Poor Marc, such a victim of his own success. I’ve seen him speak live, and it was clear from listening to him that he was very out of touch with reality. He was insightful on technology, and he definitely had a good understanding of business, but I had a feeling this was somebody who did great things long ago and has been coasting on their reputation and their money ever since. I wonder if in his personal life anyone ever tells him he's wrong or pushes back on him.
The problem is once you have enough “moats” of capital and connections and all that, you get to keep on holding power and directing power. You get to make the next generation of startups. It’s a flaw in our system that these people get to steer society the way they do.
Sometimes we trust the wrong people, sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes the wrong people luck into incredible wealth and downstream power from said wealth. Most of life is luck. It is a gift when someone shows us who they are, removing any doubt or ambiguity.
Investors are rarely boycotted, deposed, or otherwise held accountable for their actions. It is advantageous to adopt whatever philosophical position absolves them of any guilt or responsibility since there is no benefit to having morals, or even signaling them. Of course he thinks this.
I also disagree with the other poster, the manifesto he wrote is remarkably repetitive and not insightful at all.
How much money would you need to stand to gain in exchange for your brain being atrophied this much? I don’t think there’s any amount where it makes sense…
Interesting thing to tell people - this means any change of heart or apology from Marc should be viewed purely through a cold realist self interest lens and not be afforded any of the trappings of humanity.
20+ years ago, when Marc was only famous for Mosaic and Netscape, not being VC, in the Materials Research Lab at UIUC, there was a form, hand-filled in by Marc, with his picture taped on, from when he started working at MRL, or maybe at NCSA as a student. It was on a bulletin board in a glass display case in the hall where department announcements would go, or recent research papers.
The form had various entries like "favorite food" that are common when you join a team.
The only answer I remember was that under "favorite saying", he answered: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy". It stuck with me.
Everytime I see or hear about him, I remember that. Doubly so when I see this article.
I've always wondered if that's still there, hanging in that display case.
> According to Chater, our minds can only do one thing at a time — that is, that we cannot have two thoughts at once, and the idea that we can is an illusion.
On a pure neurological basis, this is just untrue. It's well-established in research that the brain is massively parallel and one of the main differences between it and a digital computer is that it is doing a lot of different things all at once, not switching between different things quickly.
(For the papers, I'm not necessarily advocating for their conclusions, but they're a good jumping-off point to see all the things they cite, which shows a consensus about how the brain works neurologically.)
I suppose that doesn't mean that our conscious cognition must also be parallel, but there's not really a lot of good reason to assume it _wouldn't_ be, other than that it fits Chater's position.
Interesting how a person who wrote something as thoughtful as The Techno-Optimist Manifesto could hold views like these at the same time. Whether you agree with the manifesto or not, Andreessen has achieved a rare level of insight that can only come through serious introspection about society, and then he denies the existence of introspection outright.
I guess the level of open-mindedness needed to become a successful tech entrepreneur also enabled that same cohort to consider extremely counter-intuitive ideas - the ones that would have been immediately dismissed by most.
Much simpler. Those in power, in every place and in every time, adopt self-serving beliefs that justify their place as the ones in power and flatter themselves. No different in any day or any time. Same quasi-messianic ideals as ever. Their beliefs don’t have to pay rent or correspond with reality.
This thing where [person good in one thing] thinks they are great in [all the things] is so, so stupid. And the blame is to it's inner circle who are just yes-folks saying yeah to all the things. Sure you don't introspect! Definitely not in the interviews where your think back on your Netscape times and what you could have done better! There are plenty of episodes on that! Sure introspection is a new thing! Definitely Marcus Aurelius, Seneca or Epictetus mentioned anything of the sorts!
I would have never thought it would be possible to wage a war against introspection and make a claim that self-introspection was concocted in the 1820s. It's just patently bizarre.
To claim that Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Galileo, Kong Qiu, and the countless other poets, authors, philosophers, and just general people didn't self-introspect until it was artificially introduced in the 1820s is just flat out mental illness.
I have actively told recruiters that tout this guy and his VC firm as a positive that it is indeed not and that I have no interested in working for a place in which he is involved.
It's also bizarre that he's developed a sort of tick that seems like he's breathing in his own smell and breath.
From the crew that ruined tech investing with VC bubbles, commandeered innovation to make a surveillance state, sold out the middle class to H1B and DEI, politicized tech media, then laid everyone off.
I think when Andreessen said “long-term memory is mostly fake” he probably meant that we fabricate a lot of our memories, not that it’s impossible for a human to ever remember something. The author could keep in mind the principle of charity.
I wonder if this lack of interiority is a common trait amongst the most economically successful. I wouldn’t be surprised. The less introspection I do the more I end up optimizing for wealth, it’s pretty much the default in our society unless you consciously pick something else.
Poor Marc, such a victim of his own success. I’ve seen him speak live, and it was clear from listening to him that he was very out of touch with reality. He was insightful on technology, and he definitely had a good understanding of business, but I had a feeling this was somebody who did great things long ago and has been coasting on their reputation and their money ever since. I wonder if in his personal life anyone ever tells him he's wrong or pushes back on him.
