For those who are busy to watch kindly look at my summary in 500 words: - Peter Thiel spoke at Stanford conference on Academic Freedom (it is about “how to remove cancel culture and the politicization of science, how to return everything back to freedom of thought”). In essence, he explains why I am building VC to accelerate tech progress :) - What is the antonym of the word diversity? University. In the late 80s, Thiel founded the Stanford Review, a student newspaper, because woke culture was already coming in. For 50 years, the values of civilization have floated on a planetary scale, and we didn’t even notice it, but they fundamentally influenced the pace of progress - It is not even immediately obvious whether the technological progress is slowing down. For example, the living standards of the last generation are no higher than those of their parents. Moreover, we have a paradox: in the world of atoms (world of atoms, world of bits) progress is slowing down, but in the media we are assured that progress in general is incredible. Example: for 20 years in the US some tech people in government advisory boards will always convince everyone that our real inflation is less than in economic statistics, because our devices have become better. But it doesn't matter how smooth the iPhone is - it still won't let us fly to Mars - You need to challenge yourself through several repeated questions for things that you consider ideologically obvious. Until the 1960s, science fiction was positive, and since then it has become mostly dystopian, where have the positive images of the future gone? Why do we rely on these old religious expectations of an apocalypse or a doomsday? Why did it infiltrate technology? - Or, for example, the fear of danger AI / AGI - follows only from a view of the world as a Darwinist or Machiavellian. Such value attitudes lead to really dangerous quirks. I saw Nick Bostrom, he says that let's assume that AGI is dangerous, and therefore it is necessary to limit work in this direction, and distribution, and moreover, it is necessary to strictly control it all over the world, which threatens an authoritarian regime all over the earth. But I am categorically against any authoritarianism - You need to stop being afraid of dual-use technologies, this is not a reason to slow down progress or look at tech negatively. I think that it was after 1975, when they gave India nuclear reactors, and they took and made weapons, then the concept of nonproliferation went to other areas of technology - The thalidomide crisis in the 1960s (a tranquilizer that led to 10,000 birth defects) is no reason for prohibitively long and expensive clinical trials either. The creators of mRNA vaccines, by the way, deserve public respect, where is it? (saved us from the weaponization of virus research) - Only economic growth through technological progress can become a support/insurance for all other types of social stability - It turns out that elitism is needed so that the best know what to do, rather than trying to pull up all the lagging behind? “Egalitarianism is an excuse for a failed elitism” Victor: 1st: About Bostrom's Darwinism - evolution went through iterations of algorithms and it “needed” to free the ecosystem, and AGI, on the contrary, may emerge by the development / “education” of one entity, without any removal of past programs. Therefore a direct transfer of Darwinism is inappropriate here ? 2nd: Thiel, as a technocrat in his way of thinking from first principles (famous example: Elon Musk saw a 10-fold difference between the price of lithium / nickel / plastic on the commodity exchange and the final cost of the battery -> and began to optimize it) he came to values / cultural / religious reasons of slowdown in technological progress on the planet
@@kknn523 I don't think we'll have waiters , musicians or artists as they exist today. these things would be replaced with people who interact with simpler systems using ai and other tools to create an advanced version of the product or service
@@kknn523 not in my view. humans now are not humans later... have you observed a zoomer? they spend most of their time looking at real humans or digital versions of humans? either way, its senseless to argue. lets hope your version of the future plays out instead
@@kknn523 I think learning how to interact with AI will be 10x more important than it was to learn how to google search correctly or learn how to code. AI is about to get nutty & even if lawmakers try to stop it, it won't happen. The system is too slow. They'll never be able to pass laws/regulations quick enough with the current legislative system, at least in the US.
00:00:00 - Introducing Peter Thiel 00:03:23 - The Antonym of Diversity 00:14:40 - Why the Question of Technological Progress Can't Be Avoided 00:25:00 - The Rise of the AGI 00:32:39 - On Progress and Government Regulation 00:41:12 - Extreme Optimism and Extreme Pessimism 00:43:26 - Rick Schweiter on the Future of the Internet 00:45:18 - The University's failure to cultivate human potential
Considering that technology throws fuel on the fire of existing social problems, perhaps we should figure out how to build productive and resilient societies that inspire trust before continuing to stack our house of cards
"The Antonym of Diversity is University": In this talk, Peter Thiel discusses the stagnation of science and technology in recent years and the dangers that come with it. He argues that while universities claim to be the center of progress, they have actually hindered it. Thiel highlights the need for a closer examination of technological progress and its limitations. He also warns against the dangers of totalitarianism and the loss of individual agency. Thiel concludes by emphasizing the importance of reclaiming the idea of progress while remaining realistic and avoiding extreme optimism or pessimism.
To call western education universal is premature, given that is is originates from an impulse to be relevant. It is, by universal standards, junior highschool education of European boys with anxiety.
Honestly, this idea for restricting innovation and pushing a world government due to the theoretical fear of annihilation seems like a pretty good front for a post-colonialism empire to try and gain more worldwide power through the veil of imminent destruction (fear), similar to how the church has done in the distant past.
The idea that regulation will necessarily lead to a tyrannical world government is also a pretty good front for convincing people to give up their political rights and let the billionaires rule on their behalf. We all know that they will make much nicer tyrants.
@@mikemiller7377 Agreed, regulation is necessary. If we actually had a truly free market, maybe it would work but we have "socialism for the rich, rugged capitalism for the poor". Governments choose winners and loser every day and favor the companies with the most lobbying power. That is a total distortion of the market. If they really believed in "capitalism" like they preach to the lower classes, they would let these big entities fail when they make bad decisions and new more efficient ones would move in to take their place. Real competition in a free market. We don't have free markets in the US, we have a market where an oligarchy or "technocrats" choose winners and losers to benefit themselves. At the lower level, small/medium size businesses in towns and cities, are the closest thing we have to real capitalism. At the mega-corporation level, they get government handouts/bailouts because they're "too big to fail".
@@mikemiller7377 The problem eith people like you is You look at "billonaires" and government as two different entities. "Regulation" IS billonaires controlling you.
