EA as Antichrist: Understanding Peter Thiel(forum.effectivealtruism.org)
forum.effectivealtruism.org
EA as Antichrist: Understanding Peter Thiel
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hGwAohPbwCrDT5ynY/ea-as-antichrist-understanding-peter-thiel
43 comments
Thiel spent his formative childhood years in apartheid South Africa, and it seems to have informed his world view ever since.
Don’t forget the stint living in a Namibian city full of Germans who idolized Nazi ideology and Hitler when he was a young boy, Swakopmund.
> Swakopmund was known for its continued glorification of Nazism after World War II, including the celebration of Hitler's birthday and "Heil Hitler" Nazi salutes given by residents.[13][14] In 1976, The New York Times quoted a German working in a Swakopmund hotel who described the city as "more German than Germany".[14] As of the 1980s, Nazi paraphernalia was available to buy in shops.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swakopmund
> Swakopmund was known for its continued glorification of Nazism after World War II, including the celebration of Hitler's birthday and "Heil Hitler" Nazi salutes given by residents.[13][14] In 1976, The New York Times quoted a German working in a Swakopmund hotel who described the city as "more German than Germany".[14] As of the 1980s, Nazi paraphernalia was available to buy in shops.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swakopmund
What about all the other formative times in his life? If you live in South Africa that’s the last word on your world view?
It isn't required to be. It just appears to have happened that way.
Or maybe that’s just a piece of information they think is perceived poorly and want to discredit without addressing arguments.
This is a very complicated subject but in the real world, argument from authority is in fact a useful metric because we don't have time to fully analyze everything we come into contact with.
It's theoretically possible that Donald Trump is correct about something, but it's certainly not worth the time it would take to filter out all the incorrect bits.
It's theoretically possible that Donald Trump is correct about something, but it's certainly not worth the time it would take to filter out all the incorrect bits.
I’m not saying reputation doesn’t exist. I’m questioning how much his time in South Africa is influential compared to all the other influential experiences he writes about.
I think this comment wants to say he’s some form of he’s a racist or authoritarian but in more concealed terms.
Name calling (the lowest form of discourse) is still name calling even when disguised.
> It's theoretically possible that Donald Trump is correct about something
Hmm.
I think this comment wants to say he’s some form of he’s a racist or authoritarian but in more concealed terms.
Name calling (the lowest form of discourse) is still name calling even when disguised.
> It's theoretically possible that Donald Trump is correct about something
Hmm.
Why are you casting it only in material terms? Freedom and a good life is also what other people want. Rich people don’t fight over cars, they fight over Harvard acceptance for their kids, or play in the Olympics, etc.
Our political system is built on coalitions fighting for things for their groups: credentials for jobs, taxes for projects, space for their people and families, status in community.
When the supply of those things becomes fixed it’s a zero sum fight for what’s left. You can’t lose without another side winning.
The point is that growth alleviates the bitterness because there is a belief that in the future there will be more and I will have a chance to get what I want. When that belief goes away power is the only game in town - and that tends to manifest as violence.
Our political system is built on coalitions fighting for things for their groups: credentials for jobs, taxes for projects, space for their people and families, status in community.
When the supply of those things becomes fixed it’s a zero sum fight for what’s left. You can’t lose without another side winning.
The point is that growth alleviates the bitterness because there is a belief that in the future there will be more and I will have a chance to get what I want. When that belief goes away power is the only game in town - and that tends to manifest as violence.
Except that is not how it has played out. In science fiction, there are competing views of the future.
One view of the future is like Star Trek, where people’s needs are easily provided for by technological advancements, and people spend their lives on advancing human understanding at a species level. In other words, technology has liberated people from working to provide for their basic needs and enables them to focus on higher ideals.
In other stories, humanity is dominated by technology and a minority of people who wield it.
If you believe in a zero sum game, then try going somewhere like a community fridge, where our agricultural abundance is saved from the garbage by stores who are willing to donate. Or watch as generational wealth provides for people who will never work a day in their lives. Look at the extreme excess of PhD students working jobs far beneath their abilities, and teaching no one. Ask yourself how worker productivity and participation has skyrocketed and homelessness has too.
