A Fulfilling for Personal Self-satisfying Intelligent Man or a mechanical robot? 1) AI is such a very impressive accomplishment and improvement by the 21st-century modern man. However, would AI reduce or increase many more already modern's man problems; improve all individual to become better oneself, physically, psychological, all meaningful aspects, (of happiness, longevity, and immortality), or merely makes their life a lot more easy, convenient, comfortable, fulfilling personal self-satisfaction, and laziness? 2) Ultimately, if AI could not help improve all individual's health, intelligence, virtue wisdom, morality, and longevity; then why should they put in so much work, hope, expectation, and promises? al
Love Peter Thiel. As a fellow contrarian I love the way he summarises complex topics into a way they can be understood. With China cracking down on tech now is the time for the west to help with big vision ideas. Sadly so many politicians think business and the economy just magically happens.
7 years later "Google has almost mastered self-driving cars" has aged sooo so poorly for Mark. I agreed with Peter at the time and I think that the intervening years have only given more credence to his position
If you were really listening to him, you would have heard him also say that the regulatory complications could stagger this process; but, no, it is easier to be a cheerleader.
I agree more with Peter. Technology, while it has evolved at an incredible pace - Moore's Law, has not delivered measured improvements to society - remember the "Paperless Office" that was supposed to occur when we got computers. We as a species need to evolve along side and with technology and apply it to real problems facing the world. Lots of opportunity for the next generation because we unfortunately have failed on so many levels.
Yes he argues against himself - many of those large innovations occurred due to government investment not private investment. Even the internet, and computer development - government grants with university research centers. I really do not get this guy.
exactly - why are they even didcussing technology progress, when this isvthe smallest part of the problem called humAMIMALS... Memetic Supercivilization of intelligence gave humanimals so much power... but the DeepAnimal parts of our brains with their animalistic reward functions ensure that humanimal societities operate the same waybthey did thousands of years ago... politico-oligarchical prrdators living off the herd of mental herbivires... so technis OK but givernments are shit, media are 90% shit, education is highly questionable... because only the top sub-1% of humanimals really advanced (that's where the Memetic Supervivilization lives), while bottom90%+ are the same as in the stone age
This is a thought provoking video covering various tech trends that I highly recommend you watch. Marc Andreessen was correct, I had no travel issues as I watched this video from home and feel more informed after watching it. A BIG thanks to the Milken Institute for making these ideas and thoughts available!
I'm speaking in Nov 2015 (2.5 years after this debate), but still I have some comments: As for Energy: Solar panels have already reached grid parity in many countries (i.e. they don't need subsidies to compete with fossil fuels) Wind power is also competitive in some countries where the climate is windy enough. As for Transportation: They completely ignored two aspects of technological improvements in motor vehicles: 1. Fuel efficiency has improved quite fast in the past 10 years 2. Safety of cars (air bags, structural integrity of cars, ABS, etc) has improved dramatically, causing a large drop in road traffic deaths in the developed world.
Maybe so, but Ayn Rand was a militant atheist, and believe Peter would object to her errors which emerged because of that. Thiel would bring up the Girardian revelation, telling Ayn, "You do the same things that your atheist Socialist enemies in the USSR did to your father's business...preaching the Utopia of secular humanism, and then pointing fingers at your own fellow atheists." A more pointed question is, why have practically all b-schools and law schools pimped atheistic economists from the left to right, onto hapless students and politicians, who later believe their bullshit? Such as Margaret Thatcher saying in public about Hayek's book, "This is our Bible!" Or Friedman's, or Sowell's, or Stiglitz's, or Keynes', or Rand's? I do believe Thiel is looking for ways to de-program our global populace from such atheistic scams pimped by "higher institutions" for decades, 2 centuries now. :-)
I really love and respect both of these men for their contributions to our world. However, I strongly disagree with Marc Andreesson on his knock on Peter's Thiel's tag line: "We wanted flying cards and got 140 characters". For me, this tag line is not as much a literal fact but is designed to highlight the gap we've created between our collective aspirations and invention. We need to remember the difference between innovation vs. invention. So, maybe the debate should be, "Are we decelerating in our ability to invent" and not innovate.
Some interesting insights. Though there is probably a profound reason for the genre of science fiction to take on a cautionary tone. I would recommend giving "The Question Concerning Technology" by Martin Heidegger an open-minded read.