The problem is once you have enough “moats” of capital and connections and all that, you get to keep on holding power and directing power. You get to make the next generation of startups. It’s a flaw in our system that these people get to steer society the way they do.
Sometimes we trust the wrong people, sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes the wrong people luck into incredible wealth and downstream power from said wealth. Most of life is luck. It is a gift when someone shows us who they are, removing any doubt or ambiguity.
Investors are rarely boycotted, deposed, or otherwise held accountable for their actions. It is advantageous to adopt whatever philosophical position absolves them of any guilt or responsibility since there is no benefit to having morals, or even signaling them. Of course he thinks this.
I also disagree with the other poster, the manifesto he wrote is remarkably repetitive and not insightful at all.
How much money would you need to stand to gain in exchange for your brain being atrophied this much? I don’t think there’s any amount where it makes sense…
https://archive.is/FjFtH
Interesting thing to tell people - this means any change of heart or apology from Marc should be viewed purely through a cold realist self interest lens and not be afforded any of the trappings of humanity.
Don’t anthropomorphise the lawnmower indeed.
20+ years ago, when Marc was only famous for Mosaic and Netscape, not being VC, in the Materials Research Lab at UIUC, there was a form, hand-filled in by Marc, with his picture taped on, from when he started working at MRL, or maybe at NCSA as a student. It was on a bulletin board in a glass display case in the hall where department announcements would go, or recent research papers.
The form had various entries like "favorite food" that are common when you join a team.
The only answer I remember was that under "favorite saying", he answered: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy". It stuck with me.
Everytime I see or hear about him, I remember that. Doubly so when I see this article.
I've always wondered if that's still there, hanging in that display case.
Maybe he was a fan of the Dr. Demento show which played the song quite a bit?
https://www.discogs.com/release/7897134-Randy-Hanzlick-MD-Dr...
> According to Chater, our minds can only do one thing at a time — that is, that we cannot have two thoughts at once, and the idea that we can is an illusion.
On a pure neurological basis, this is just untrue. It's well-established in research that the brain is massively parallel and one of the main differences between it and a digital computer is that it is doing a lot of different things all at once, not switching between different things quickly.
Here are some references:
[0] https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/1946/differen... (good lay explanation) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4387515/ [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/parallel-p... [3] https://esmed.org/parallel-processing-in-problem-solving-a-n...
(For the papers, I'm not necessarily advocating for their conclusions, but they're a good jumping-off point to see all the things they cite, which shows a consensus about how the brain works neurologically.)
I suppose that doesn't mean that our conscious cognition must also be parallel, but there's not really a lot of good reason to assume it _wouldn't_ be, other than that it fits Chater's position.
Interesting how a person who wrote something as thoughtful as The Techno-Optimist Manifesto could hold views like these at the same time. Whether you agree with the manifesto or not, Andreessen has achieved a rare level of insight that can only come through serious introspection about society, and then he denies the existence of introspection outright.
I guess the level of open-mindedness needed to become a successful tech entrepreneur also enabled that same cohort to consider extremely counter-intuitive ideas - the ones that would have been immediately dismissed by most.
Much simpler. Those in power, in every place and in every time, adopt self-serving beliefs that justify their place as the ones in power and flatter themselves. No different in any day or any time. Same quasi-messianic ideals as ever. Their beliefs don’t have to pay rent or correspond with reality.
I think taxes is a way to make someone thoughtful and self-introspective.
forrest gump with better luck
He did come up with the img tag, without which the web would have been gopher.
There's ample reason to dislike him without claiming that he hasn't done anything real.
This thing where [person good in one thing] thinks they are great in [all the things] is so, so stupid. And the blame is to it's inner circle who are just yes-folks saying yeah to all the things. Sure you don't introspect! Definitely not in the interviews where your think back on your Netscape times and what you could have done better! There are plenty of episodes on that! Sure introspection is a new thing! Definitely Marcus Aurelius, Seneca or Epictetus mentioned anything of the sorts!
Andreessen is literally brainrot.
I would have never thought it would be possible to wage a war against introspection and make a claim that self-introspection was concocted in the 1820s. It's just patently bizarre.
To claim that Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Galileo, Kong Qiu, and the countless other poets, authors, philosophers, and just general people didn't self-introspect until it was artificially introduced in the 1820s is just flat out mental illness.
I have actively told recruiters that tout this guy and his VC firm as a positive that it is indeed not and that I have no interested in working for a place in which he is involved.
It's also bizarre that he's developed a sort of tick that seems like he's breathing in his own smell and breath.
From the crew that ruined tech investing with VC bubbles, commandeered innovation to make a surveillance state, sold out the middle class to H1B and DEI, politicized tech media, then laid everyone off.
I don’t think I like that guy
he simply revealed himself, but we all knew
I think when Andreessen said “long-term memory is mostly fake” he probably meant that we fabricate a lot of our memories, not that it’s impossible for a human to ever remember something. The author could keep in mind the principle of charity.
I wonder if this lack of interiority is a common trait amongst the most economically successful. I wouldn’t be surprised. The less introspection I do the more I end up optimizing for wealth, it’s pretty much the default in our society unless you consciously pick something else.