This article appeared in an article in today's newsletter. Register here .
If you want to capture the dominant ideology of Silicon Valley in an anecdote, you might first turn to Mark Zuckerberg, nearly twenty years ago, sitting in the blue light of his computer chatting with a friend about his new site, Facebook. . Your colleagues have provided access to a lot of personal information about students:
Zuckerberg: Yes, if you need information from someone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Just ask.
Zuckerberg: I have more than 4000 emails, photos, addresses, social networks
friend that? How did you handle it?
Zuckerberg: People just turned it on.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They trust me
Zuckerberg: stupid ass.
That conversation, later revealed by leaked tapes, was followed by another high-profile but equally important one. At a now-famous Christmas party in 2007, Zuckerberg met Sheryl Sandberg, his future chief operating officer, who, along with Zuckerberg, would transform the platform into an imperial digital superpower. There, Zuckerberg, who inspired the "business 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 a colleague she was "put on this planet to grow the organization," it turned out to be the perfect mission.
Facebook (now Meta) has become an avatar of everything that is wrong with Silicon Valley. Their selfish role in spreading global confusion creates an ongoing crisis. We also remember the company's secret mood manipulation experiment in 2012, which deliberately changed what users saw in their news feed to measure how Facebook could affect people's moods without their knowledge. Or his involvement in inciting the 2017 Myanmar genocide. Or using it as a club to plan and execute the January 6, 2021 uprising. (In Facebook's early days, Zuckerberg listed "revolution" among his interests at the time , he had a business card printed with I'm CEO BITCH .)
To a large extent, however, Facebook's way of doing business remains the standard for the tech industry as a whole, even as other social platforms (TikTok) and technological developments (artificial intelligence) have overtaken Facebook in relevant cultural fields. .
Worshiping at the altar on a grand scale and convincing yourself that you have to make world-historical decisions on behalf of a global citizenry that didn't elect you and can't share your values or lack of values is all you have to do. to do without. Lots of imperfections with humility and subtlety. Many titans of Silicon Valley have made this commitment time and time again. YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram (owned by Meta) and Twitter (which Elon Musk insists on calling X) have been as damaging to individual rights, civil society and global democracy as Facebook. Given the way generative AI is currently evolving in Silicon Valley, we should be prepared for these losses to multiply in the coming years.
The behavior of these companies and those who run them is often hypocritical, greedy and status-obsessed. But behind this revenge lurks something more dangerous, which rarely questions what is a clear and coherent ideology: an authoritarian technocracy. As Silicon Valley's most powerful companies have matured, this ideology has become stronger, more hypocritical, more delusional and, in the face of growing criticism, more offensive.
The new technocrats use a language that appeals to Enlightenment values (reason, progress, freedom), but in reality they lead a democratic and liberal movement. Many of them claim to unconditionally support freedom of expression, but are vindictive against those who say things that do not flatter them. They have strange beliefs: that technological progress of any kind is unconditionally and inherently good; You should always build it, just because you can; that frictionless data flow is the highest value, regardless of data quality; That privacy is an old concept; We should welcome the day when artificial intelligence will surpass us. And, above all, his power is unlimited. The systems they have built (or are building) to restore communications, reshape human social networks, introduce artificial intelligence into everyday life, etc. - impose these beliefs on the public, who are generally not consulted or informed in a meaningful way. All this, and they still try to perpetuate the absurd myth that they are unfavorable boasters.
Comparisons between Silicon Valley and Wall Street or Washington, DC are common, and you can understand why: They're all centers of power, and they all attract people whose ambitions often exceed their humanity. But Silicon Valley's influence goes beyond Wall Street and Washington. It is reshaping society more profoundly than any center of power in any era, perhaps since the New Deal. Many Americans worry about the rise of authoritarianism among MAGA Republicans, but they risk overlooking another growing force in liberalism: the ultra-powerful, crisis-prone tech magnates. outrage
The Shakespeare play that took place late last year at OpenAI highlights how internalized and celebrated Facebook's worst: "move fast and break things" mentality is in Silicon Valley. OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a non-profit organization committed to bringing general artificial intelligence to the world in a way that serves the public good. Behind his upbringing was the belief that technology was too powerful and dangerous to be developed solely for commercial reasons.
But in 2019, when the technology began to surprise even the people working on it with how fast it was advancing, the company added an arm of leverage to raise more capital. Microsoft first invested $1 billion and then several billion more. Then, last fall, the company's CEO, Sam Altman, was fired and then quickly rehired, in a whiplash show that signaled the dismantling of OpenAI's previously established safeguards against the company's overlaps with the country. Those who wanted Altman to resign believed that he had placed too much emphasis on the pace of development rather than on defense. But Microsoft's response, offering to bring in Altman from OpenAI and someone else to restructure his team there, sparked a game of chicken 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 desire for scale and profits outweighed concerns about public safety and accountability.