I believe Heidegger never even considered Thiel's point, since he lived in a era of great technological growth. Which is more likely, a bad relationship with technology destroying us, or lack of technological growth destroying us? It seems the later currently. When innovation is actually happening, people talk about technology in a positive, hopeful light, think star trek. But when innovation is stagnant, talking about it in a positive way seems unrealistic and disingenuous. So you can either not talk about it at all, or talk about it negatively. Negative predictions are ok even if they don't happen, because at least you were planning for possible negative events right? Also, living in an overly regulated world, with fewer individual rights, where it is becoming more and more mainstream to tell people what you can't do, it is more fashionable to talk about the negative possibilities across the board.
Regulatory competition on the country level, sounds like an extremely unpredictable attempt at differentiation... Investing heavily in a domain could be interesting, but there are no inherent guarantees of what profits you can derive from any given industry... Plus, you're limited by the economies you can market to and thus raise funding from, with which to accelerate your technological growth... But in general, depending on government to really facilitate innovation through just regulation...
Peter says the biggest issue is energy... I'm not sure it is. Energy + oil accounts for about 10% of GDP, which means that if we even just doubled our productivity in energy we would only see a 5% growth in GDP. By contrast, labor accounts for 70% of GDP which means that productivity increases in labor is what will improve GDP the most. AI comes to mind there.
Innovation is good when it solves problems. Both of these speakers seem to skirt the issue without hitting the nail on the head. Measuring levels of innovation is commensurate with the measure of living conditions, mobility, and life satisfaction. Speaking of history judging the triviality (or disruption) of innovation has to do with the general communicativity, reciprocity, and equality of different groups. This discussion is just minutia.
Flying car may seems energy inefficient but they would travel directly to destination without any stop, unlike car that stop at intersection and get stuck in traffic jam.
The guy arguing for an innovation slow down one the debate. The other guy seemed to be arguing "somebody in the past under estimated innovation, therefor we must be doing it now".
Twitter is like making every utterance subject to the rebuke of the most grim and unforgiving fire and brimstone preacher who can shout louder than anyone else and travels with his own posse of brown shirts. Twitter does not make me feel more free. It makes me feel like I live in a severe Puritan town where they burn witches on a regular basis.
Although throwing virtual sheep and birds at pigs makes the statement you suggest... Threr is the option of choices and what leads people to make such strange ones... We also have the option of the most educational technology at our finger tips. Literally anyone can learn anything they'd like to know 24/7. So why is their choice angry birds? O,,,
What does Peter Thiel mean when he says "This country has been punishing engineers for years" ? What sort of regulations are imposed on people who choose engineering careers?
He means the types of industries, as highlighted by the types of engineering he lists and emphasizes, particularly aerospace and nuclear, have had almost no gains due to intense regulation, from an unfounded belief that safety is best mandated from Washington. The last nuclear reactor to be built in the US is about 50 miles from me, and now 40 years old, so if you are a nuclear engineer you've seen no growth for your work since the 1970s.
JustAManFromThePast Yes - although the impetus for that ultimately did not derive from a sinister government cabal but from public paranoia and misinformation about nuclear power that has unfortunately yet to be changed. Once it does, government will follow suit. I like Thiel, but his billionaire ivory tower libertarianism is annoying.
It doesn't matter what you do. It appears to be the objective of central banks to spend the people's money faster than they can earn it, with no return on their investment.
Pt. 2: Excuse the typos. As more and more of us are getting used to these technologies, I fear people may be expecting greater innovations and user friendliness for their money... We live in economically hard times, and yet more things are going to a, for pay to access, and I don't believe the average people can afford them with everything costing more. We are stuck with the more basic and/or older but still working Internet devices... I'd say the trend will continue... O,,,
A Fulfilling for Personal Self-satisfying Intelligent Man or a mechanical robot? 1) AI is such a very impressive accomplishment and improvement by the 21st-century modern man. However, would AI reduce or increase many more already modern's man problems; improve all individual to become better oneself, physically, psychological, all meaningful aspects, (of happiness, longevity, and immortality), or merely makes their life a lot more easy, convenient, comfortable, fulfilling personal self-satisfaction, and laziness? 2) Ultimately, if AI could not help improve all individual's health, intelligence, virtue wisdom, morality, and longevity; then why should they put in so much work, hope, expectation, and promises? al
While they can argue each other's points, neither can definitively illustrate the actual state of innovation. Thiel's numbers are weak indicators since they attempt to compare the past to the present without determining wether the current environment is similar enough to make a one to one comparison. For instance, market caps of the past measure a time when companies had less opportunities for private funding. Uber is currently (2017) a private company and doesn't have a market cap. What it has instead is a valuation which is not an accurate measure of its real value, so in your market cap comparison you ignore fairly relevant organizations in the tech space. Also does his market cap take into account only US companies or is it a global measure? The market cap of Alibaba is not too far from Google's. Employment in IT growth is also a weak indicator since it doesn't necessarily mean you're subject to less innovation. It can just as easily be due to more efficiency, since it once took a hundred people to make a crappy website, while Instagram was able to be started with just a couple of people. Explain the relevance of the measures before citing them. Full disclosure: I think Peter Thiel is overhyped and has far more slogans than insights, with Marc properly discounting his BS flying car "insight".
