The Atlantic's editor-in-chief said of the actions of tech companies, “There is a clear and coherent ideology, but it is rarely pointed out what it is: an authoritarian technocracy. As companies mature, this ideology will only become stronger.” , more self-righteous, more paranoid, and — in the face of mounting criticism — more resentful. ”
The new technocrats ostentatiously use language that appeals to Enlightenment values such as reason, progress, and freedom, but in reality they lead an anti-democratic and illiberal movement. Many of them profess unconditional support for free speech, but are vindictive of anyone who says anything that doesn't flatter them. They tend to hold outlandish beliefs… above all, that their power should not be constrained. The systems they have built, or are building, to rewire communications, reshape human social networks, and infuse artificial intelligence into everyday life are forcing these beliefs on citizens, and citizens are being consulted. and usually no meaningful information is provided. Despite all this, they still try to perpetuate the absurd myth that they are adventurous underdogs.
This article criticizes the words of Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto: adventure… rebel against the status quo, map uncharted territory, conquer dragons, and bring home the spoils for our communities…” (The Atlantic described Mr. Andreessen's position as “his and other “It only serves to absolve the Silicon Valley giants from a moral or ethical point of view.” “Creating new things that enrich themselves without considering social costs or history.'' A citizen's duty to do nothing else. ”)
The article also notes that Andreessen “also identifies a list of enemies or 'zombie ideologies' that he calls on his supporters to defeat, including 'institutions' and 'tradition.'” It is said that But The Atlantic isn't just about Andreessen, it's about other Silicon Valley elites. “The world they have brought to life over the past 20 years is undoubtedly a world of reckless social engineering, in which its architects have no influence whatsoever, and they have brought their own abstract theories and extravagant beliefs to bear on us. I'm forcing it on everyone…”
None of this happens without an underlying technocratic philosophy of necessity: the idea that if we can build something new, we must. “I think for the world to function properly, this should be a government project.” [Sam] Altman mentioned OpenAI's efforts to develop artificial general intelligence to my colleague Ross Andersen last year. But Altman was going to keep building it himself anyway. Or, as Zuckerberg put it to The magazine, new yorker Many years ago I said, “Isn't it inevitable that there will be huge social networks of people?…If we didn't do this, someone else would have done it.”
The article includes this damning chat log from a 2004 conversation Zuckerberg had with a friend.
Zuckerberg: If you want information about someone at Harvard.
Zuckerberg: Listen.
Mr. Zuckerberg: Over 4,000 emails, photos, addresses, and social media
Friend: Huh? How did you manage that?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They 'trust me'
Zuckerberg: Damn it.
But the article also reminds us that in Facebook's early days, “Zuckerberg listed 'revolution' among his interests.”
The main danger of authoritarian technocracy is not, at present, political, at least not in the traditional sense. Still, a select few already have more or less authoritarian control over establishing the rules and cultural norms of the digital world, which can become as powerful as political power. …
[I]In recent years, it has become clear that regulation is necessary. Especially since the rise of technocracy proves that Silicon Valley's leaders do not act in the public interest. Much should be done to protect children from the dangers of social media and break up the monopolies and oligopolies that harm society. At the same time, I believe that regulation alone will not be enough to meaningfully address the cultural corruption that the new technocrats are spreading. …We don't have to live in a world that new technocrats are designing for us. We do not have to sit back and accept their growing projects of dehumanization and data mining. Each of us has independence.
We no longer say, “We build because we can.” No more algorithmic feedback. We no longer need infrastructure designed to make people less powerful and those in power more dominant. We vote with care every day. It is precious and coveted by those who would use it against us for their own gain or political purposes. Please don't let me.
- The article specifically aims to “challenge existing norms around the use of apps and YouTube in the classroom, the proliferation of smartphones in the hands of young people, and the widespread disregard for personal privacy. We all “Those who believe that we have a right to better will need to step up to lead such efforts.” . ”
- “Universities should reclaim their proper place as leaders in developing world-changing technologies for the benefit of humanity.” (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT have invested in establishing a consortium for such an effort. (The combined endowments are worth about $110 billion.)