@@mikemiller7377 it’s easy for government to reverse a “billionaires” decision. Not so much the opposite. Your comment is naive in that it forgets the government is the one with the monopoly on violence. Any billionaire power rights are inherently temporary while they’re allowed by those in power. Through the flick of a switch, that reverses. Your response sounds overly leftist as something Elizabeth Warren would say
Look how many upvotes this has. This shows you how much anger people have for things that they don’t understand. As soon as they see Theil, they automatically upvote any comment that will cast him in a negative light, even if it’s something as indirect as “this particular UA-cam video doesn’t show like I want it to for my kids, because Peter Theil.”
I love how this dude is such a superior intellect and how he focuses on playing at the edge of words’ meanings to fabricate disagreement out of thin air. His sophistry is really impecable. He would be at home arguing that “making the totality of relevant available information to the totality of the population for that population in its totality to go out and participate electorally to chose society’s path on those specific issues would be a form of totalitarianism”….😂 his play of words are really remarkable in their appearance of making sense, I’m sure most people fall for his sophistry.
classical liberalism is a vibe, umm uh sort of polemic umm because gdp is the answer, like you know, its like saying that the flatness of the iphone means that your grandma has to eat pet food, so we need real answers but not from those people that call their field science.
The stagnation was caused in part by the Reagan tax cuts. When businesses owners stoped being taxed at 70% and it was knocked down to 28% for the top marginal tax bracket, then all the investments in productivity and research into new technologies just died out. The owners pocketed all that hot cheap easy money their workers made for them and they got comfortable and soft. When CEO salaries went from 60x the average workers and jumped to 300 x those same wages that never managed to increase for 40 + years ruining the lives of the vast majority of Americans. The consolidation of wealth that was being produced by our society into the hands of a few ruined the awesome power of the US economy. Workers pay and with it America has stalled out and is now in a state of decay. Business leaders know all of this but they can not mention it bc that would ruin their gravy train. The oligarchs have screwed our system up in their greed. It’s as obvious as can be. You don’t need a totalitarian state. You need an economy that works for all. Not just a hand full of ppl. That speech was a load of BS. He can’t do better then that? It’s all the liberals fault right? Too much taxes and regulations. That lie is what has put us where we are at. Libertarians are self deluded in ideology that would never work. It’s the success of the right is what is the root of our problems today. It’s hard to argue with ppl who start from false assumptions.
I would say that just the complexity of everything has grown a lot. Before, there was a lot of low-hanging fruit that was easy to pick, and that was a scientific breakthrough. Now we have to climb very high.
True. You still hear investors talk about how unpredictable Airbnb's success was, and what a great idea it turned out to be. True (the latter) but it was predictable to anyone with a ticking brain.
A lot of things will seem low-hanging in hindsight but to believe so is simply insulting to the researchers of the past who probably went to great lengths to achieve their discoveries. Keep in mind we also have much greater tools for research and much more data.
@@supersonic956 Honestly, it's super disingenuous of you to compare researchers with the airbnb founders who spotted a gap in the market in 2009 or so to rent out empty spaces people had. I mean real estate ads were not new then either and it's just classifieds.
Engineering died because domestic hi tech manufacturing (in particular - all manufacturing in general) was siphoned off by Japan Korea Taiwan China etc.
One thing not discussed is demographics. Without a larger upcoming generation then everything including growth like 4% can’t happen. In fact prosperity goes down.
That's such nonsense. The reason the establishment is so concerned about population is that if they population reduces to a manageable size - they don't have as a big a hammer to hold over everyone to enslave them.
Is that an opinion or a fact? I’m interested in understanding more, as atm, I’d would not say that a country with a declining population is unable to achieve a growing GDP. I understand that it would definitely interfere but not to be as blocking as you stated.
There are different definitions of elitism. Going with the professionals is always the safe bet. Not 100% of course. But not trusting someone JUST because they are an expert is obtuse and obstinate.
@@noahway13 elite does not mean expert. it implies influential because of money, power or expertise. it is the test of our freedoms if people can choose to not let certain experts become influential (elites), especially ones that can impact our lives negatively.
The world is build on choices and probabilities so we cannot always blame the people who have choose the life that they are living. Obviously there are miscreants as well as people who met with an accident. Hope you don't really mean what you say.
Thiel agree that we should be aware of the potential dangers of technology and strive to ensure that progress is accessible to all. Here are some bullet points that summarize our conversation: • Technology has been stagnant for the past 50 years due to the dual use nature of many technologies. • We should reclaim the language of progress and ask how the next generation can do better than the current one. • We should combine the best elements of classical liberalism with something else for the future, while also being aware of the dangers of too much optimism. • We should be aware of the dangers of totalitarianism and colonialism, and strive to ensure that progress is accessible to all. • Success is not guaranteed and it is not a matter of extreme optimism or pessimism. It is a matter of individual human agency and hard work. • The Thiel Fellows program has taught us that universities are not always the best way to cultivate human potential, and that there is a need for a better system.
The future is unknown until we define it's constraints whilst expanding new possibilities. Everything evolves either towards extinction or toward synchronicity with nature. The key to future progress depends on our choice not to destroy what is God sent.
So what he is saying from the first 16 minutes of the video that civilization will become idiocracy is that correct? Because we create companies that are successful in money terms but doesn’t push humanity forward to growth in innovation.
Was disappointed to find a pretty big straw man argument around 30:20. I read the Bostrom paper; Thiel basically took a few paragraphs several hundred pages into the report was essentially exploring how one might prevent people getting access to technology that could kill millions or billions. In fact, Bostrom concludes that section saying that one cannot really change human nature and the idea is infeasible.
27:11 transhumanist to Luddite? I have no idea what he is talking about, but I still like what Jeff cline is doing with AGI - I think that he alone could do it
12:29 For someone who have spent 15 years exploring “these ideas”, the inability to present at least minimally coherent viewpoint is striking. I think this talk is a great example of a somewhat common misconception that if someone is successful, they always have something valuable to say. Seems they, indeed, often have something to say, and as for the value - we’ll, it’s just someone’s personal expectations.
Alot of the same ideas were mentioned seven years ago: ua-cam.com/video/7pCIvOx76p0/v-deo.html. This talk ties them together into several arguments. I'm going to have to rewatch this video.