Good point on measurement methods, don't agree that Mr. Thiel is overhyped though. He is certainly a very original thinker, with a complex worldview, and makes you rethink a lot of points
what about the weapons technology. Govts all over the world should spend less money on weapons and use that money to improve the standard of living everywhere
Very rich and very poor at the same time. Any man could be compratively very rich, and only in some aspects. But only the truly good man, who would consciouly admits to himself that he knows, that he is very rich, yet at the same time, very poor in other aspects. --- These men are the most worthy to be my long term teacher, friend, and comrade. Please Mr. Peter Thiel, let me have a short moment of your precious time, I have the solution to your quest for the world. altc
People oppose technology for several reasons, but one quite upsetting is the misuse/abuse of it in a very disgusting predatory way. So somebody withing a society or type of culture must be regulating/managing that. So all this cheating must be decreased by at least 90%. Perhaps the same tech innovators can test that to find the perpetrators of these creative schemes, and offer them some kind of deal/salary for a better application of their time and creativity. Some times it is correlated with business competition for just surviving or thriving, and may be due to how certain indicators apply to business success. That is why people blame capitalism and monopolies. I think that is a human nature problem that goes across the whole planetary population. You will find it anywhere you go. It is regulated according to cultural habits and whatever solutions have been applied with more success. People needs are priority over wants, if education has failed then work on improving that for real, the same for health, housing, etc. Open specialized technology schools or take a balance break if you have abundant wealth and be teachers to those with talent for that. Some creative people with discipline or responsibility problems will be much less destructive in a situation like that. Every one wants to succeed in life and honest competition is like a true life extension component, because it is a quality indicator. You can not innovate for ever without a balance or things will go bye bye and only the more primitive things survive. Communication barriers can be overcome in several ways, so that is a poor justification for cheating and seeding future havoc. Best wishes to the smart innovators.
Communication is the future , innovators are going to communicate.....It is the same argument that was made 500 years ago about printing press and books. Look how that played out. Emerging market will not be source of innovation, its evolutionary and they are not even in 19th century yet. We have 100 times more scientists today compare to 1920s because in 20s scientists were in a lab today people called 'scientists" and they are in regulatory or compliance or data management ....We have probably the same number of scientists in the labs as in 1920s they just not as smart due to education they have received.
tech maniacs have made my life miserable for some reason up on my ass all the time blocking everything for some reason for so long i have never cursed so bad as these crazy ass's
I think Peter Thiel seriously underestimates what other countries are doing. More interestingly, other countries - like China (kinda like what Marc is saying) - evolve fundamentally different systems... Like social networking is completely different in China, and payments are different, internet usage is different in a number of ways... (And people interested in making money shouldn't object to "the something of somewhere" - if people don't have services, they don't) Dang it... I don't want to make a Hitler comparison (:P) - but Peter Thiel has a touch of that conservative "We are better and lets find ways to rationalize why we're better" kinda thinking. Japan did overtake the US in the past. China has overtaken the US, for the moment, and they are innovating. Scandinavian countries or the like though... Weak population, chill environment, doesn't really produce hungry people who want to work hard and get ahead... Plus, a smaller population just automatically reduces the number of talented people you have access to. Most countries do not have the US benefit of international geniuses immigrating, so if their local population doesn't do it, its not getting done.
