Not all of them are marketing. Some of them expose his belief system. After “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” it’s very hard for me to take him seriously again.
They were and remain big crypto investors and it's pretty weird that the essay doesn't acknowledge how much talent and money crypto sucked up. He asks where the supersonic aircraft are and - ignoring that they have awful externalities - there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A16Z is a leading venture fund - if anyone's gonna build the future, they could use A16Z's money. So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?
> there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A quick review of their website and some cursory googling reveals that while boom is not in their portfolio they have invested in a company developing a super sonic jet engine technology (Astro Mechanica) [1] as well as a company producing precision machine parts for aerospace (Hadrian) [1] and various other companies that intersect with the area. [3] Perhaps they wanted to invest in Boom but the deal wasn’t right or they are skeptical of that particular company or they simply never got the chance but clearly they are putting their money into this area and it’s worth researching before judging them.
> So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?
You still want to invest in a particular company or people who you believe will make you tons of money. Just because someone is active directionally in what you believe will be the future does not necessarily mean you should put your money with them.
This makes sense as an answer but seems like an incredible indictment of venture capitalism, right? If they can't bring about a better, safer, healthier, science fiction future because it's less profitable than crypto, who can? If that essay had been a mea culpa, I'd like it a lot more
if there's one thing that we've learned over the last eight or nine years, it's that you don't have to be taken seriously by most people to have an impact.
Oh wow, I forgot about that! What a wild read. It was such a mess.
I loved it. Something about a famous rich person putting that much effort into something so amateurish and clumsy, while apparently being so confident, in an eager-college-freshman sort of way… I dunno, call it endearing, maybe.
I mean it’s either that or it’s horrifying. I choose to pretend it’s endearing because there’s too much horrifying already.
It's horrifying because it's not an isolated wild rich man seizure, it's the same shit that Musk, Dorsey et al believe. The whole effective altruism movement is infected with this bizarre space feudalism.
> The whole effective altruism movement is infected with this bizarre space feudalism.
This is basically what "longtermism" is. It's "we will amass huge amounts of capital to rule you now, because we know best, and we promise that as a result your (great-great-...)grandkids will have it better than if we hadn't".
It's just getting rich and playing with toys but with an ethical justification for it.
It reminds me of how back in the day there was all sorts of Creative Bible scholarship around it being "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven". Like they were all "actually the 'eye of the needle's is the name of this big gate in Jerusalem. It's super easy to get a camel through it!"
EA has done some neat stuff in the here and now in terms of looking at charities et al. But anything claiming to benefit the unborn trillions of the far, far future is just someone making excuses for themselves.
The comparison to the false theology is really apt. That goes back to at least the 11th century and it’s part of an even older tradition[0] trying to tell rich people that they can ignore a pretty clear biblical injunction. It’s been interesting seeing how as atheism becomes more popular there’s been a rise of secular thinkers selling an almost identical message that it’s okay to be basically as selfish as you want as for your entire life as long as you end with a grand philanthropic act to balance it out.
I have never heard of it, but I just had a quick skim through and IMHO the bad parts are the parts that have anything to do with economics, because it exposes him as a totalitarian neofeudalist (although he might not think of himself that way ... most totalitarian neofeudalists don't, they just don't understand their own economics well enough to see where it leads).
Is the US as it operates today a free market (how free?) or a weighted control economy where the larger players have a greater weight of control of media and the political landscape via owned outlets and subsidised senators?
Do small players in the US economy have equal access to the market, or are they overshadowed by near oligarchies?
the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government (including those politicians you reference). so when we bring in more government then it's less free market. how close we are getting to a free market depends on who is in power and calling for reduced government intervention/regulations for businesses.
as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant and when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free.
and small players seem to disrupt all the time. openai being the most obvious recent example. twitch being another notable example before that.
i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions, but your use of bicameral confused me a little. did you mean to say binary?