Zero sum is not the way I see the world. I believe gradients drive economies, but in almost every system, large gradients are unstable. Large gradients inefficiently over-allocate resources to the wrong places and reactionary effects result. That manifests in violence.
One view of the future is like Star Trek, where people’s needs are easily provided for by technological advancements, and people spend their lives on advancing human understanding at a species level. In other words, technology has liberated people from working to provide for their basic needs and enables them to focus on higher ideals.
In other stories, humanity is dominated by technology and a minority of people who wield it.
If you believe in a zero sum game, then try going somewhere like a community fridge, where our agricultural abundance is saved from the garbage by stores who are willing to donate. Or watch as generational wealth provides for people who will never work a day in their lives. Look at the extreme excess of PhD students working jobs far beneath their abilities, and teaching no one. Ask yourself how worker productivity and participation has skyrocketed and homelessness has too.
Zero sum is not the way I see the world. I believe gradients drive economies, but in almost every system, large gradients are unstable. Large gradients inefficiently over-allocate resources to the wrong places and reactionary effects result. That manifests in violence.
All of what you wrote makes some sense. What point are you responding to?
The system you’re describing is one where lives are enriched by this drive away from zero sum, but in my view the one we observe is increasingly described by excess and inefficiency. The middle class is shrinking in the face of technological advances. More people say they no longer expect to do better than their parents. Either the last 40 years have seen no tech progress, or he’s just wrong. It’s worse than zero sum on average, it’s declining economic conditions. It’s full time jobs that used to pay a living wage, but don’t anymore. Even over years of productivity gains (ie away from zero sum, the conditions Thiel says keeps us from violence), a great percentage of the population is losing ground.
Even in your own examples of zero sum, the reality is they are excess-driven. People go to Harvard often by competing for excess which enables contributions above and beyond what is required to pay for education — excess, not academic meritocracy. Many people go to the Olympics because of sufficient excess to spend years practicing bobsledding, not because they’re necessarily the best athletes in the country. We have an abundance of highly paid professionals working jobs they would self describe as “bullshit jobs” (excess).
I’m even saying that I have excess in my own opinion, even though I’m maybe a top 10% earner. And while people are hungry, uneducated and homeless, we have the means to resolve this with existing technology, but we don’t have an economic framework to do it.
In my opinion, the AI race could lift up everyone, or it could create greater excess and inefficiency. I’m pessimistic that recent history is showing it’s the latter.
My original point was just that even in the top 10% of earners (and probably more), violence is a preposterous idea. Seeing my peers excelling whether financially or otherwise is not going to turn me violent. It doesn’t threaten my basic needs or impact my greatest desires, which are to have the freedom to pursue things that I think are important. In my view, the fabric of society is strong when people’s basic needs are not in jeopardy, not resulting from insufficient excess.
Even in your own examples of zero sum, the reality is they are excess-driven. People go to Harvard often by competing for excess which enables contributions above and beyond what is required to pay for education — excess, not academic meritocracy. Many people go to the Olympics because of sufficient excess to spend years practicing bobsledding, not because they’re necessarily the best athletes in the country. We have an abundance of highly paid professionals working jobs they would self describe as “bullshit jobs” (excess).
I’m even saying that I have excess in my own opinion, even though I’m maybe a top 10% earner. And while people are hungry, uneducated and homeless, we have the means to resolve this with existing technology, but we don’t have an economic framework to do it.
In my opinion, the AI race could lift up everyone, or it could create greater excess and inefficiency. I’m pessimistic that recent history is showing it’s the latter.
My original point was just that even in the top 10% of earners (and probably more), violence is a preposterous idea. Seeing my peers excelling whether financially or otherwise is not going to turn me violent. It doesn’t threaten my basic needs or impact my greatest desires, which are to have the freedom to pursue things that I think are important. In my view, the fabric of society is strong when people’s basic needs are not in jeopardy, not resulting from insufficient excess.
Excess exists in the system - in the sense that we have more economic goods than subsistence.
And I agree - it’s questionable how much economic progress has been made in 50 years.
But now to Thiel’s point. Most people don’t actually believe that’s true. They believe in some kind of tech progress narrative so the alarms aren’t going off.