The fundamental problem with both Thiel and Andreessen is that they are basically libertarians, so they don't want to talk about how neoliberal policies have destroyed wage growth and caused income inequality. They don't want to talk about how globalization and computerization have cut wages and increased global competition, which means less growth. Thiel correctly points out that innovation hasn't brough much improvement in people's lives, so they are rightly sceptical of innovation and see a dark future. Thiel argues that redistribution policies won't help the fundamental problem that economies are stagnant, but he doesn't pay attention to research showing that when wealth is distributed more equally, growth accelerates for the economy as a whole because you get the multiplier effects of a larger consumer base, which then drives investment and growth as a whole. Another problem with these guys is they basically see government as an inhibitor (which I agree when I look at the example of government subsidies for fossil fuels), but they don't talk about the many examples of how the government has stimulated industry: computers, aerospace, farmeceuticals--almost every portion of the US economy which is strong, has big government subsidies, government funded R&D and legal protections. The tech industry started because of government R&D and government purchasing of the tech.
+Amos Batto Globalization and computerization have cut wages in the developed world (for some people), but increased wages in poor countries. On a global scale, the effect on wages has probably been positive.
+Amos Batto How does increased competition (due to computerization, or anything else) lead to less growth? Wouldn't there also be more competition if wealth were distributed more equally?
We've had massive innovation since this was posted. For instance, we now have 280 chars. Exponential growth, baby!
Do you understand what exponential means, dog?
Haha funny comment
A Fulfilling for Personal Self-satisfying Intelligent Man or a mechanical robot? 1) AI is such a very impressive accomplishment and improvement by the 21st-century modern man. However, would AI reduce or increase many more already modern's man problems; improve all individual to become better oneself, physically, psychological, all meaningful aspects, (of happiness, longevity, and immortality), or merely makes their life a lot more easy, convenient, comfortable, fulfilling personal self-satisfaction, and laziness?
2) Ultimately, if AI could not help improve all individual's health, intelligence, virtue wisdom, morality, and longevity; then why should they put in so much work, hope, expectation, and promises? al
@@JohnDoe-sp3dc lol
i'm a big fan of Peter Thiel.
Me too
Even the overwhelming bald head brightness didn't throw Thiel off his game.
I am a big fan of peter thiel!
I love the way he talks and thinks of future of technology.
Great to watch the video!
+Yuji Tsuzuki indeed, very clear talks :)
yes that is!!!!
I like it how Thiel holds his weight sans notes.
@sewa raman which?
I learned a lot from both. But I love how Marc and Peter aren’t just talking, they’re actually doing these things
It's 2019 and life expectancy is lower than it was during this debate. Thiel looks even more correct now.
This is only because suicides have increased. For those not committing suicide, standard of living has increased.
"I'm gonna start by disagreeing with the moderator here..."
Love Peter Thiel. As a fellow contrarian I love the way he summarises complex topics into a way they can be understood. With China cracking down on tech now is the time for the west to help with big vision ideas. Sadly so many politicians think business and the economy just magically happens.
7 years later "Google has almost mastered self-driving cars" has aged sooo so poorly for Mark. I agreed with Peter at the time and I think that the intervening years have only given more credence to his position
Ya faang have stagnated innovation and elon's companies are taking off
Elon is soon gonna be a trillionaire
What a great time-portal. Peter nailed it.
If you were really listening to him, you would have heard him also say that the regulatory complications could stagger this process; but, no, it is easier to be a cheerleader.
POV: you're taking COP2271 at the University of Florida
indeed
Currently taking the class now
@@haydenfoster7181 Alvarado Gang?
so true
still true!
Elon Musk famously said “we now live in a world that even George Orwell would think is strange.”
I agree more with Peter. Technology, while it has evolved at an incredible pace - Moore's Law, has not delivered measured improvements to society - remember the "Paperless Office" that was supposed to occur when we got computers. We as a species need to evolve along side and with technology and apply it to real problems facing the world. Lots of opportunity for the next generation because we unfortunately have failed on so many levels.
