The hype cycles surrounding the hot new tech du jour shows how techno-optimism has become a worldview for those disillusioned with politicians without a vision.
Over the past decade and a half Silicon Valley has become more and more influential on everyday life. Hoodie-clad software engineers have changed how we interact with information, each other, and the world around us by enabling more people to do more things digitally. Marc Andreessen famously wrote that software is eating the world, and in many industries he was right. But I’m not interested in rehashing how digital companies have slain former seemingly impervious giants; Andreessen did that ten years ago and the list has only grown since then. Instead, I’m interested in how his theory of a digital future has increasingly been embraced by regular citizens and not just start-up founders and venture capitalists. Why is that?
The two shining examples of techno-optimism spreading from the Valley to broader society is crypto and AI. In the late 2010’s there were tens of thousands of people convinced that crypto currencies and non-fungible tokens could solve society’s economic problems through advanced software, despite the fact that the supposedly superior digital money was slower and more expensive than the monetary systems we currently use. These people made the error of thinking that more advanced technology is inherently better, when in reality older technologies stay in use if it is cheaper or more practical. Consider electronic locks, even though there are smart locks with advanced features like remote control most people use good old metal keys because they are cheap and convenient. Similarly non-crypto money is simpler to use so the future technology never takes off.
Similarly, AI is constantly talked and written about as an invention to rival the wheel in importance and yet no one I know uses it regularly at work. If it is the productivity boon people claim it is, why isn’t it putting people out of work? Well, it’s because the techno-optimists get so caught up in what AI could become that they miss its current shortcomings. I’ve written plenty about my frustrations with AI, and I continue to be frustrated with the assumption most AI boosters make that the pace of progress in AI development will continue at the current rate or improve. As impressive as Chat-GPT and Midjourney are, these models are not really more impressive than the computer models which beat humans in chess, go, or Counter Strike. Unless computer models can become generally intelligent and thus useful in a range of contexts the productivity gains of AI are going to disappoint the tech crowd, just like crypto did before it.
The more interesting question though isn’t whether or not AI is a useful tool, but why so many people keep putting their hopes and dreams of a better future in computers. I believe it is because of the mistake the previous generation of leaders have made. If central bankers hadn’t distorted the economy massively with asset purchasing programmes and ultra-loose monetary policy the economy might have been more fair, less prone to massive inequality. Meanwhile, the only politicians with a clear vision for how to improve society was the nativists, with a backwards striving and cowardly world view that searches for a scapegoat instead of a solution. Who’s left to put your faith in? Religious leaders, rabble rousers, or the face of success in the third millennium: Silicon Valley founders.
Techno-optimism is appealing in a world plagued with problems as the tech scene looks like one of the few places where people get results. Sure, sometimes those results are privacy invasions and hollowing out of labour rights, but sometimes it is technology straight out of Star Trek. Besides, you’ll never get anywhere if you ask for permission instead of forgiveness. But founders can’t solve issues like income inequality, increased polarisation, and the climate crisis. Those issues need to be tackled collectively, as a society. Techno-optimism as a pseudo ideology is born of a failure of imagination of our elected leaders. If we had inspiring leaders with clear goals we could unite behind like John F. Kennedy’s race to the moon or Per Albin Hansson’s Folkhem we wouldn’t need to pin our hopes and dreams on a glorious future which will be made possible shortly by the current trend in the technology sector.
Techno-optimism is the search for a shortcut when the real solution is to come together to make positive changes. Just like crypto can’t prevent another 2008 because the Great Recession was ultimately caused by people, AI can’t solve societal problems because society is ultimately made up of people.
If you liked this post you can read my last post about the defender's advantage here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Cover photo by Brett Jordan from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Kommentare