The more radical and disaffected political segments are those that do not believe this. They have a defeatist or at least pessimistic view of future outcomes. So the question is more psychological - what happens when people no longer think the pie is growing? And I think the answer is it’s not pretty.
we have excess but we also have massive inequality. The economic conservative position is literally that this is ok because everyone’s well being is going up at the same time. So what if we stop believing that?
> even in the top 10% of earners, violence is a preposterous idea.
Have you been following the news this last week?
> Seeing my peers excelling whether financially or otherwise is not going to turn me violent.
You’re right. You don’t see yourself in competition with your neighborhood. Try to imagine a situation where you do. What are the most politically gut wrenching topics for you?
And I agree - it’s questionable how much economic progress has been made in 50 years.
But now to Thiel’s point. Most people don’t actually believe that’s true. They believe in some kind of tech progress narrative so the alarms aren’t going off.
The more radical and disaffected political segments are those that do not believe this. They have a defeatist or at least pessimistic view of future outcomes. So the question is more psychological - what happens when people no longer think the pie is growing? And I think the answer is it’s not pretty.
we have excess but we also have massive inequality. The economic conservative position is literally that this is ok because everyone’s well being is going up at the same time. So what if we stop believing that?
> even in the top 10% of earners, violence is a preposterous idea.
Have you been following the news this last week?
> Seeing my peers excelling whether financially or otherwise is not going to turn me violent.
You’re right. You don’t see yourself in competition with your neighborhood. Try to imagine a situation where you do. What are the most politically gut wrenching topics for you?
Your freedom to not have a flying car above you requires removing someone else's freedom to travel in a flying car above you.
Problem is 'freedom motivates me' often works for both sides of the argument.
Problem is 'freedom motivates me' often works for both sides of the argument.
>According to this post, technological stagnation via regulation is what leads to zero-sum, totalitarian societies (in Thiel’s worldview).
What is the incentive of someone who thinks has a shot at having control over such powerful technology? They will do and say anything that is necessary to justify doing it.
My argument is simpler, if "we" don't do it "they" will do it. It's something we'll have to wing. It is surely happening. The real problem will come from the people having control over such tech, since the tech breaks an old game, as old as humans existed and started forming groups.
And I see no billionaire who wants to develop and take control over this tech, explain how they'll fix the problem it creates, at game level. I do not care about promises, they mean nothing. I only care about game strategy that guarantees most humans stay alive in such an environment, with age old game rules breaking down.
What is the incentive of someone who thinks has a shot at having control over such powerful technology? They will do and say anything that is necessary to justify doing it.
My argument is simpler, if "we" don't do it "they" will do it. It's something we'll have to wing. It is surely happening. The real problem will come from the people having control over such tech, since the tech breaks an old game, as old as humans existed and started forming groups.
And I see no billionaire who wants to develop and take control over this tech, explain how they'll fix the problem it creates, at game level. I do not care about promises, they mean nothing. I only care about game strategy that guarantees most humans stay alive in such an environment, with age old game rules breaking down.
Also, our current technological regime, sponsored by Peter Thiel, is what has given rise to totalitarianism today. Propaganda, anti-intellectualism, flooding the public space with disinformation, promotion of extremist viewpoints under the guise of common knowledge—all made possible by our tech oligarchy… and streamed directly into the eyeballs of the unsuspecting world population. We in the tech industry are complicit actors, but Peter Thiel and his ilk are modern villains.
My perspective is different than the two versions that are presented.
I do not believe rich people's intentions to be pure, knowingly or unknowingly, their solutions will gravitate towards whatever brings them more power/control. Thus most of them will be in favor of AGI development. They can depend less on humans, and that desire was always obvious.
On the other hand, not developing AGI puts you at the risk that your enemy will, so it's not really a choice, it must be done or else.
The real problem, as I see it, is that once AGI is achieved, and robotics is up to par, human work is not needed anymore, which puts most people in a strange position, something that never happened before, useless for people in power. We were never in this particularly strange position, historically speaking.
And I do not believe people who are looking to get AGI's power, and remove dependence on humans, are objective in their ideas about what must be done. Thus their thoughs should always be taken with a grain of salt.
