This post caused me to take the claim that @ben_r_hoffman makes in "approval extraction advertised as production", much more seriously.
rationalconspiracy.com/2021/04/01/y-c…
rationalconspiracy.com/2021/04/01/y-c…
When I first read (Ben's) post a few years ago, I thought that it was probably tracking true things, but over-emphasizing them.
And I was not compelled by some of the arguments. (For instance, I remember some claims about Sam Altman's character that seemed out of proportion to the evidence cited.)
The thing that most struck me about Alyssa's post was this section:
"Where the company is now, is they seem to have metamorphosed into a much less software-requiring version. In particular, I think that the current vertical was served perfectly reasonably by non-software versions of the same thing that relied on a lot of human labor; I think...
...they have converted into an SMB that is human labor-powered in their vertical."
That paragraph strikes a little note of horror for me.
That paragraph strikes a little note of horror for me.
I expect that as productive areas of the world become more established, they become more credentials-based, and proportionally more energy / activity is put into signaling and social games.
meltingasphalt.com/startups-are-f…
meltingasphalt.com/startups-are-f…
That's natural: Doing things at scale means setting up systems, which means norms bureaucratization, which means, in the long run, people who are at least as adept at working the system as they are at doing the object level work.
So I'm not surprised at all that Silicon Valley, which is about ~ 50 years old has all kinds of social rules and rituals that one has to follow to get ahead.
The marketing says "we just care about whether your ideas are good, not what you wear, or your social niceties, or your connections."
But but that just means the uniform, the social niceties, and the important connections are DIFFERENT than those of corporate America.
But but that just means the uniform, the social niceties, and the important connections are DIFFERENT than those of corporate America.
That's not surprising to me. That's just how this works.
But the paragraph above IS surprising to me. Because it seems to indicate (I'm not sure how strongly), not just productive activity mired in some social bullshit, but social bullshit that has completely displaced new productive activity.
The plan...
1. Start startup with shiny tech that plausibly does solve a problem better,
2. Leverage that shiny gleam into a credential that people will fund,
3. Use the funding to solve the problem in the old fashioned way, drop the tech,
...is horrifying.
1. Start startup with shiny tech that plausibly does solve a problem better,
2. Leverage that shiny gleam into a credential that people will fund,
3. Use the funding to solve the problem in the old fashioned way, drop the tech,
...is horrifying.
No actual creation of new value happened there. The whole thing is just a convoluted social game by which one captures a rent to drink from.
This plan doesn't depend on the quality of the tech at all, only the shininess of the tech.
And in the end, the world doesn't benefit from the technological innovation (if there every was one).
It's a sham of the process of tech innovation by way of venture funding.
And in the end, the world doesn't benefit from the technological innovation (if there every was one).
It's a sham of the process of tech innovation by way of venture funding.
In the fundamentals, the above plan / trajectory is no different than gaming the system to get into Harvard, then using the Harvard degree (and connections) to get a cushy bullshit job.
It just has a different skin.
It just has a different skin.
This rent-seeking sham has the aesthetic of turn of the century software startups, instead of that of...19th to 20th century professions?
I'm not sure how common this dynamic is, or even the degree to which, in this one example, the startup is using NO new tech at all.
But this is a bad sign, because it is an indicator of how farcical the whole system can be.
But this is a bad sign, because it is an indicator of how farcical the whole system can be.
In 10 years, or 20, if the world hasn't collapsed, maybe(?) this will be all that is left of the SF tech sector? This kind of signaling game, LARPing as innovation?
And the participants won't even realize that there is a different thing that they could be doing instead.
And the participants won't even realize that there is a different thing that they could be doing instead.
(Of course, if that does come to pass is the case, it implies a huge opportunity for a group of people to do _real_ technological innovation.
Although I suspect @ben_r_hoffman predicts that is harder than it seems because anti-epistemic forces will coordinate to squash any attempts at real innovation that aren't obeying the rules of the signaling game.
So you need to know how to
1) do real innovation and assess real innovation, as well as
2) protect one's self from attempted squashing.
)
1) do real innovation and assess real innovation, as well as
2) protect one's self from attempted squashing.
)
It seems like there are smart actually-generative people in around the Bay Area ecosystem, so probably there will continue to be SOME real tech development there for a long time.
Though, I note that @Conaw is my go-to central example of a real-deal crazy/visionary founder. I can attest that he's doing the "live in the future" thing.
And he moved out to the Utah or somewhere.
And he moved out to the Utah or somewhere.
*ever, obviously.
Ok. I think "plan" is not the right word here. Closer is "strategy", in the sense of "psychological social strategy".
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
