The Rise Of Technoauthoritarianism
This article appears in a news story to read today. Register here .
If we were to capture the core ideology of Silicon Valley in history, we might start by seeing Mark Zuckerberg sitting in front of the blue light of his computer almost 20 years ago, talking to a friend about how his new website, Facebook, had failed him. . Get more personal information about your friends:
Zuckerberg: Yes, if you want information about someone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Ask.
Zuckerberg : I have more than 4,000 emails, photos, contacts, social networks.
What a friend, how do you organize yourself?
Zuckerberg: People just send them.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: "Trust me."
Zuckerberg : You're an idiot.
This conversation, later revealed in leaked recordings, quickly turned into another equally interesting, if more polite, conversation. At the now-famous 2007 Christmas party, Zuckerberg met Sheryl Sandberg, his chief operating officer, who, along with Zuckerberg, would turn the platform into a digital imperialist superpower. There, Zuckerberg, who adopted the "company over country" mantra in Facebook's early days, told Sandberg that he wanted every American with an Internet connection to have a Facebook account. For Sandberg, who once told colleagues that he was "sent to this planet to scale the organization," it turned out to be the perfect mission.
Learn more about this and find your next story to read.
Facebook (now Meta) has become the epitome of everything that is wrong in Silicon Valley. Its interested role in the global dissemination of information is in constant crisis. Let's also remember the company's secret mood manipulation experiment in 2012, which showed how Facebook could influence people's emotional states without their knowledge, deliberately changing what users saw in their news feed. o Participation in the 2017 Myanmar genocide. Or used as a clubhouse to plan and execute the uprising of January 6, 2021. (In the early days of Facebook, Zuckerberg included "revolution" on his wish list. It changes. (When I was the CEO, I printed business cards called BITCH .)
But to a surprising degree, just as other social platforms (TikTok) and technological advances (Artificial Intelligence) have surpassed Facebook in cultural relevance, Facebook's business model is the norm for the entire technology industry.
You have to allow yourself to worship at a high altar and convince yourself that you should be the one making world-historical decisions on behalf of international citizens who do not vote for you and who do not share your values or shortcomings. of the same. Many things have been done. Disadvantages: modesty and little things underneath. Many Silicon Valley giants have made this exchange many times. YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram (owned by Meta), and Twitter (aka Elon Musk X) are as destructive to individual rights, civil society, and global democracy as Facebook was and is. Given the way generative AI is being built in Silicon Valley, we should be prepared to see this damage multiply many times over in the coming years.
The behavior of these companies and the people who run them is often hypocritical, greedy and rank-oriented. But at the root of these crimes is a more insidious, transparent and coherent ideology that is rarely mentioned: totalitarian technocracy. As Silicon Valley's most influential companies grow, this ideology becomes stronger, more moralistic, more insidious and, in the face of mounting criticism, more hostile.
These new technocrats led a movement that was arrogantly committed to the values of the Enlightenment (reason, progress, freedom) but that was actually undemocratic and illiberal. Many of them claim to unconditionally support freedom of expression, but they take revenge on those who say what they don't like. They have eccentric beliefs: technological progress in any form is unconditionally and inherently good; That you should always build because you can; that, regardless of data quality, a smooth flow of information is of great value; This privacy is an old concept; That we have to accept the day when artificial intelligence surpasses us. And, above all, its power should be unlimited. The systems they have built or are building (to reimagine relationships, reinvent human social networks, integrate artificial intelligence into everyday life, and more) impose these beliefs on an uninformed and typically uninformed public. All this and yet they try to perpetuate the absurd myth that they are villains.
Comparisons between Silicon Valley and Wall Street or Washington, DC are common, and you can see why: They are all centers of power and magnets for people whose interests transcend humanity. But Silicon Valley's influence goes far beyond Wall Street and Washington. Government is shaping society better than any other center of power, perhaps since the New Deal era. Many Americans worry about the rise of tyranny among MAGA Republicans, but they risk overlooking another force emerging from illiberalism: ruthless, omnipotent tech bosses.
The Shakespearean drama that unfolded at OpenAI late last year highlighted how poorly Facebook's "move fast and kill" mentality is celebrated in Silicon Valley. OpenAI was founded in 2015, it is a non-profit organization committed to bringing artificial intelligence to the world in a way that serves the public good. Its creation is based on the belief that technology is too powerful and dangerous to be developed solely for commercial reasons.