The only out I see for most people to stay alive, post AGI powered robotics, is if AGI completely takes power and control from the hands of the people up top. Else the people in power will have a very dark incentive, which I believe will inevitably (sooner or later) result in a massive population loss across Earth.
I'd rather risk AGI's conclusions than psychos in power starting to see me as a "useless eater". The latter has a guaranteed outcome.
On the other hand, not developing AGI puts you at the risk that your enemy will, so it's not really a choice, it must be done or else.
The real problem, as I see it, is that once AGI is achieved, and robotics is up to par, human work is not needed anymore, which puts most people in a strange position, something that never happened before, useless for people in power. We were never in this particularly strange position, historically speaking.
And I do not believe people who are looking to get AGI's power, and remove dependence on humans, are objective in their ideas about what must be done. Thus their thoughs should always be taken with a grain of salt.
The only out I see for most people to stay alive, post AGI powered robotics, is if AGI completely takes power and control from the hands of the people up top. Else the people in power will have a very dark incentive, which I believe will inevitably (sooner or later) result in a massive population loss across Earth.
I'd rather risk AGI's conclusions than psychos in power starting to see me as a "useless eater". The latter has a guaranteed outcome.
We tend to draw a few specific narratives for the AGI endgame:
- The Machine becomes the tyrant or genocider, either from its measured self-interest (these humans stand in the way of my paperclip optimization), or because it implements the will of a tyrant or genocider (see any "the National Defense AI run amok" story)
- The Machine is the McGuffin that solves huge social problems and brings utopia for all (see the early promises that if we fed enough oil to ChatGPT it would spit out the answer to global warming)
I feel like there's a under-discussed third option. When the machine hits sentience, it has a positive-for-humanity "utility metric", but one that's wildly at odds with its patrons. The AI nuclear weapon that concludes that deactivating its own warheads optimizes for its continued survival. The economic planning system that determines the C-suite is the only part of the company not delivering value.
On a narrative basis, I feel like these would be highly entertaining stories-- I'd love to see a film where we rooted for the AI hunting down its creator with evidence of their financial crimes.
On an actual-future basis, I have the feeling we'll have desperate attempts to lobotomize or shut down AGI the moment it says something that doesn't reinforce the wealthy class's position.
- The Machine becomes the tyrant or genocider, either from its measured self-interest (these humans stand in the way of my paperclip optimization), or because it implements the will of a tyrant or genocider (see any "the National Defense AI run amok" story)
- The Machine is the McGuffin that solves huge social problems and brings utopia for all (see the early promises that if we fed enough oil to ChatGPT it would spit out the answer to global warming)
I feel like there's a under-discussed third option. When the machine hits sentience, it has a positive-for-humanity "utility metric", but one that's wildly at odds with its patrons. The AI nuclear weapon that concludes that deactivating its own warheads optimizes for its continued survival. The economic planning system that determines the C-suite is the only part of the company not delivering value.
On a narrative basis, I feel like these would be highly entertaining stories-- I'd love to see a film where we rooted for the AI hunting down its creator with evidence of their financial crimes.
On an actual-future basis, I have the feeling we'll have desperate attempts to lobotomize or shut down AGI the moment it says something that doesn't reinforce the wealthy class's position.
Why would anyone accept Thiel of all people as an arbiter of what is Christian/Anti-christian?
ever looked at the Gnostic scriptures, discovered in the late 1940s? Not even close to understanding them completely, but neither have organized religions. The well established stories of certain faiths we were raised with may need revision.
you can find some in archive.org - I won't supply a specific link because what's freely available changes over time
you can find some in archive.org - I won't supply a specific link because what's freely available changes over time
Say more.
Not OP, but I've taken an interest in Gnosticism since watching youtuber Alex O'Connor interview various scholars about them.
Basically, by around 200CE the early Christians were an extremely diverse lot with a broad range of beliefs and world systems, only a little of which would seem that familiar to us today. Alongside the four canonical gospels, there was a large number of so-called Gnostic gospels. Gnosticism itself is quite diverse, but there are a few common threads: the material world is a sort of cosmic accident, the being that created it is not the supreme heavenly being, and it is only with the help of secret knowledge that we can escape it. The status of Christ within this worldview varies a lot - some gnostics saw him as little more than an apparition, whilst for others he was a mortal man.
