in the other. Both manifestos are just so hilariously similar in structure, style and content, and both manifestos obviously seek a similar end, and we painfully well know from history what that end is.
I am not going to comment on all the inaccuracies and blatant propaganda as that would require an equally or even bigger volume of text as the manifesto itself. But the central point that technology is a universal source of good is obviously misguided - technology is just an enabler, whether it is used for good or bad depends on the people who operate it, and I have very high mistrust in the motives of the people that stand behind that manifesto.
Man his essay really is something. I doubt many people here have enough knowledge of history and actual economics to see how many errors are in it. It's a worthwhile read just to understand how much of a fantasy bubble these silicon valley billionaires live in. I'll write up a tiny fraction of the errors below.
Firstly, I do not see any actual quotes from anyone that is anti-technology. All I see is straw-men (The unabomber recently passed away). However, he does cite "bad ideas":
Some evil ideas that he cites:
“existential risk”,
“sustainability”,
“Sustainable Development Goals”,
“social responsibility”,
“trust and safety”,
“risk management”,
“de-growth”
Firstly, none of these views are anti-technology. They are actually pro-tech, all of them want more investment in green energy technology. Free market capitalism never gave rise to solar energy. it was developed in a capitalist monopoly, ATAT's bell labs, and could not find a market outside of space ships for a very long time. That's a failure of the free market. Not many venture capitalists want to invest in something thats only viable after several decades of RandD.
Secondly, saying social responsibility, trust, safety, and risk management are the bad ideas kinda exposes alot about your moral compass. It sounds somewhat sociopathic, right?
It should be noted that de-growth is actually often about reducing material extraction, not economic growth per say, at least thats what Jason Hickel has said. His book "less is more" actually promotes investment into green energy, but also advocates reduced consumption and advertising with combined investment. But he has specifically said that de-growth isn't actually about reducing GDP growth, rather it's about reducing material footprint and extraction.
Something also to be said about the important role of critics and (constructive) criticism, for any given technology - those who skirt it usually don't "win", in the long run - sure, they may temporarily boost their ego by pretending (and lying to themselves) that the problems raised by the critics don't exist. Well, good news is that these kinds of "hide your head in the sand" optimists eventually become the victim of their own blindness (though at the cost of others, unfortunately).
In a way, one can't really "cheat" their way out of our core problems, as sooner or later those problems would have to be addressed, and the longer we wait to address them the harder it gets, and the more sudden and dramatic the downfall of any given technology (and technologists) becomes.
So it's in the best interest of any given leader or company who wants to have long-term success, is to listen to this early feedback. And if they don't, well the joke is on them, as there's no harsher critic than the time itself.
I for one love the fact that the Marc Andreessen's of the world are finally saying the quiet part out loud...Or starting to at least. I will leave the body of his sophomoric nonsense for everyone else to pick over, but I find it is absolutely priceless that Andreessen Horowitz's corporate homepage now features a manifesto that approvingly quotes Italian Fascists. Not, mind you, recent vintage Italian Fascists like Giorgia Meloni but OG Italian Fascists like, say, Filippo Marinetti!
"Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end for Andreessen's grift...
Great note, Gary. Thank you.
Andreessen is mad. Pathetically so. His vision and definition of "growth" is on one hand terribly childish and reductive, on the other is the same cancer cells would give. I have seen that manifesto only now, but it is just more of the crap he posted some months ago and I, for pure coincidence just described here as "sociopathic Solaria, all the way down" https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/taking-ai-too-seriously-is-not-intelligent
My favorite part of the Manifesto is that one of the allies is a fictional character because (apparently) he didn’t dare name the author directly as she is too controversial...
This is an important rebuttal. My impression is that Marc has taken on a populist sort of role as of late. He is not interested in writing about deeper topics or conducting full examinations, but maximizing potential for as many people as possible. This involves leaving out important details and watering down his rhetoric. I believe that this is a strategic move with a wider goal in mind. He has become like Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, etc. It’s not a bad move for someone in his position of influence, but it is hard to take him seriously without understanding his intentions.
Hear hear. Couldn't believe the libertarian claptrap when I read it. I imagine Punch cartoon from the 19th century where a wealthy industrialist says to a poverty stricken worker "I'm a technology optimist, are you?" The future is always a long way off.