@@tech3425 the guys commentary was on nuclear… I was saying I support nuclear even more than renewables, and I’ve worked in renewables for over a decade.
Peter did you hear that Ron Desantis is turning New College in florida into a conservative liberal arts school. maybe you should give your lectures there too to increase its appeal.
Maybe things are so dystopian because there is a lack of uptopian visions? Fictional dystopia’s are a popular media source but there are not enough examples of what a Utopia would be. Afraid to give solutions but easy to point out problems.
Things get dystopian because of financial and professional corruption. We have this in part because our regulatory bodies are rife with corruption. We have lost a balance of centralization and self sufficiency. Our legal system is complicating into oblivion and serves the corporation before the person. Corporations are wonderful until they form the bridge into totalitarianism, exploitation, and devastating externalities. Most are being left behind while few chase techno utopia, making everything fragile, as few collect disproportionate returns and opportunities for life improvements disappear. Genuine competition evaporates with these imbalances. We need better food, leaders, better education, and then people might be encouraged to give a single fuck. And to your point, I wonder if we are ignoring options besides more stem? The logical end of stem seems to involve us trying to engineer humans- we don’t want that.
this was a point he railed on a lot just a few years ago. his words were more like we need a concrete positive image if the future (as opposed to the dystopian ones we have now)
IN highschool I had my heart set on being a mechanical engineer from MIT or Georgia Tech because thats what my dad did and got rejected by both schools. Having my dreams broken I enrolled in information systems at a small local college. Now I have a bentley flying spur thanks to software engineering job. I literally failed into success. IF I did Mech E I would be jobless
@BBSara01 Having sufficient material wealth is essenmtial for a happy living. But to condition your happiness on material things is a sign of an unhappy existence. What good does your Bentley do to you that a Tesla or a Toyota couldn't? Why stop at Bentley? What about a super-yacht? Do you have that yet? A private jet? A private island? There are plenty of people still richer than you. You are still poor to them.
1. Question everything you hold ideologically dear. 2. Embrace the dual edge sword of technology, and don’t use it as an excuse to stunt progress, or to view technology negatively. 3. Economic growth via technological progress undergirds all other forms of social stability. 4. Embrace elitism, where a small number of interested and intelligent individuals do most of the work. Convince the best and brightest of what’s worth doing instead of trying to pull up the rear.
@@MrClockw3rk He is anti-regulation which I disagree with. All our bubbles popping (housing, banking, tech) were because of speculations in unsafe 'vehicles'. of investment. But everything has a balance point. Does anyone know of a guy, was on Rogan podcast, he has a theory that the world is full of mindless people, and we are led forward only by a few rare leaders, like Ghandi, or Jesus, or Einstein, or Trump. JK about that last one.
@@noahway13 Trump established peace in the middle east with the Abraham Accords, furthered peace between north and south Korea, established a path towards energy independence, and was one of the few people who begged NATO to stop relying on Russain oil and opposed the totalitarian agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF)....all until Joe Biden reversed ALL OF THOSE THINGS. But Trump said a few bad words so I guess his quest for saving humanity means nothing.
I don't understand how he can be so dismissive of the Humanities, when his entire approach is self-evidently deeply informed by History, Philosophy, Political Science, Law, Literature ...etc... All received via an education in the Humanities
Love this video and love the pragmatic libertarianism. Interesting that the next recommended video by Peter is that competition is for losers. The best way to "win" is to obtain a government sponsored monopoly - through IP, regulatory barriers etc. Seems like to fully support the libertarian view, you also have to accept that "big wins" might have to go away and be ok with that.
I think he isn't in support of monopolies that are state sponsored, he means that when starting a business a Friedman-defined natural monopoly is optimal. E.g. Google where network effects make it an effective monopoly on search w/o government force.
well, he did pay the airfare of all the attendees which is also why he was allowed to blather with whatever random thoughts which came to mind for so long
as a programmer, nothing we do resembles engineering at its core we develop things that break all the time, and are expected to break all the time an engineer cannot afford a bridge to break, we are not the same
a programmer is lower than a secretary imho:) As a secretary, say for a high powered law firm or corporation, you actually make decisions on your feet and are responsible for making sure the clients are IMPRESSED. and that is no small task:) Some Secretaries can even write code.
I started software development (as a professional) in 1988. It truly amazes me how so much of what I learned on my first job is STILL used today. It's like time stood still.
Peter Thiel is a very interesting if strange man with a lot of interesting insights. I don't want him in charge of our political system. FURTHER THOUGHT: I will say this for Thiel. While a technocrat, he has the older and far better attitude that technocracy is about technical things, important for that reason, but should not be allowed to displace a larger liberal culture of free though and discussion nor displace a democratic political culture. One of the main things that has gone wrong in the US in the last 30 years is, not just the spread of PC and Woke, but displacement of a culture both liberal and democratic with a censorious culture of semi-literate and expensively credentialed busybodies, buttressed by unaccountable (and often incompetent) technocracy.
I've long suspected Thiel of bot-tism 😆 He has a good grasp of abstract ideas and technology and an interesting perspective on society. His understanding of people is limited and largely consists of theories.
@@bostonseeker Billionaires are routinely fawned over. Hell, they can easily hire professional sycophants. So I think I'll hold off on praising his magic special understanding. But I can think of lots of non-billionaires who truly have mastered -- pioneered! -- ideas and concepts that people like Thiel have leeched off of. (Speaking of leeches, is Thiel still looking to harvest the blood of young people?)
Thiel's discussion of PC/Woke reminds me of something else. I was also at Stanford at the end of the 80s and remember several things clearly about the roots of this change. It wasn't just the rise of the "tenured radicals," although that had something to do with the spread and persistence of bad ideas. Already then the negative role of administrators was evident, and that has ballooned in the last 30 years into something truly frightening. Administrative bloat and pretensions are the practical machinery of PC/Woke, not tenured radicals. For the specific idea of "intersectionality," there's little doubt this was driven mainly by Critical Legal Studies and then-new idea of "protected classes" in US law, mainly at the hands of legal scholars and judges, not much by statutory law (not since the 1960s, and the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s were not framed that way). Intersectionality is basically a contest, a sweepstakes, to see who's "more oppressed"; i.e., who's the "most protected class." (And guess what? For some reason, Jews always end up as "white oppressors," at the other end of the "oppressor/oppressed" hierarchy -- this is the core of the "new" leftist antisemitism.) Because the legal system and universities have been surreptitiously misused to impose these ideas, they've taken a characteristically legal-academic form, at least in the US. Because in America, the legal profession has a unique authority, scope, and size that it lacks in other advanced democracies. It's our clerisy, our One Party of Rightthink.