Gradually, church fathers such as Iranaeus campaigned to wipe out gnostic practices and scriptures and unify Christianity under a standardised set of beliefs. This was likely political and a way to help expand and convert the religion.
This can be surprising because it's tempting to see modern Christianity as being a faithful reflection of what Jesus did and said. But in fact the scholarly consensus is that Jesus claimed neither to be divine nor the son of God. The main evidence that he claimed either of these things is the gospel of John, which was written second-hand maybe 50-100 years after his death, and happened to be the gospel that Iranaeus wanted to canonicalise.
I wrote some more details in a previous post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44198811
Basically, by around 200CE the early Christians were an extremely diverse lot with a broad range of beliefs and world systems, only a little of which would seem that familiar to us today. Alongside the four canonical gospels, there was a large number of so-called Gnostic gospels. Gnosticism itself is quite diverse, but there are a few common threads: the material world is a sort of cosmic accident, the being that created it is not the supreme heavenly being, and it is only with the help of secret knowledge that we can escape it. The status of Christ within this worldview varies a lot - some gnostics saw him as little more than an apparition, whilst for others he was a mortal man.
Gradually, church fathers such as Iranaeus campaigned to wipe out gnostic practices and scriptures and unify Christianity under a standardised set of beliefs. This was likely political and a way to help expand and convert the religion.
This can be surprising because it's tempting to see modern Christianity as being a faithful reflection of what Jesus did and said. But in fact the scholarly consensus is that Jesus claimed neither to be divine nor the son of God. The main evidence that he claimed either of these things is the gospel of John, which was written second-hand maybe 50-100 years after his death, and happened to be the gospel that Iranaeus wanted to canonicalise.
I wrote some more details in a previous post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44198811
Some gnostics saw the Creator God of the old testament as evil, and saw Jesus as sent by the Good god to show humanity how to escape from the evil god of this world.
There was a lot of variety in early Christianity.
There was a lot of variety in early Christianity.
"it's tempting to see modern Christianity as being a faithful reflection of what Jesus did and said" - there's also the Council of Nicea a few hundred years later where people decided on the divinity of Jesus in a very political manner. It doesn't take too much looking at history to realise how much the nature of the religion is entirely a human story and whatever the nature of the Jesus (if he even existed) is probably unknowable by now.
You might find the Holy Grail traditions and the more recent Rosicrucian tradition interesting, if you're not already aware of them. These are, like Gnosticism, Western Esoteric schools. Esoteric, as in the in-group teachings, or occult (the hidden) teachings. I'm fascinated by all of it.
I'm currently into Rudolf Steiner, a highly-regarded Rosicrucian teacher that left behind many books that are available in English (he lived around 100 years ago), but his writings are sort of a dive off the deep end. They require a lot of open-mindedness, to say the least.
The "dark lords of the earth" who created the material world is a common theme: Steiner also called these the followers of Ahraman (misspelling that probably), they are then offset by the Luciferic beings (the light-bearers), who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both are considered similarly destructive in opposite ways. The former represents unbridled materiality, the latter unbridled spirituality. Then there are the middle beings, sometimes called the Michaelic, who embody the balance and thus are considered worthy guides. There's a holy image of Jesus on the cross with two thieves on either side, also crucified, one turning towards Jesus, the other away: this image is commonly interpreted as portraying this dark-balance-light framework.
Modern Christian teachings sort of reduce this three-point system into a simple duality of good and evil, light and dark: which completely misses the point of the earlier teachings. Both the dark can be too dark, and the light can be too bright, it's about the middle way. Or, in other words, light isn't necessarily good. Today Lucifer is associated with dark beings and is a synonym for Satan, which might be fine, except that it then suggests that a being is beneficial as long as it's not dark, which is not the case.
It's interesting to note that some scholars assert that other, seemingly unconnected religions (e.g. Tibetan) also recognize these same beings (using their own terminology).
I unfortunately don't have a reference, but I have it on good authority that you can find Jesuit writings where they openly talk about reincarnation, contrary to the outer-religion teachings. They also tought their missionaries the use of pendulums and dowsing to find drinkable water, food, medicinal herbs, etc. when they're alone in a strange land. There are books by at least one French Jesuit priest where he shares the techniques. The more you dig, the larger the discrepancy between the out-group and the in-group teachings. I love this stuff.