Yes he argues against himself - many of those large innovations occurred due to government investment not private investment. Even the internet, and computer development - government grants with university research centers. I really do not get this guy.
as much as they appear to dissagree i think they agree on an important point that there has been a lack of inovation due to government overregulation.
exactly - why are they even didcussing technology progress, when this isvthe smallest part of the problem called humAMIMALS... Memetic Supercivilization of intelligence gave humanimals so much power... but the DeepAnimal parts of our brains with their animalistic reward functions ensure that humanimal societities operate the same waybthey did thousands of years ago... politico-oligarchical prrdators living off the herd of mental herbivires... so technis OK but givernments are shit, media are 90% shit, education is highly questionable... because only the top sub-1% of humanimals really advanced (that's where the Memetic Supervivilization lives), while bottom90%+ are the same as in the stone age
Can't people goto other countries like in Southeast Asia and work remotely in rich countries using haptic gloves?
39:35 to 40:55 was the climax of the whole talk, Peter gets you thinking with some those facts...wow!!!
EXPRESSING GRATITUDE AND BEST WISHES
This is a thought provoking video covering various tech trends that I highly recommend you watch. Marc Andreessen was correct, I had no travel issues as I watched this video from home and feel more informed after watching it. A BIG thanks to the Milken Institute for making these ideas and thoughts available!
I don't think removing the need of transportation should count as innovation, or an improvement in transportation tech.
It's communication tech
The breadth of Peter's knowledge on variety of topics is phenomenal.
Fantastic talk! We sure do take innovation as something that is granted.
"Those patent lawyers are at an all time high too... ". Savage.
I'm speaking in Nov 2015 (2.5 years after this debate), but still I have some comments:
As for Energy:
Solar panels have already reached grid parity in many countries (i.e. they don't need subsidies to compete with fossil fuels)
Wind power is also competitive in some countries where the climate is windy enough.
As for Transportation:
They completely ignored two aspects of technological improvements in motor vehicles:
1. Fuel efficiency has improved quite fast in the past 10 years
2. Safety of cars (air bags, structural integrity of cars, ABS, etc) has improved dramatically, causing a large drop in road traffic deaths in the developed world.
you are certainly right in these 4 points, but do you really think this moves the needle on the whole debate?
Peter Thiel is John Galt
Maybe so, but Ayn Rand was a militant atheist, and believe Peter would object to her errors which emerged because of that. Thiel would bring up the Girardian revelation, telling Ayn, "You do the same things that your atheist Socialist enemies in the USSR did to your father's business...preaching the Utopia of secular humanism, and then pointing fingers at your own fellow atheists." A more pointed question is, why have practically all b-schools and law schools pimped atheistic economists from the left to right, onto hapless students and politicians, who later believe their bullshit? Such as Margaret Thatcher saying in public about Hayek's book, "This is our Bible!" Or Friedman's, or Sowell's, or Stiglitz's, or Keynes', or Rand's? I do believe Thiel is looking for ways to de-program our global populace from such atheistic scams pimped by "higher institutions" for decades, 2 centuries now. :-)
Go away.
I feel highly obliged and humbled by the grace of God 🙏 and your kindness.
I really love and respect both of these men for their contributions to our world. However, I strongly disagree with Marc Andreesson on his knock on Peter's Thiel's tag line: "We wanted flying cards and got 140 characters". For me, this tag line is not as much a literal fact but is designed to highlight the gap we've created between our collective aspirations and invention. We need to remember the difference between innovation vs. invention. So, maybe the debate should be, "Are we decelerating in our ability to invent" and not innovate.
we wanted meaningful 4 hour "working time" and got flying fuck (and a bunch of politico-oligarchical enslavers as a bonus)
Yea I was a little confused as to why he took it so literally
Just listened Eric and Thiel now with Andreessen
The interview is very passionate and doing a very good job
Both marc and peter have good points, the video was very insightful
People have been saying self driving is almost done for so long 32:40
Some interesting insights. Though there is probably a profound reason for the genre of science fiction to take on a cautionary tone. I would recommend giving "The Question Concerning Technology" by Martin Heidegger an open-minded read.
I believe Heidegger never even considered Thiel's point, since he lived in a era of great technological growth. Which is more likely, a bad relationship with technology destroying us, or lack of technological growth destroying us? It seems the later currently.
When innovation is actually happening, people talk about technology in a positive, hopeful light, think star trek. But when innovation is stagnant, talking about it in a positive way seems unrealistic and disingenuous. So you can either not talk about it at all, or talk about it negatively. Negative predictions are ok even if they don't happen, because at least you were planning for possible negative events right? Also, living in an overly regulated world, with fewer individual rights, where it is becoming more and more mainstream to tell people what you can't do, it is more fashionable to talk about the negative possibilities across the board.