‘Let me steel man the opposition’ followed by mockery and literally no discussion that makes sense. What a myopic view to think technological progress has slowed down. My grandparents were born before sliced bread and live where we can live video chat across the country. Wild that Peter can’t see we’ve had more advance in the last century than any time in history
The best way to improve our civilization's technology would be to improve the lives of every person so they can all contribute positively. Since that's not happening, we can only assume 2 things: either we can't do it, or some gatekeepers somewhere are making sure we don't. I'd prefer to believe the former, but who knows?
You either didn't watch the talk or you need to work on your critical comprehension skills, the time frame he specified was post-70's and specifically granted the technological boom up until then.
@@PhilosoFeed a bit of both. The actual problem that I think he was trying to spell out, idk that was hard work, is a product of deliberate defunding public education. This is a direct result of campaigns from people against the desegregation of the school. Basically when they lost they resorted to defunding all public education. To understand this question as to why technological progress hasn't been seen across society, you would need to ask someone from the humanities.....
live video chat with your grandparents falls under the umbrella of computer science since it's software. he specifically said the only thing that has continued to advance rapidly is computer science, so you kind of proved his point. advancements in things like medicine, aviation, nuclear power and many other areas have slowed to a crawl. have you been to an airport in the last couple of years? it's an absolute disaster. flights are delayed or canceled constantly, and planes are often grounded or don't have enough pilots. if it wasn't for elon musk we wouldn't have high quality electric cars like we do today, we wouldn't have good satellite internet with starlink and we certainly wouldn't be launching re-usable rockets in an attempt to colonize mars.
Damn dude just spent 10mins straight whining about some person that got a nobel prize 30yrs ago. All this to claim its thanks to him, great speach yes thanks for blowing my mind.
Peter often mentions that there were only a few fields that were good ideas to study, like computer science or petro-engineering. But fields, or academic subject areas, are classifications of convenience. Scientific and philosophical questions can cut straight across "subject matters" or the answers to questions can cut across subjects. You can study anwers to questions that you actually have and resolve your own problems (conflicts between ideas) as you learn. There's nothing for you to figure out unless you already have some confusion about something or some reason to think that there's more to a particular problem than appears at first thought. Once you get those misconceptions then you can guess some solutions. And those solutions could solve problems that a lot of other people noticed or didn't even notice but now see that there was a problem and now we have a solution to a problem we didn't even know about. Some solutions turn out to be incredibly valuable and some don't matter much and its hard to tell before hand.
Not the purpose, surely, but as a foundation of a decent life for all (i.e., material sufficiency), pretty important. Ghouls like Thiel, however, are absolutely NOT a part of this in any way. Far from it -- his kind want to horde everything in sight for themselves, and then pull up the ladders. They demonstrate this daily. Their endless need for more more more is a real pathology.
100% right about the dual-nature reluctance toward technological progress seeping in to current AI research. It's going to be hampered by the same worries that have slowed technological progress to a crawl in the world of atoms.
In the 1970s, the average gasoline engine had a thermal efficiency of roughly 20-25%. In 2023, the most efficient gasoline engines for passenger vehicles achieved thermal efficiencies in the ballpark of 40%. Only 15% improvement in 50 years!! This summarizes the problem of progress of our species
Attending a conference in one of the most elite universities in the world =/= wage slave. Talk to me after get injured on a job making $14/hr and your employer fires you bc you cant work after they set you up to be permanently disabled..
@@MrClockw3rk yea but these rich guys never tell the truth when they speak to wage slaves because it’s too painful. The truth is “I wanted to own my time so I didn’t need a boss controlling me, so I figured out a clever strategy to get rich by leveraging other peoples scientific innovations, labor, and ideas. Meanwhile you suckers are devoting your entire life to invent scientific breakthroughs that you will never own because the university will make them public domain; and guys like me will edploit those inventions to make billions of dollars.” The truth is too painful so they need to water it down😂
@@depression_isnt_real "myself included" I highly doubt that you are smarter than Elon Musk by any metric. You come off as boasting if anything. A subset of smart people making it doesn't mean all smart folks would get rich but it does prove people who made it are smart. Hopefully you understand that since you are so intelligent.
@@Vim_Tim uff…so glad…somehow its more worrying that people believe this is intellectually sound in any way….Yes, he made a lot of money. Is he having any logical coherent theory/story to tell, compelling arguments, new ideas? None of that…only a guy who got rich and now is believed to be smart. But you can get richt with very limited intellectual capacities in regards of science or philosophy or logic…simply cruel to listen to
Edward Dutton would probably argue that technological progress has stalled because the median IQ has dropped below a critical threshold. There is empirical evidence that reaction times have collapsed since the late Victorian era, and that sheds light on why the Victorian-age people were more culturally and intellectually productive that our people, even given their generally harsh living conditions. I mean, seriously, 19th Century novelists were producing excellent works, often one after another, by writing them out in long hand.
Have you considered that the causal cascade you describe, if valid, is directly downstream of technology? If so, it is the proximate cause of its own demise. Or maybe that is where you were headed here. Gaia would approve. Homeostasis is a bitch.
@@samuelglover7685 Ok... Firstly I am not jealous of anyone. But seeing as you equate wealth with intelligence I can infer you are an Elon Musk nut gobbler that can't be reasoned with. I was just poking fun at this comment which suggests that statistics such as reaction time, IQ, living conditions, and printing methods are directly related to the "stalling of technological progress" (not true btw). I don't doubt that there are very bright minds in this space but it seems like many listeners parrot the opinions of so called "smart" billionaires without analyzing with their own brains.
It's funny, Thiel doesn't seem to know that the MIRI paper he referenced about dying with dignity was published on April 1st ... not much for a steel man argument.