Silicon Valley continues to attract many talented people who strive to do good and work to create the best possible version of a more connected and data-rich global society. Even the most disruptive companies have created great tools. But these tools are also, to a large extent, systems of manipulation and control. They promise community but sow division; They say they stand for the truth but spread lies; They wrap themselves in ideas like empowerment and freedom, but keep us under constant surveillance. Dominant values take away our free will and keep us dependent on food.
The theoretical promise of artificial intelligence is as promising as social media and as dazzling as the projects of its most biased architects. In fact, artificial intelligence can cure many diseases. It can truly transform knowledge and bring lost knowledge to light. Moreover, Silicon Valley, under the influence of its worst technocratic impulses, is pursuing a determined agenda of large-scale social network development and monopolization. OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and other companies at the forefront of AI development are not focusing on the most important epistemological or public needs and certainly not acting with transparency or care. Instead, they are engaged in a race to build quickly and maximize profits.
None of this happens without a technocratic philosophy of inevitability, that is, the idea that if you can create something new, you should. "In a properly functioning world, I think this should be a government project," Altman told my colleague Ross Andersen last year, referring to OpenAI's efforts to develop general artificial intelligence. But Altman would go on to do it himself. Or, as Zuckerberg told the New Yorker many years ago: "Isn't it inevitable that people will have a big social network?" ...If we didn't do it, someone else would.
Technocracy developed as a political ideology after World War I , among a small group of New York scientists and engineers who sought a new social structure to replace representative democracy, led by a technological elite. Although his movement failed politically (people opposed President Franklin D. He began to appreciate Roosevelt's New Deal more: it was more intellectually successful and entered the zeitgeist, as well as modernism in art and literature, which shared some of the values American poet Ezra Pound's modernist slogan, "Make it new," could easily serve as a mantra for technocrats. A parallel movement was that of the Italian Futurists, led by figures such as the poet FT Marinetti, who used mottos like "walk, don't mold" and "create, don't think."
The principle of the technocrats and futurists was action itself. In a 1929 speech, Marinetti said, "We are not content to wander through gardens surrounded by dark cypresses, bent over ruins and moss-covered antiquities." Prominent futurists capitalized on his enthusiasm for technology, action, and movement, eventually transforming them into fascism. Marinetti followed the Futurist Manifesto (1909) with the Fascist Manifesto (1919). His friend Pound was attracted to Benito Mussolini and his regime. He collaborated to present a radio program where the poet promoted fascism, spoke of Mein Kampf and praised Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The evolution from futurism to fascism was not inevitable: many of Pound's friends began to fear him, or felt that But it shows how, in times of social upheaval, a cultural movement based on a radical rejection of tradition and history , tinged with discontent, can become a political ideology.
In October, Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and technocrat, published on his company's website an awareness document he called the "Techno-Optimist Manifesto," a 5,000-word ideological cocktail that is surprisingly reminiscent and worthy of the Italian. the leaders of the Futurists like Marinetti. Andresen, one of Silicon Valley's most influential billionaire investors, is known for his stubborn, thin skin and appeals to optimism in the title, the essay seems to be partly inspired by his feelings of annoyance with the technologies used. He. And his ancestors have progressed and are no longer "very glorious." It is a document from the editor, a representative of the world that he and his colleague are held by the technocrats.
Andresen writes that "there is no hardware problem with technology" that cannot be solved with "more technology" and that technology must not only advance but accelerate its progress "to ensure the upward spiral of technocapital." .
Or one might consider the apostles' beliefs of their emerging political movements:
We believe in the ring of intelligence and energy to generate a positive feedback and take both to infinity...We believe in adventure. The hero's journey begins, rebel against the stability, map the unknown region, conquer the dragons and plunder our community...
We believe in nature, but we also believe in nature. We are not primitive to fear storms. We are great hunters; Lightning works for us.
Andresen has identified several "patron saints" of his movement, including Marinity. He quotes the Futurist Manifesto replacing Marinette's "Poem" with "Technology":
Beauty exists only in war. There is no masterpiece that does not have an aggressive character. Technology must be a violent attack against unknown forces, they must bow to people.
Let's be clear that Andresen's announcement is not a fascist document, but an extremist document. It takes a reasonable position: that technology, in general, has greatly improved human life and twists it to unreasonable conclusions, which is an attempt to hinder technical development, regardless of the situation. This position is considered without penalty, only as a religious suffix and in reality only serves to abandon him, like other giants of Silicon Valley, for moral and civic duties. Make them rich regardless of social costs or history. Andresen also identifies a list of enemies and "zombie ideas" and calls on his followers to defeat "institutions" and "traditions."