Interesting comment by Mr. Thiel about work-life balance. Around the 46 minute mark.
Actually begins at 4:00
Very interesting discussion. Valuable for its focus, for what it directs our attention to.
Regulatory competition on the country level, sounds like an extremely unpredictable attempt at differentiation... Investing heavily in a domain could be interesting, but there are no inherent guarantees of what profits you can derive from any given industry...
Plus, you're limited by the economies you can market to and thus raise funding from, with which to accelerate your technological growth... But in general, depending on government to really facilitate innovation through just regulation...
Peter says the biggest issue is energy... I'm not sure it is. Energy + oil accounts for about 10% of GDP, which means that if we even just doubled our productivity in energy we would only see a 5% growth in GDP. By contrast, labor accounts for 70% of GDP which means that productivity increases in labor is what will improve GDP the most. AI comes to mind there.
Innovation is good when it solves problems. Both of these speakers seem to skirt the issue without hitting the nail on the head.
Measuring levels of innovation is commensurate with the measure of living conditions, mobility, and life satisfaction. Speaking of history judging the triviality (or disruption) of innovation has to do with the general communicativity, reciprocity, and equality of different groups.
This discussion is just minutia.
Ok. watched a bit more. Perhaps I was wrong.
Nuclear fusion and thorium reactors, Haptic feedback gloves for remote work, self-driving drones, self-replictaing 3d printers
I had a fantastic travel experience...
Thumbs up if you did not drive and are watching this from home!
8 years later i think we all know who won this debate.
Flying car may seems energy inefficient but they would travel directly to destination without any stop, unlike car that stop at intersection and get stuck in traffic jam.
Andreessen keeps talking about specific examples of innovation and not talking about overall trends. How can he miss that important point?
Twitter has been one of the biggest disasters for human communication and understanding in history.
Would love to hear their thoughts and take on their arguments today in 2020
27:30 RE: Twitter...job security indeed....
need a remake of this.
Peter is one of the few people with an iq over 160 that can simplify things for us dummies. God bless him
It helps that he worked as a speech writer
@@cellocovers3982 Thiel? For who?
@@genzcurmudgeon8037 former-U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett, it's the first thing that comes up if you google "thiel speechwriter"
@@cellocovers3982 interesting.
@@genzcurmudgeon8037 Read the wiki on interesting people and youll find all sorts of interesting things
The flying cars take a lot of energy 🧐
The guy arguing for an innovation slow down one the debate.
The other guy seemed to be arguing "somebody in the past under estimated innovation, therefor we must be doing it now".
This is a nice way to distill the debate
Twitter is like making every utterance subject to the rebuke of the most grim and unforgiving fire and brimstone preacher who can shout louder than anyone else and travels with his own posse of brown shirts. Twitter does not make me feel more free. It makes me feel like I live in a severe Puritan town where they burn witches on a regular basis.
8:50, yeah, because a lot of it moved to India. Always be suspicious when someone quotes US stats for some arguments, and global stats for others.
Although throwing virtual sheep and birds at pigs makes the statement you suggest... Threr is the option of choices and what leads people to make such strange ones... We also have the option of the most educational technology at our finger tips. Literally anyone can learn anything they'd like to know 24/7. So why is their choice angry birds?
O,,,
Has Thiel changed his opinion since this (maybe because of AI and self-driving cars)?
What does Peter Thiel mean when he says "This country has been punishing engineers for years" ? What sort of regulations are imposed on people who choose engineering careers?
He means the types of industries, as highlighted by the types of engineering he lists and emphasizes, particularly aerospace and nuclear, have had almost no gains due to intense regulation, from an unfounded belief that safety is best mandated from Washington. The last nuclear reactor to be built in the US is about 50 miles from me, and now 40 years old, so if you are a nuclear engineer you've seen no growth for your work since the 1970s.
JustAManFromThePast
Yes - although the impetus for that ultimately did not derive from a sinister government cabal but from public paranoia and misinformation about nuclear power that has unfortunately yet to be changed. Once it does, government will follow suit. I like Thiel, but his billionaire ivory tower libertarianism is annoying.
More subtle ways.., americans don't value people who make stuff they the value the mangers who came up with the idea
+Weli Hassan Whoever said people who make stuff don't have value?
It doesn't matter what you do. It appears to be the objective of central banks to spend the people's money faster than they can earn it, with no return on their investment.