From the paper: "Q6: Hey, this was posted on April 1st. All of this is just an April Fool's joke, right? A: Why, of course! Or rather, it's a preview of what might be needful to say later, if matters really do get that desperate. You don't want to drop that on people suddenly and with no warning. Q6: Oh. Really? That would be such a relief! A: Only you can decide whether to live in one mental world or the other." Sounds to me like the author is dead serious but was using April 1st as an easy escape hatch. It disarms would-be critics by making people second guess the authors true intentions. Yet the author is just as careful to never fully say he isn't serious. TLDR I think Peters point still stands, the paper represents people's actual thoughts.
@@jacobsheppard862 Agreed 100%, posting it April 1st was weaselly shit for Yudkowsky to get out of any accountability for basically something that would outright inspire mass suicide in a similar eschatological vein. His words in other places absolutely reaffirm the idea he thinks we're about to -die-. He's just bullshitting when he leans on it being April 1st, but more importantly, OTHER people who defend him miss the point even more than he ever could have.
I really don't want to veer into anti-intellectualism, but more and more I get the feeling that Stanford and the Ivies have one helluva lot to apologize for.....
Interesting talk. Personally I'm not a fan of Thiel (billionaire with mystery background, serving a closed loop circle of more or less parasitical mystery interests, via predatory finance), but he presents many good points here, and sounds sane - which is quite rare nowadays.
@@KnowL-oo5po AGI will be the last invention because the human brain has reached its limits. We need AGI to re-accelerate stagnant scientific progress.
he is the definition of realist. I like the dead serious tone he has. There is only a small group of population thats really trying to make a change, and they are trying very rigorously whlie the rest is just slacking off.
@@supersonic956 no I didn't mean him necessarily, what i have observer that in a class of 30 students only 1/2 make it upto research, most just settle for a decent enough life.
When I saw that Stanford had a Classical Liberalism Chapter, I felt glad that at least somewhere there is a population of people my age (college going), that actively relate to these ideals. Towards the end (32:42), the room seems to be filled with older folk :( Makes me feel sad that there won't be many people like this around me, when I'm the age of the people in the audience
Sorry, but Libertarians have no validity. Their beliefs require no government support, but they live in that world. All their data is from a non Libertarian existence. The "best system" of capitalism itself doesn't come true until major oversight and regulation and redistribution fixes major problems. There's little worker or consumer confidence without it . The only way to prove your beliefs is to function without any knowledge acquired after ~1900 or so, when government begins to be directed towards wide benefit and the excesses of financing and industrialization are reigned in. Sorry, you live in a fantasy.
In some ways it was more free statement I think I've seen every single tech billionaire when asked that question answer with that generic statement he may as well just say shareholders and move on
Q: Who is the guy asking the first question, 33:10? Claiming that the USA could have had free and abundant energy from nuclear power plants, if it had not been for the 80s peace and green crowd. This is misleading, because all energy markets work on the basis of the Merit Order Model ( prices being set by the variable cost of the marginal plant, i.e. the most expensive plant that is ). USA government would have had to legislate out ruling hydro, wind, solar, gas and oil as electricity & heat producing source. I doubt that vested interests in gas and oil would have let that happen. PS/Edit: And his real world example (nuclear) he carries his argument (stagnant tech progress because irrational influences and thus gov & political regulation) has to be seen, just like all his talks and interviews, through the lens of his investments and interests. Like $500m in Helion Energy, $2mn in Transatomic Power etc. He setup a fund just for this. See also his 2016 Essay for the NYT "The single most important action we can take is thawing a nuclear energy policy that keeps our technology frozen in time."
This makes no sense, Merit Order relates to how energy is supplied, not priced. You've somehow talked yourself into thinking that supply doesn't affect price.
his nihilism is a result of the existential threat capitalism faces due to the sinking rates of profit, the falling stock markets, building speculative bubbles and the lack of opportunities of growth due to monopoly rule. his nihilism is not shared by entrepreneurs and scientists in the developing world.
lollll I took "Europe and the Americas" 93-94 at Stanford for that CIV requirement and had to read "I, Rigoberta Menchu". Let's just say that course was a huge waste of time. 🤣🤣
For all the vitriol poured on camera against hippie humanities professors with pipes on acid, Mr. Thiel strategically avoids being overtly critical of the Capitol. Somewhat weird because I doubt you will find such a high concentration of senility in one location anywhere else in the continental US.
More like Zuck speaks like him. In the early days he was for sure a good role model for Zuck when it comes to innovative thinking and entrepreneurship.
Peter Thiel is that rich guy or boss that people have to listen dribble on and they never get to their point. What is his point? That he thinks conservatism is good? Great, how original. What a chore it is to listen to this guy talk. Literally the only reason people listsn to him is because he's rich. There are lots of rich guys but they dont all feel like they need to ear beat everybody with rambling, incoherent speeches.
I haven't finished this talk yet, but i know from others that I've listened too he is referring to the crazy leaps that came from paradigm shifts in our understanding of many sciences during the mid 20th century, and how our more recent history is a refining of those technologies but we haven't really had a truly innovative paradigm shift in a while. I don't know what he would consider truly innovate but I imagine it's probably stuff like fusion energy, curing biological aging, artificial general intelligence, some new form of propulsion that doesn't rely on expulsion of hot gases etc.
Only ONE YEAR from identification of the Covid virus to the release of effective vaccines. But "no progress", sure. Thiel is as much an ignoramus as he is a fascist ghoul. What's the German word that combines "grotesque" and "inane"?
@@samuelglover7685 spot on! and like this its every year...we as humanity make great scientific new discoveries, but guys like him are trying to convince the backwards bible belt that there is an intellectual foundation to their ignorance...wonder which word you are looking for (native german speaker here): Albern? Blödsinnig (which is more "idiotic")? Quatschig (which is still to nice)? Verrückt? Irre? need some help here... but: that dude is dangerous, so all these words are too nice and make to much fun, like a childish thing could be characterized...and that feels wrong considering how many believe that that is actually some smart argumentation...
He wasn't saying there was no scientific progress, he was saying that scientific progress is going slower than it used to. To use an oversimplified analogy: Say scientific progress was going 100 mph from 1920 to 1970. Peter could say scientific progress is going like 35 mph from 1970 to 2020 I know this all sounds crazy at first, but more & more people are starting to agree with it. Especially recently.