"Our enemy," writes Andresen, "abstract theory, fancy beliefs, social engineering, isolated from the real world, deceitful, inexperienced and irresponsible, experts involved in playing God with everyone's life.
The joke is that this description fits Andresen and other Silicon Valley elites very well. The world they have created over the last two decades is, without a doubt, reckless social engineering for its architects, who impose their abstract theories and beliefs on us for the luxury of all.
Andresen is somewhat vague about the various principles that are proposed in his announcement. But in the context of their overall fundamentalism, their position and their power, they must stand. Important people in Silicon Valley, including Masks, have clearly aligned themselves with liberal ideas in recent years. In 2020, Donald Trump's share of the Silicon Valley vote was 23%: down from more than 20% in 2016.
The main dangers of authoritarian technocracy are not political at the moment, at least not in the traditional sense. However, for establishing the cultural rules and regulations of the digital world, there is already one of the most favorable authoritarian controls, which can be as strong as political power.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight warned the nation of the danger of impending technocracy. "In the case of scientific research and invention, we must," he said, "beware of the opposite danger that public policy itself may become a scientific and technical captive. Our democratic aims point to the higher aims of our free society The principles of the system depend on the state of the structure, the balance and integration of other old and new forces.
Eight years later, the country's first computers were connected to the Arpanet, which was the forerunner of the World Wide Web, which became widely available in 1993. At the time, Silicon Valley was considered a utopia for ambitious and optimistic capitalist inventors. have the main ideas. . Change the world at the speed of the Internet (at the time 14.4 kilobits), freeing yourself from bureaucracy or legacy. This culture had its flaws at the beginning of this culture, but it was imaginative in a uniquely American way and became converted, sometimes even breathing beautiful hardware and software.
For a long time I tended to be more Andresson in controlling technology. He believed that the social network could still be a good network and that, over time, the values that best served the public interest would naturally dominate. I resist this idea that it is necessary to control the social network because I am not sure (and still am not sure) that the government can do this without harming (the model European regulatory structure, the so-called laws by law, deeply contrary to protecting the freedom of journalism in the United States and endangering people's right to information). I would like to see market competition as a force for technical and social improvement.
But in recent years it has become clear that control is necessary, not least because the technocracy demonstrates that Silicon Valley leaders will not work in the best interests of the people. Protect children from the dangers of social networks, break with the exclusion and oligophate that harms society and do more. At the same time, I believe that the only control of cultural digestion that the new technocrats have effectively assumed will not be enough to control it alone.
Universities must restore their leadership position in the development of world-changing technologies for the benefit of humanity. (Harvard, Stanford, and MIT could invest in creating a consortium for such an effort: their grants are collectively worth about $110 billion.)
People must also lead the way. You may not be able to completely opt out of social media or opt out of using your workplace monitoring software; You won't even want to leave those things. But the ideal has the extraordinary ability to define, and we can all begin to do this for ourselves; Through our networks of true and real friends; For our school; For our temple. It would be wise to create a more sophisticated overall value for discussing and deciding how to use our inter-existing relationships and how to use aggressive technologies in our community. These should include using apps and YouTube in the classroom, keeping the smartphone out of the hands of teenagers and challenging existing rules on personal privacy. Those who believe we all deserve better must step forward to lead this effort.
Our children are not a data set that they cut, track and sell. Our intellectual output is not an ordinary artificial intelligence training manual that will serve to imitate and steal from us. Our lives are not designed to be optimized through a screen, but to survive all our mess, tree climbing, night swimming and adventurous glory. When we're not tweeting, liking, or moving, moving, moving, we're better versions of ourselves.
The technocrats are right that technology is the key to making the world a better place. But first we must describe the world the way we want it: the problems we want to solve for the public interest and the values and rights that promote people's dignity, freedom, privacy, health and happiness. And we must emphasize that organizational leaders represent us—big and small—by using technology in a way that reflects what is good for individuals and society, not just to enrich technocrats.
We should not be in the world that the new technocrats have created for us. We certainly will not accept their inhumanity and their growing data mining projects. Each of us has an independent desire.
And "don't take it because we can." There is no algorithmic return. There is no other infrastructure designed to control the less powerful and stronger people. Every day we vote with our attention; It is worth it and is desperately needed by those who want to use it against us for their own political gains and objectives. Don't let him do it.
This article appears in the March 2024 print edition under the headline The Despots of Silicon Valley.