I think Peter Thiel won the interviewer.
Innovation is stagnate if measured by 10X better technologies.
at 40:48 he says "incredible trend towards inequality driven by a ____ of innovation" I couldn't quite pick up what word he used. Can someone help?
Shortage
thank you for the clarification! 21stCenturyEconomy
Is there a transcript of this?
+Spuds7er Who could ever type as fast as those two talk? :-)
One is talking about atoms the other is talking about bits
Pt. 2: Excuse the typos. As more and more of us are getting used to these technologies, I fear people may be expecting greater innovations and user friendliness for their money... We live in economically hard times, and yet more things are going to a, for pay to access, and I don't believe the average people can afford them with everything costing more. We are stuck with the more basic and/or older but still working Internet devices... I'd say the trend will continue...
O,,,
We have BayMax, tech is saving the world.
Physically moving things/people from one place to another is so “old”. We have computers so we can skype etc.
A Fulfilling for Personal Self-satisfying Intelligent Man or a mechanical robot? 1) AI is such a very impressive accomplishment and improvement by the 21st-century modern man. However, would AI reduce or increase many more already modern's man problems; improve all individual to become better oneself, physically, psychological, all meaningful aspects, (of happiness, longevity, and immortality), or merely makes their life a lot more easy, convenient, comfortable, fulfilling personal self-satisfaction, and laziness?
2) Ultimately, if AI could not help improve all individual's health, intelligence, virtue wisdom, morality, and longevity; then why should they put in so much work, hope, expectation, and promises? al
While they can argue each other's points, neither can definitively illustrate the actual state of innovation. Thiel's numbers are weak indicators since they attempt to compare the past to the present without determining wether the current environment is similar enough to make a one to one comparison. For instance, market caps of the past measure a time when companies had less opportunities for private funding. Uber is currently (2017) a private company and doesn't have a market cap. What it has instead is a valuation which is not an accurate measure of its real value, so in your market cap comparison you ignore fairly relevant organizations in the tech space. Also does his market cap take into account only US companies or is it a global measure? The market cap of Alibaba is not too far from Google's.
Employment in IT growth is also a weak indicator since it doesn't necessarily mean you're subject to less innovation. It can just as easily be due to more efficiency, since it once took a hundred people to make a crappy website, while Instagram was able to be started with just a couple of people. Explain the relevance of the measures before citing them.
Full disclosure: I think Peter Thiel is overhyped and has far more slogans than insights, with Marc properly discounting his BS flying car "insight".
Good point on measurement methods, don't agree that Mr. Thiel is overhyped though. He is certainly a very original thinker, with a complex worldview, and makes you rethink a lot of points
I think Marc came out as someone completely missing the point of what Peter is saying.
Marc Andreessen seems to be trying to prove how smart he is instead of establishing a dialogue.
Google has self-driving cars basically working? What in the hell are you talking about?!
Find a way to capture thermal heat effectively - oh god it would take us so far. Problem is conservation of energy and entropy.
God that introduction! How inane.
Thiel wins as usual
Marc needs to speak more slowly if he means for people to take in what he says.
Self driving Cars close yet Mark ?😅
what about the weapons technology. Govts all over the world should spend less money on weapons and use that money to improve the standard of living everywhere
54:30 Japan overtook in nothing? Ok, I'll think about that when I walk past 50 toyotas.
Have you read his book 0 to 1? Japan has made a horizontal progress not vertical.. like nothing too innovative
Very rich and very poor at the same time. Any man could be compratively very rich, and only in some aspects. But only the truly good man, who would consciouly admits to himself that he knows, that he is very rich, yet at the same time, very poor in other aspects. --- These men are the most worthy to be my long term teacher, friend, and comrade.
Please Mr. Peter Thiel, let me have a short moment of your precious time, I have the solution to your quest for the world. altc
Marc talks fast. Interesting stuff. Yes get gov. out of the way.
People oppose technology for several reasons, but one quite upsetting is the misuse/abuse of it in a very disgusting predatory way. So somebody withing a society or type of culture must be regulating/managing that. So all this cheating must be decreased by at least 90%. Perhaps the same tech innovators can test that to find the perpetrators of these creative schemes, and offer them some kind of deal/salary for a better application of their time and creativity.
