Talk:Techno-Optimist Manifesto

Removal of content

The manifesto is said to ignore the risks and harms of technological development and to encourage unrestricted development of technology like artificial general intelligence (AGI) without any necessary safeguards. The essay was noted for its alleged hypocrisy, with Andreessen saying he opposes monopolies and regulatory capture while also sitting on the board of Facebook. Andreessen was also taken to task for failing to see issues with generating profits under capitalism while human life expectancy drops in the US in the face of technological advancement, as most Americans cannot afford to purchase homes or cover minor expenses. Ezra Klein described the essay as "reactionary futurism".

This material was removed by User:Markextra. I left a question over at User_talk:Markextra#Re:_Techno-Optimist_Manifesto about why the content was removed. The edit summary says its because they are journalists. I don't recall reading anywhere in the policies and guidelines that journalists aren't allowed. With that said, my personal policy is to try and get the article right, and if that means temporarily removing material to make way for a better version, I'm all for it. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Note, to address Markextra's concerns, I will be adding journalists to this article in instances where they report on and provide coverage on the topic, beginning with Bloomberg reporter Lizette Chapman. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

To do

• The manifesto should be placed within the spectrum of techno-optimism, from weak to strong.

• In the podcast discussion about the manifesto, Andreessen argues indirectly that if you are opposed to his argument, then you are opposed to capitalism and free markets, but virtually every one of his critics is an self-admitted techno-optimist that embraces capitalism and free markets. The kind of techno-optimism Andreessen is promoting is on the extreme end of the spectrum, approaching techno-utopianism, and sounds very much like free market fundamentalism, which most advocates of capitalism and free markets do not support.

• There is a body of work prior to this manifesto that should be referred to in terms of techno-optimism
• There does not appear to be any attempt to dialogue with the critics of the manifesto
• Most scientists do not believe that we can engineer ourselves out of the problems that engineering has created. It seems highly unusual to say otherwise without some kind of response.

• There appears to be several fallacies at work here. It is historically true that humanity has managed to engineer solutions to many problems, but some of the greatest problems remain unsolved despite these ongoing attempts. In other words, yes, we have engineering solutions to some forms of cancer, but most cancer remains a problem. Because of the enormity of the problem, mainstream medical science does not see a cure for cancer in the near future. This manifesto would have us believe otherwise.
• Ironically, it is thought that engineering is one of the least creative disciplines when it comes to creative thinking.[1] This might explain why almost every software solution in the last 25 years has not solved a single issue facing humanity, but has instead disrupted the traditional industry, replaced it with software, and created more wealth for a select group of people, concentrating that wealth and ownership instead, and inventing new monopolies (see Peter Thiel).
• In fact, when we look at the evidence, the optimization strategies of technological development have been used by corporations to raise prices, not lower them as this manifesto suggests, and provide less services than before, not more. This kind of wealth extraction, which raises inequality and leaves behind greater numbers of disenfranchised, is completely ignored. Instead we are told that there is a surplus, that society benefits from Twitter (I won’t call it X) pumping out disinformation and propaganda 24/7/365. We are somehow benefiting from this technological "advancement". And when Facebook tried to change the behavior of their users and alter their voting habits in favor of anti-democratic proto-fascists, we are receiving the benefits of this tech surplus.

• The engineering community appears to embrace unusual ideas like this, much in the same way that other communities embrace strange ideas, such as economists, philosophers, etc.

• Examples abound: neo-fascism, social Darwinism, climate change denial, terrorism, eugenics, neoliberalism, transhumanism, etc.

• Various critics have described this idea as a kind of ideology approaching a religious belief
• There is support in various fields for a weak version of this manifesto, but at least 20% of its points are heavily contested and disputed by experts
• Contrary to this manifesto, there is no good philosophical justification for many of the things in this essay. For example, the statement "We believe this is why our descendents will live in the stars" is a kind of hopeful optimism based on zero evidence. The so-called "great silence" and the Fermi paradox indicate that this is unlikely. Further, space is deadly to biological organisms. Our descendants, therefore, in this context, will most likely be digital or posthuman. This has serious implications for those living today which are not discussed in the manifesto.

Twitter

I have chosen to use the name Twitter instead of X, as an analog to the Names of Myanmar usage controversy. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)