> the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government
It is extremely common for large private firms to have weighted control in an economy. Sometimes their control is bolstered by government and sometimes it is hindered by it. But in a completely unregulated market it would be common for monopolies to pop up which could then control large sections of the economy. There simply is no simple linear relationship between "free markets" and government intervention.
> when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free
Sadly the loudest "free speech proponents" who run social media firms are actually just interested in allowing the speech they want. They will still do everything they can to limit the speech of those they disagree with.
> when we bring in more government then it's less free market.
Let's go to the extreme with your logic. If you completely remove the government you end up with the mafia textbook. The easier way to win at the game is taking out the competition with lethal force. Once that's done there's no one to compete with you, no "free market", congratulations you won.
Why compete in bringing value when you can just use your money to takeout the competition.
Bicameral was used by Jaynes in the sense of distinct seperate chambers of the mind, rather than political chambers; I can't say I agreed with his thesis but I always enjoyed his argument and the apropriation of the word.
> i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions
These were specific questions to tease out why you're presenting free market OR planned economies as the only choices- it smacked of certain type of central north american libertarianism that uses Heinlein's early teen reader simplifications.
OpenAi being described as a small player is laughable, small players don't appear with one billion US pledged in backing and sheperded by core established technocrats.
BTW, the question was: "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"
How would your "ideal" market then look like? I'm not getting what it "means" for small players to have equal access to the market than large players, of course greater resources will lend itself to greater reach.
The ideal free market is one where that exact effect doesn’t exist. Why would it be optimal for more wealth to naturally accrue more wealth? That is definitionally anti-competitive ergo suboptimal in the capitalist’s worldview.
indeed but sometimes abstractions are useful. i would argue that in this case the binary is useful because of the PP's use of the word "totalitarian" (as in "totalitarian neofeudalist").
i am arguing that the word was misapplied to the essay since the essay was promoting free markets and it's central planning that offers opportunity for totalitarian control.
If one could have a "free market" in the sense that there were no state to begin with (which one can't) then you wind up with anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.
In reality, you start with a state and then have increasing regulatory capture by large private entities who turn the state into a system that exists purely to enforce their property rights. As they do so they eliminate public purpose.
Whether you have planned totalitarianism or anarcho capitalist totalitarianism the result is the same. If you have 100% returns to either labour or capital, or you try to eliminate either public or private purpose, then you must have totalitarianism.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto imagines that you can have no state AND no regulatory capture, it's garbage. There are only 2 things in the economy: labour and capital. You have public purpose and private purpose. You balance those things, you have social democracy and innovation. You let it slip to any extreme and you're gonna have a bad time.
> anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.
You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.
> unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state)
That's absolutely inevitable.
That's why I call it feudalism. What you just described is like the middle ages with various independent scattered kingdoms, or like a collapsed state where rival warlords compete for control, with the occassional uprising.
This is a good question. What differentiates his six thousand word manifesto from all of the totally normal six thousand word manifestos that are written by completely normal people on a daily basis?
Exactly. Writing and publishing manifestos is a normal thing. Surely if you cannot link to your manifesto it is simply because you’ve yet to finish proofreading it
This is a good point. A manifesto is when you write more than a few paragraphs. The Cheesecake Factory menu is a manifesto, for example, and it is a baffling failure of diction that they do not call it that.
I am now considering what I would write in a manifesto. It wouldn't be a bad exercise, although sharing it with other people would lock me into a bunch of opinions that I might regret later.
This strengthens my theory that VC vocabulary consists almost exclusively of other people’s hot takes. I know only of two other groups of people who speak primarily in quotes: religious fundamentalists and teenagers during a brief fan-frenzy of some pop culture icon (eg Nirvana).
They were and remain big crypto investors and it's pretty weird that the essay doesn't acknowledge how much talent and money crypto sucked up. He asks where the supersonic aircraft are and - ignoring that they have awful externalities - there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A16Z is a leading venture fund - if anyone's gonna build the future, they could use A16Z's money. So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?