Some times it is correlated with business competition for just surviving or thriving, and may be due to how certain indicators apply to business success. That is why people blame capitalism and monopolies.
I think that is a human nature problem that goes across the whole planetary population. You will find it anywhere you go. It is regulated according to cultural habits and whatever solutions have been applied with more success.
People needs are priority over wants, if education has failed then work on improving that for real, the same for health, housing, etc. Open specialized technology schools or take a balance break if you have abundant wealth and be teachers to those with talent for that. Some creative people with discipline or responsibility problems will be much less destructive in a situation like that. Every one wants to succeed in life and honest competition is like a true life extension component, because it is a quality indicator.
You can not innovate for ever without a balance or things will go bye bye and only the more primitive things survive. Communication barriers can be overcome in several ways, so that is a poor justification for cheating and seeding future havoc.
Best wishes to the smart innovators.
Communication is the future , innovators are going to communicate.....It is the same argument that was made 500 years ago about printing press and books. Look how that played out.
Emerging market will not be source of innovation, its evolutionary and they are not even in 19th century yet.
We have 100 times more scientists today compare to 1920s because in 20s scientists were in a lab today people called 'scientists" and they are in regulatory or compliance or data management ....We have probably the same number of scientists in the labs as in 1920s they just not as smart due to education they have received.
tech maniacs have made my life miserable for some reason up on my ass all the time blocking everything for some reason for so long i have never cursed so bad as these crazy ass's
Clark Kimberly Moore Carol Lee Robert
32:55
# of researchers in the developing world, can you say China?
50:40
I think Peter Thiel seriously underestimates what other countries are doing. More interestingly, other countries - like China (kinda like what Marc is saying) - evolve fundamentally different systems... Like social networking is completely different in China, and payments are different, internet usage is different in a number of ways...
(And people interested in making money shouldn't object to "the something of somewhere" - if people don't have services, they don't)
Dang it... I don't want to make a Hitler comparison (:P) - but Peter Thiel has a touch of that conservative "We are better and lets find ways to rationalize why we're better" kinda thinking. Japan did overtake the US in the past. China has overtaken the US, for the moment, and they are innovating.
Scandinavian countries or the like though... Weak population, chill environment, doesn't really produce hungry people who want to work hard and get ahead... Plus, a smaller population just automatically reduces the number of talented people you have access to. Most countries do not have the US benefit of international geniuses immigrating, so if their local population doesn't do it, its not getting done.
Humpty?
Why is it that Peter is the only one with hair on his head. Could this be a sign of our 21st century diet?
What does he eat vs the others?
I am a great Thiel fan and think Zero to One is the best business book ever. But, Andressen wins this debate hands down for me.
What do you think now
The fundamental problem with both Thiel and Andreessen is that they are basically libertarians, so they don't want to talk about how neoliberal policies have destroyed wage growth and caused income inequality. They don't want to talk about how globalization and computerization have cut wages and increased global competition, which means less growth. Thiel correctly points out that innovation hasn't brough much improvement in people's lives, so they are rightly sceptical of innovation and see a dark future. Thiel argues that redistribution policies won't help the fundamental problem that economies are stagnant, but he doesn't pay attention to research showing that when wealth is distributed more equally, growth accelerates for the economy as a whole because you get the multiplier effects of a larger consumer base, which then drives investment and growth as a whole. Another problem with these guys is they basically see government as an inhibitor (which I agree when I look at the example of government subsidies for fossil fuels), but they don't talk about the many examples of how the government has stimulated industry: computers, aerospace, farmeceuticals--almost every portion of the US economy which is strong, has big government subsidies, government funded R&D and legal protections. The tech industry started because of government R&D and government purchasing of the tech.
+Amos Batto They don't want to talk about it and are libertarians because what you say is not the case.
+Amos Batto
Globalization and computerization have cut wages in the developed world (for some people), but increased wages in poor countries.
On a global scale, the effect on wages has probably been positive.
+Amos Batto How does increased competition (due to computerization, or anything else) lead to less growth? Wouldn't there also be more competition if wealth were distributed more equally?
My god, how dumb you are.
BarnabyyyyY
is not about less growth is about the negative effets of automation has in the average citizen.
just talk and complete disregard for human history
We have enough glorification of technology.
Has anybody noticed that Peter Thiel sounds like Kermit the frog sometimes? 9:50 . This is a moronic comment and I rate Peter Thiel