We Believe: That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life; That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations; That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise; That government should be of laws rather than of men; That earth's great treasure lies in human personality; And that service to humanity is the best work of life.
"The humanities, as we all know, are ridiculous." What did he mean to communicate with that? I mean, don't tell me that historically grown political problems are best solved without historical knowledge, or that you highly value René Girards work although he should never have engaged in philosophical anthropology.
humanities are often underrated by technical minds who got rich and see themselves as superhumans only to slide into fascism, basically because they don't know the basics about humanities (otherwise they would see red flags in their own behavior and by understanding history)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
For those who are busy to watch kindly look at my summary in 500 words:
- Peter Thiel spoke at Stanford conference on Academic Freedom (it is about “how to remove cancel culture and the politicization of science, how to return everything back to freedom of thought”). In essence, he explains why I am building VC to accelerate tech progress :)
- What is the antonym of the word diversity? University. In the late 80s, Thiel founded the Stanford Review, a student newspaper, because woke culture was already coming in. For 50 years, the values of civilization have floated on a planetary scale, and we didn’t even notice it, but they fundamentally influenced the pace of progress
- It is not even immediately obvious whether the technological progress is slowing down. For example, the living standards of the last generation are no higher than those of their parents. Moreover, we have a paradox: in the world of atoms (world of atoms, world of bits) progress is slowing down, but in the media we are assured that progress in general is incredible. Example: for 20 years in the US some tech people in government advisory boards will always convince everyone that our real inflation is less than in economic statistics, because our devices have become better. But it doesn't matter how smooth the iPhone is - it still won't let us fly to Mars
- You need to challenge yourself through several repeated questions for things that you consider ideologically obvious. Until the 1960s, science fiction was positive, and since then it has become mostly dystopian, where have the positive images of the future gone? Why do we rely on these old religious expectations of an apocalypse or a doomsday? Why did it infiltrate technology?
- Or, for example, the fear of danger AI / AGI - follows only from a view of the world as a Darwinist or Machiavellian. Such value attitudes lead to really dangerous quirks. I saw Nick Bostrom, he says that let's assume that AGI is dangerous, and therefore it is necessary to limit work in this direction, and distribution, and moreover, it is necessary to strictly control it all over the world, which threatens an authoritarian regime all over the earth. But I am categorically against any authoritarianism
- You need to stop being afraid of dual-use technologies, this is not a reason to slow down progress or look at tech negatively. I think that it was after 1975, when they gave India nuclear reactors, and they took and made weapons, then the concept of nonproliferation went to other areas of technology
- The thalidomide crisis in the 1960s (a tranquilizer that led to 10,000 birth defects) is no reason for prohibitively long and expensive clinical trials either. The creators of mRNA vaccines, by the way, deserve public respect, where is it? (saved us from the weaponization of virus research)
- Only economic growth through technological progress can become a support/insurance for all other types of social stability
- It turns out that elitism is needed so that the best know what to do, rather than trying to pull up all the lagging behind? “Egalitarianism is an excuse for a failed elitism”
Victor:
1st: About Bostrom's Darwinism - evolution went through iterations of algorithms and it “needed” to free the ecosystem, and AGI, on the contrary, may emerge by the development / “education” of one entity, without any removal of past programs. Therefore a direct transfer of Darwinism is inappropriate here ?
2nd: Thiel, as a technocrat in his way of thinking from first principles (famous example: Elon Musk saw a 10-fold difference between the price of lithium / nickel / plastic on the commodity exchange and the final cost of the battery -> and began to optimize it) he came to values / cultural / religious reasons of slowdown in technological progress on the planet
thanks man
@@kknn523 AI just gonna make us stupider as it decreases the need for cognition. what are you talking about my dude?
@@kknn523 I don't think we'll have waiters , musicians or artists as they exist today. these things would be replaced with people who interact with simpler systems using ai and other tools to create an advanced version of the product or service
@@kknn523 not in my view. humans now are not humans later... have you observed a zoomer? they spend most of their time looking at real humans or digital versions of humans? either way, its senseless to argue. lets hope your version of the future plays out instead
@@kknn523 I think learning how to interact with AI will be 10x more important than it was to learn how to google search correctly or learn how to code. AI is about to get nutty & even if lawmakers try to stop it, it won't happen. The system is too slow. They'll never be able to pass laws/regulations quick enough with the current legislative system, at least in the US.
00:00:00 - Introducing Peter Thiel
00:03:23 - The Antonym of Diversity
00:14:40 - Why the Question of Technological Progress Can't Be Avoided
00:25:00 - The Rise of the AGI
00:32:39 - On Progress and Government Regulation
00:41:12 - Extreme Optimism and Extreme Pessimism
00:43:26 - Rick Schweiter on the Future of the Internet
00:45:18 - The University's failure to cultivate human potential
Why did you not include the crucial and avante guarde question of the corruption of "progress" and questioning classical liberalism at 00:35:35
@@adamnoble1689 these are autogenerated with our new tool. thank you for the feedback!
MVP
"However dangerous science and technology are... it seems to me that totalitarianism is far more dangerous"💯
Says the guy who bought and paid for Vance and the new theocratic takeover to install oligarchy
"It's like saying the flatness of the iPhone is such a large hedonic adjustment that grandma should be happy to eat cat food" lmao 18:31
That's an interesting comment. +1
really sums up the ridiculousness of current times
Considering that technology throws fuel on the fire of existing social problems, perhaps we should figure out how to build productive and resilient societies that inspire trust before continuing to stack our house of cards
True
Couldn’t agree more
That takes Jesus
@@mrfake675 Why not just philosophy?
@@westganton I don't think philosophy can reach the heart.
12:21 "Humanities, as we all know, are ridiiculous." File under: Things a person with Asperger's might say.
"The Antonym of Diversity is University": In this talk, Peter Thiel discusses the stagnation of science and technology in recent years and the dangers that come with it. He argues that while universities claim to be the center of progress, they have actually hindered it. Thiel highlights the need for a closer examination of technological progress and its limitations. He also warns against the dangers of totalitarianism and the loss of individual agency. Thiel concludes by emphasizing the importance of reclaiming the idea of progress while remaining realistic and avoiding extreme optimism or pessimism.