Oh boy. There is so much naive belief in that piece.
Take "We believe markets are an inherently individualistic way to achieve superior collective outcomes".
From the 1980's on, a vision 'unfettered capitalism' has driven the world economy. The promise was that 'freeing almost everything' would in the end 'benefit almost *all*'. After almost a half century of this, can we finally conclude that this 'all' has turned out to be simply not true? In the US, for instance, where this movement has been strongest, productivity has doubled, but real wages have stagnated. The rich have become richer based on those profits, the rest has stagnated because they depend on wage-related income. The top 10% of US families now own 76% of wealth. The bottom 50% own just 1%.
Regardless of this being a bad or a good thing (that is an ethical choice: is it actually important to have a fair society?), can we finally simply conclude that the theory (that *everyone* profits from unfettered capitalism) at least has definitely been proven dead wrong? How much more data do we need to accept this?
People get sold 'lower taxes' and 'more freedom', but the weaker the collective side of the economy (including government), the more unfettered predatory practices become, and the fewer people get those benefits in a *real* sense. If we really want more people to have real — and not just the marketing of — freedom (i.e. '*all* benefit') what needs to be done? And — given globalisation — can something be done at all?
Here are some facts about the last half century in the US: https://www.epi.org/publication/decades-of-rising-economic-inequality-in-the-u-s-testimony-before-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-ways-and-means-committee/
Andreesen quotes modern capitalism founder Adam Smith. I find it ironical that if you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he actually warns for the fact that entrepreneurs are not to be trusted with the advise they give on what is best for *all* (i.e. society) as they are in the end singularly focused on what is good for *themselves*.
"We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits." First, entrepreneurs do everything to make a profit. Period. Including lying to sell more arms (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex). Or lie to sell more tobacco. Or lie to sell more oil. Or lie to sell hyper-addictive opioids. They even may start religions (i.e. Scientology) to make a profit. In fact, the key lie that unfettered capitalists tell themselves and are convinced of is this lie that unfettered capitalism is by definition good for *all*.
"Our enemy is speech control and thought control – the increasing use, in plain sight, of George Orwell’s “1984” as an instruction manual." *Cough*. Surveillance capitalism. *Cough*. Google dropping "don't be evil" as it is bad for profit. Letting evil types manipulate elections for profit.
The free market is absolutely a good thing for innovation. It is important, nobody believes we can plan everything. But ignoring the (moral and collective) downsides or the conditions for it is hyper-naive.
And Kelly? Kurzweil? Really?
And nuclear fission and fusion to give us all 1000x as much energy to use? Fine (but realistic?). And suppose that works after several decades, does that mean you're going to forbid fossil fuels? Or is that against the maximally free entrepreneurial dogma?
Techno-optimism is not necessarily bad. I like technology. I like innovation. How can we be against improvement? But religious 'free marketism' is *very* bad. A free market is an essential part of what I would think is the ideal society. But one thing it is not in any way is 'moral'. That has to come from somewhere else.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer's analysis that stupidity is much more dangerous than malice.
"Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack." It is not a lack of intellect he is talking about: "There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stupidity-versus-malice-gerben-wierda/
I agree that one needs a more nuanced treatment than Andreessen's, and by and large, your outlook is a good and sensible position.
What irks me however, about your approach, is:
- Claiming the sky is falling each time a fake picture is released
- Picking at every single LLM and art gen failure, but not acknowledging that these are progress, and things improved a lot since 5 years ago
- Going as far as cheering for failure of self-driving cars (bites the dust, eh)
- Making obvious "prophesies" and then patting yourself on the back as in "I was right, and I was builied"
- Your disagreements with LeCun can devolve to a petty feud, with you doing all the sniping.
Andreesen is moving the Overton window because he suffers not at all for doing so.
Gary, I would like to know how you can be an optimist about the prospect of AI actually working. Suppose everyone starts working on neuro-symbolic AI, or G-flow nets, or whatever, and we eventually succeed in having real human level artificial intelligence. Do you really expect that, with the price of cognitive work, the last thing we have available to sell, going down the drain, the average person will be able sustain themselves? How? Do you really think our democracies are strong enough to maintain a situation in which the great majority of people are maintained by the system, "for free"?