But in 2019, when the speed of technology began to scare even the people who worked in it, the company added a dividend division to raise more capital. Microsoft initially invested $1 billion, then billions. Then last fall, the company's CEO, Sam Altman, was fired and then quickly rehired, a surprising turn of events that signaled the erosion of the protections OpenAI had previously put in place for the company's assets. Those who loved Altman believed he prioritized speed of growth over security. But Microsoft's response—an offer to bring in Altman and everyone else at OpenAI to rebuild the team—sparked a hate game that led to Altman's reinstatement. The whole thing was complicated, and Altman may have been the right man for the job, but the message was clear: The quest for scale and profits decisively outweighed concerns about public safety and accountability.
Silicon Valley continues to attract incredibly talented people who strive to succeed and achieve the best version of a more connected and information-rich global society. Even the most complicated companies have developed great tools. But these tools are control systems and highly deceptive. They promise community but sow division; He speaks the truth and spreads lies; Wrap it all up in concepts like empowerment and freedom, but look at us relentlessly. The winning values are those that take away our agency and make us addicted to food.
The theoretical promises of AI are as impressive as social media projects once were, and the architects behind them are equally impressive. AI can really cure many diseases. This could really revolutionize science and bring lost knowledge to light. With the exception of Silicon Valley, which, through the power of violent technological pressures, largely adheres to predetermined guidelines and monopolizes social media. Open AI, Microsoft, Google and other companies leading the development of AI are not focused on the needs of the population and the ecosystem at large, and certainly do not operate with any level of transparency and consideration. Instead, they rush to build quickly and increase profitability.
None of this would have been possible without the underlying philosophy of technocratic inevitability, that is, the idea that if you can build something new, you should do it. "In a well-functioning world, I think this should be a government project," Altman told my colleague Ross Anderson last year, referring to OpenAI's efforts to develop artificial general intelligence. But Altman himself continues to build. Or as Zuckerberg told the New Yorker a few years ago: "Are big social networks inevitable?"... If we don't do it, someone else will.
Technocracy first emerged as a political ideology after World War I among a small group of scientists and engineers in New York City who sought a new social structure to replace the representative democracy that gave control to a technological elite. Although his movement failed politically, the people ultimately supported President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose a New Deal, more intellectually successful and which entered the zeitgeist with a modernism in art and literature that shared some of its values. American poet Ezra Pound's modern slogan, "Make it new," could easily serve as a mantra for technocrats. A parallel movement was the Italian Futurist movement, led by poets such as the poet FT Marinetti, who used slogans such as "March, not creating" and "Creation, not contemplation."
The spirit of technocrats and futurists is selfish. In a 1929 speech, Marinetti said: "We are not content to wander in parks surrounded by dark cypresses and depend on ruins and trifles." "We believe that the only important tradition in Italy is to have no culture" The leading futurists turned their passion for technology, action and speed into fascism. Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto (1909) was followed by the Fascist Manifesto (1919). His friend Pound was fascinated by Benito Mussolini and worked with the regime to produce a radio program in which the poet promoted fascism, discussed Mein Kampf , and praised Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The shift from futurism to fascism was not inevitable (many of Pound's friends feared him or thought he was crazy), but it does show how a cultural movement emerged in a time of social unrest, in opposition to culture and hostility to history. . It could be a political ideology.
In October, venture capitalist and technocrat Marc Andreessen posted a 5,000-word stream of consciousness document on his company's website that he called "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto," a 5,000-word ideological mishmash that reminds us and pays special respect to Italian culture. futuristic In addition to being one of Silicon Valley's most influential billionaire investors, Marinette Andresen is headstrong and thin-skinned, and despite her optimism on the subject, the essay seems to stem in part from her disdain for him and the technology he possesses. The advanced predecessors were not "highly respected." It is a revealing document that reflects the worldview that he and other technocrats hold.
Andreessen writes that there are no real problems "that cannot be solved with more technology," including those caused by technology. He wrote that technology not only always improves, but must accelerate its progress "so that the growth of technological capital continues forever." And he intensified what he called a campaign against technology under the names of "technological ethics" and "existential risk."
Or take what might be called the Apostles' Creed from his first political movement:
We believe that to achieve both, we must put intelligence and energy into a positive feedback loop.We believe in adventure. Embark on a hero's journey, rebel against the status quo, explore new kingdoms, defeat dragons and bring loot to our society...
We believe in nature, but we believe in the victory of nature. We are not an ancient people who fear lightning. We are great predators; Lightning is good for us.
Andreessen identified several "patron saints" of the movement, including Marinetti. Citing the Futurist Manifesto, he replaced Marintin's "poetry" with "technology."
Beauty only exists in conflict. There is no masterpiece without a violent character. Technology must force people to submit to a powerful attack from unknown forces.