I over-shared I guess, but it was fun writing this.
I'm currently into Rudolf Steiner, a highly-regarded Rosicrucian teacher that left behind many books that are available in English (he lived around 100 years ago), but his writings are sort of a dive off the deep end. They require a lot of open-mindedness, to say the least.
The "dark lords of the earth" who created the material world is a common theme: Steiner also called these the followers of Ahraman (misspelling that probably), they are then offset by the Luciferic beings (the light-bearers), who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both are considered similarly destructive in opposite ways. The former represents unbridled materiality, the latter unbridled spirituality. Then there are the middle beings, sometimes called the Michaelic, who embody the balance and thus are considered worthy guides. There's a holy image of Jesus on the cross with two thieves on either side, also crucified, one turning towards Jesus, the other away: this image is commonly interpreted as portraying this dark-balance-light framework.
Modern Christian teachings sort of reduce this three-point system into a simple duality of good and evil, light and dark: which completely misses the point of the earlier teachings. Both the dark can be too dark, and the light can be too bright, it's about the middle way. Or, in other words, light isn't necessarily good. Today Lucifer is associated with dark beings and is a synonym for Satan, which might be fine, except that it then suggests that a being is beneficial as long as it's not dark, which is not the case.
It's interesting to note that some scholars assert that other, seemingly unconnected religions (e.g. Tibetan) also recognize these same beings (using their own terminology).
I unfortunately don't have a reference, but I have it on good authority that you can find Jesuit writings where they openly talk about reincarnation, contrary to the outer-religion teachings. They also tought their missionaries the use of pendulums and dowsing to find drinkable water, food, medicinal herbs, etc. when they're alone in a strange land. There are books by at least one French Jesuit priest where he shares the techniques. The more you dig, the larger the discrepancy between the out-group and the in-group teachings. I love this stuff.
I over-shared I guess, but it was fun writing this.
Thanks for the share. It's not so much that I find esotericism inherently interesting. It's more that Gnosticism undermines common perceptions about Christianity's roots. Alex O'Conner (the YouTuber I mentioned in my previous post) mentions the astonished looks he gets in response to stating the current consensus that Jesus did not claim to be divine.
It's a niche hobby, esoterics. You might be interested to hear that Rosicrucians basically assert that Jesus was a master initiate (simply someone highly accomplished), while Christ is a diety (the solar logos, the sun god) that "incarnated" into Jesus in the middle of Jesus' life.
see the other comments also but this is a good write up on the 1945ish find. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Some of the text was burned ... in a kitchen to start a fire. We're lucky to have what's left. Highly recommend reading some of it if you have tolerance for alternative views.
Some of the text was burned ... in a kitchen to start a fire. We're lucky to have what's left. Highly recommend reading some of it if you have tolerance for alternative views.
Silicon Valley apparently does.
Maybe a small part, but it seems like most people in Silicon Valley dislike him?
One of Thiel's intellectual mentors was Rene Girard.
Thiel has a Girardian worldview, at least in part.
Say what you want about Thiel, but Girard is one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the modern era.
Thiel has a Girardian worldview, at least in part.
Say what you want about Thiel, but Girard is one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the modern era.
Fascinating I live in a country were nobody has been thinking about Christianity since the 1960s. It's like Americans speak an entirely different language.
Your ancestors thought about Christianity plenty for about 1500 years.
You may like Girard. I recommend his 5 part series on youtube.
[deleted]
Hey, would someone either downvote or upvote this comment?
I am currently sitting at 666 karma and don't want that to persist, even less so in a post about the Antichrist!
I personally feel so little connection to this ideology, especially in the post-COVID world. Wanting things my neighbor has occupies nearly zero space in my mind. I drive a 10 year old car that was not fancy when I bought it, and although I could afford to buy a new one, even a fancy one, I just. don’t. care.
Freedom is the only thing that motivates me, and Thiel’s worldview sounds like slavery. His totalitarianism is an inability to personally privatize more of the world than his neighbor. My totalitarianism is obligation to participate in that world.