To call western education universal is premature, given that is is originates from an impulse to be relevant. It is, by universal standards, junior highschool education of European boys with anxiety.
Honestly, this idea for restricting innovation and pushing a world government due to the theoretical fear of annihilation seems like a pretty good front for a post-colonialism empire to try and gain more worldwide power through the veil of imminent destruction (fear), similar to how the church has done in the distant past.
The idea that regulation will necessarily lead to a tyrannical world government is also a pretty good front for convincing people to give up their political rights and let the billionaires rule on their behalf. We all know that they will make much nicer tyrants.
@@mikemiller7377 Agreed, regulation is necessary. If we actually had a truly free market, maybe it would work but we have "socialism for the rich, rugged capitalism for the poor". Governments choose winners and loser every day and favor the companies with the most lobbying power. That is a total distortion of the market. If they really believed in "capitalism" like they preach to the lower classes, they would let these big entities fail when they make bad decisions and new more efficient ones would move in to take their place. Real competition in a free market. We don't have free markets in the US, we have a market where an oligarchy or "technocrats" choose winners and losers to benefit themselves. At the lower level, small/medium size businesses in towns and cities, are the closest thing we have to real capitalism. At the mega-corporation level, they get government handouts/bailouts because they're "too big to fail".
@@mikemiller7377
The problem eith people like you is
You look at "billonaires" and government as two different entities.
"Regulation" IS billonaires controlling you.
What is theoretical about the fear of annihilation?
@@mikemiller7377 it’s easy for government to reverse a “billionaires” decision. Not so much the opposite. Your comment is naive in that it forgets the government is the one with the monopoly on violence. Any billionaire power rights are inherently temporary while they’re allowed by those in power. Through the flick of a switch, that reverses. Your response sounds overly leftist as something Elizabeth Warren would say
Thank you!
Making this for kids is painful, can't minimize this or put it in the background and it won't autoplay
You need a monthly subscription to get those features believe.
*Laughs in UA-cam premium*
Look how many upvotes this has.
This shows you how much anger people have for things that they don’t understand.
As soon as they see Theil, they automatically upvote any comment that will cast him in a negative light, even if it’s something as indirect as “this particular UA-cam video doesn’t show like I want it to for my kids, because Peter Theil.”
They made it for kids, because that's the level of intellectual content reached in this speech
I love how this dude is such a superior intellect and how he focuses on playing at the edge of words’ meanings to fabricate disagreement out of thin air. His sophistry is really impecable. He would be at home arguing that “making the totality of relevant available information to the totality of the population for that population in its totality to go out and participate electorally to chose society’s path on those specific issues would be a form of totalitarianism”….😂 his play of words are really remarkable in their appearance of making sense, I’m sure most people fall for his sophistry.
I took a drink everytime you repeated "sophistry"...I am now drunk
@@jesseholliday3480 so you got drunk on the truth 😆
word salad works. dazzle them!
@@fricardo3 yes I did! Still recovering 😂
classical liberalism is a vibe, umm uh sort of polemic umm because gdp is the answer, like you know, its like saying that the flatness of the iphone means that your grandma has to eat pet food, so we need real answers but not from those people that call their field science.
The stagnation was caused in part by the Reagan tax cuts. When businesses owners stoped being taxed at 70% and it was knocked down to 28% for the top marginal tax bracket, then all the investments in productivity and research into new technologies just died out. The owners pocketed all that hot cheap easy money their workers made for them and they got comfortable and soft. When CEO salaries went from 60x the average workers and jumped to 300 x those same wages that never managed to increase for 40 + years ruining the lives of the vast majority of Americans. The consolidation of wealth that was being produced by our society into the hands of a few ruined the awesome power of the US economy. Workers pay and with it America has stalled out and is now in a state of decay.
Business leaders know all of this but they can not mention it bc that would ruin their gravy train. The oligarchs have screwed our system up in their greed. It’s as obvious as can be.
You don’t need a totalitarian state. You need an economy that works for all. Not just a hand full of ppl.
That speech was a load of BS. He can’t do better then that?
It’s all the liberals fault right? Too much taxes and regulations. That lie is what has put us where we are at. Libertarians are self deluded in ideology that would never work. It’s the success of the right is what is the root of our problems today.
It’s hard to argue with ppl who start from false assumptions.
He's worried about totalitarianism and hyper surveillance when he's literally the guy who co-founded palantir lol
what do you think palantir does?
It's okay if it's US being totalitarian and hyper surveillance on others.
@@Shvetaki they do mass survalence for government
if you’re smart with your data analysis you don’t have to do mass collection like the NSA
You may always be poor
Jay Battachara (35:50) and Johnnie Cochran?!
What a crowd!
Hahaha, he didn’t realize the “Death With Dignity” post was an April Fools joke… Yudkowsky posted it on 1 April😂
Peter has been citing the “Death With Dignity” post for a while now. Someone should politely let him know.
I would say that just the complexity of everything has grown a lot. Before, there was a lot of low-hanging fruit that was easy to pick, and that was a scientific breakthrough. Now we have to climb very high.
True. You still hear investors talk about how unpredictable Airbnb's success was, and what a great idea it turned out to be. True (the latter) but it was predictable to anyone with a ticking brain.
all the climbing will be done by AI. We'll be on the sidelines holding our d**** in our hand.
A lot of things will seem low-hanging in hindsight but to believe so is simply insulting to the researchers of the past who probably went to great lengths to achieve their discoveries. Keep in mind we also have much greater tools for research and much more data.
@@supersonic956 Honestly, it's super disingenuous of you to compare researchers with the airbnb founders who spotted a gap in the market in 2009 or so to rent out empty spaces people had. I mean real estate ads were not new then either and it's just classifieds.
Engineering died because domestic hi tech manufacturing (in particular - all manufacturing in general) was siphoned off by Japan Korea Taiwan China etc.
One thing not discussed is demographics. Without a larger upcoming generation then everything including growth like 4% can’t happen. In fact prosperity goes down.
That's such nonsense. The reason the establishment is so concerned about population is that if they population reduces to a manageable size - they don't have as a big a hammer to hold over everyone to enslave them.