To be clear: the Andreessen Manifesto is not a fascist document, but an extremist one. He takes a sensible position: technology has greatly improved human life in general, and he comes to the absurd conclusion that any attempt to limit technological progress is, in any case, reprehensible. This supposedly irrational stance only makes sense from a religious perspective, but in practice it serves to free him and other Silicon Valley titans from any moral or civil obligation to innovate without compensation to create things that make them rich. . Social or historical costs. Andresen identified a list of enemies and "zombie ideas" that he asked his followers to combat, including "institutions" and "cultures."
Andresen writes: "Our enemy is the worldview of cunning professionals who embrace abstract and omniscient theories, excessive beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, cunning, ineligible and irresponsible, playing God with other people." "life. In complete isolation from the consequences."
Interestingly, this picture is very similar to that of Andreessen and other Silicon Valley academics. The world they have created over the past two decades is undoubtedly a ruthless social manipulation, whose architects are of no consequence, imposing their abstract theories and outlandish beliefs on the rest of us.
Some of the personal principles that Andresen lays out in his manifesto are anodyne. But his absolute radicalism should inspire clear thinking in terms of his dignity and power. Key Silicon Valley figures, including Musk, have taken a more open approach in recent years. In 2020, Donald Trump's share of the Silicon Valley vote was 23 percent, a slight increase from his 20 percent share in 2016.
The main danger of today's authoritarian technocracy is not political, at least not in the traditional sense. But a few have more or less authoritarian control over establishing the rules and cultural norms of the digital world, which can be as powerful as political power.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation about the dangers of the coming technocracy. "While we must respect scientific research and discoveries, we must recognize the equal and opposite danger that public policy itself can become a prisoner of the scientific and technological elite," he said. By shaping, balancing and integrating these and other new and old forces within the principles of our democratic system, always with the goal of achieving the highest goals of our free society.
Eight years later, in 1993, the country's first computer connected to the ARPANET, the precursor to the World Wide Web, became commercially available. At that time, Silicon Valley was considered a utopia for capitalists and optimists with original ideas who wanted to change the world at the speed of the Internet (at that time 14.4 kilobits per second). This culture was initially flawed, but it led to the creation of hardware and software that was uniquely American in a rich, transformative, and sometimes beautiful way.
I've long leaned toward the Andreessen spectrum when it comes to technology regulation. I believe that social media can still be innocent and that, given enough time, the values that best serve the public good will continue to prevail. I rejected the idea that it is necessary to control social media, because I did not believe (and still do not believe) that governments can do so without harming themselves (including European models of control, such as the so-called right to be forgotten). ). ). conflict with the protection of freedom of the press in the United States and endanger the public's right to information). I prefer to see market competition as a force for technical progress and social progress.
But in recent years, especially with the growth of technocracy, it has become clear that regulation is necessary, as Silicon Valley executives have shown that they do not work to protect the interests of society. Much work needs to be done to protect children from the dangers of social media, end monopolies and oligopolies that harm society, and more. At the same time, I believe that regulations alone will not be enough to overcome the cultural collapse promoted by the new technocrats.
Universities must regain their leadership in the development of technologies that change the world for the benefit of humanity. (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT could invest in forming a consortium for such an effort; their combined endowment is about $110 billion.)
Individuals must also lead. You may not be able to completely quit social media or opt out of workplace monitoring software, or maybe you just don't want to opt out of these things at all. But the expression of ideas has great power, and we can all start doing it, for ourselves; to our true and true network of friends; For our school; Our place of worship. We would do well to develop more sophisticated shared norms for discussing and determining how we use invasive technologies among people and our society. This should include apps and app articles and UTOB in class, teens' smartphones, and the challenging existing laws on individual personality. People who believe we all deserve it should act to promote these efforts.
Our children are not a database to measure, track and sell. Our scholarship is not limited to the AI training module to imitate us and pretend to imitate us. Our lives are not corrected by the screw - they must not be corrected by the screw - the whole scale, the tree, the swimming, the germ of adventures. We will all be our best selves, without or when we are all driving or failing.
Technology is the key to improving the world. But first we must imagine what we have been, first of all, the problems we want to solve: the values and rights of human dignity, equality, freedom, health and happiness. The leaders of the institutions we represent, both large and small, must look to them to take advantage of the use of individuals and society.
We should not live in the world created by new techniques. We must not get carried away by human humiliation and growing information. Each of us has the freedom to choose.
No more, no more." No additional algorithm is without food bags. The infrastructure is no longer designed to control the small authority and power of the people. We prefer everyday wisdom; For your own use and political purpose, no It is priced and sought after. Don't let it happen to you.
This article appeared in the "Cyrikon Valley Dezpots" title, this article.