Is that an opinion or a fact? I’m interested in understanding more, as atm, I’d would not say that a country with a declining population is unable to achieve a growing GDP.
I understand that it would definitely interfere but not to be as blocking as you stated.
"Egalitarianism is the excuse for a failed elitism."
There are different definitions of elitism. Going with the professionals is always the safe bet. Not 100% of course. But not trusting someone JUST because they are an expert is obtuse and obstinate.
@@noahway13 elite does not mean expert. it implies influential because of money, power or expertise. it is the test of our freedoms if people can choose to not let certain experts become influential (elites), especially ones that can impact our lives negatively.
The world is build on choices and probabilities so we cannot always blame the people who have choose the life that they are living. Obviously there are miscreants as well as people who met with an accident. Hope you don't really mean what you say.
@@solvriksh Assuming you believe in metaphysical libertarian free will.
Thiel agree that we should be aware of the potential dangers of technology and strive to ensure that progress is accessible to all. Here are some bullet points that summarize our conversation:
• Technology has been stagnant for the past 50 years due to the dual use nature of many technologies.
• We should reclaim the language of progress and ask how the next generation can do better than the current one.
• We should combine the best elements of classical liberalism with something else for the future, while also being aware of the dangers of too much optimism.
• We should be aware of the dangers of totalitarianism and colonialism, and strive to ensure that progress is accessible to all.
• Success is not guaranteed and it is not a matter of extreme optimism or pessimism. It is a matter of individual human agency and hard work.
• The Thiel Fellows program has taught us that universities are not always the best way to cultivate human potential, and that there is a need for a better system.
The future is unknown until we define it's constraints whilst expanding new possibilities. Everything evolves either towards extinction or toward synchronicity with nature. The key to future progress depends on our choice not to destroy what is God sent.
Wow. That's beautiful. Well put
One of the billionairs I respect.
So what he is saying from the first 16 minutes of the video that civilization will become idiocracy is that correct? Because we create companies that are successful in money terms but doesn’t push humanity forward to growth in innovation.
MMAT will. Nanotechnology at scale
In my opinion it’s like he rambles for an hour and you really can’t take away anything concrete. I do applaud his efforts though
I like his ideas, but the way he lays them out always has me off balance and trying to decode his meaning.
Was disappointed to find a pretty big straw man argument around 30:20. I read the Bostrom paper; Thiel basically took a few paragraphs several hundred pages into the report was essentially exploring how one might prevent people getting access to technology that could kill millions or billions. In fact, Bostrom concludes that section saying that one cannot really change human nature and the idea is infeasible.
I agree, most peoppe in the west fear inovation and real progress
27:11 transhumanist to Luddite? I have no idea what he is talking about, but I still like what Jeff cline is doing with AGI - I think that he alone could do it
12:29 For someone who have spent 15 years exploring “these ideas”, the inability to present at least minimally coherent viewpoint is striking. I think this talk is a great example of a somewhat common misconception that if someone is successful, they always have something valuable to say. Seems they, indeed, often have something to say, and as for the value - we’ll, it’s just someone’s personal expectations.
Billionaires routinely mistake the fawning of their sycophants for truth. We need to tax them out of existence. They are a kind of social infection.
Alot of the same ideas were mentioned seven years ago: ua-cam.com/video/7pCIvOx76p0/v-deo.html. This talk ties them together into several arguments. I'm going to have to rewatch this video.
Loved that he used 1 Thessalonians 5:3.
nice spiel Thiel ...... good educational chat -
"We didn't think you would care that much" isn't a good response to pulling something like that. Now I understand just how different we are.
First guys commentary is ON-POINT! And I’ve been in renewables for 13 years.
What regulation is holding back renewables? Aren't many regulation-heavy countries like Germany widely adopting Solar and other Renewables?
@@tech3425 the guys commentary was on nuclear… I was saying I support nuclear even more than renewables, and I’ve worked in renewables for over a decade.
@@tech3425 and as for Germany & others, it hasn’t worked well at all… so much money for such little production/generation.
@@BabaBabelOm Ohh, like that
Peter did you hear that Ron Desantis is turning New College in florida into a conservative liberal arts school. maybe you should give your lectures there too to increase its appeal.
Maybe things are so dystopian because there is a lack of uptopian visions? Fictional dystopia’s are a popular media source but there are not enough examples of what a Utopia would be. Afraid to give solutions but easy to point out problems.
Things get dystopian because of financial and professional corruption. We have this in part because our regulatory bodies are rife with corruption. We have lost a balance of centralization and self sufficiency. Our legal system is complicating into oblivion and serves the corporation before the person. Corporations are wonderful until they form the bridge into totalitarianism, exploitation, and devastating externalities. Most are being left behind while few chase techno utopia, making everything fragile, as few collect disproportionate returns and opportunities for life improvements disappear. Genuine competition evaporates with these imbalances. We need better food, leaders, better education, and then people might be encouraged to give a single fuck. And to your point, I wonder if we are ignoring options besides more stem? The logical end of stem seems to involve us trying to engineer humans- we don’t want that.
this was a point he railed on a lot just a few years ago. his words were more like we need a concrete positive image if the future (as opposed to the dystopian ones we have now)
another bot:)
@@Kathryn551 seriously? what bothers you about this comment?
@@Sam-um9nu ignore that useless comment
Peter, "Rigoberto Menchu" has the accent on the second syllable.
Tough crowd, Peter was hitting them with zingers left and right and they were stone cold. Great talk
honestly he's not the best lecturer lol
@@JF-yo7vu I don't mind a few "Umm Uhhs", his perception of the zeitgeist is top notch.
Yea. He needs to work on his delivery. Once he lets a zinger fly, he’s already moved on to the next point before you can even think about it.
His “ums” are so human and nice. If guy with non perfect attire can be billionaire, you can
you want the crowed to clap and howl like trained seals, the state of conformity.
IN highschool I had my heart set on being a mechanical engineer from MIT or Georgia Tech because thats what my dad did and got rejected by both schools. Having my dreams broken I enrolled in information systems at a small local college. Now I have a bentley flying spur thanks to software engineering job. I literally failed into success. IF I did Mech E I would be jobless
Some day snake charmers will be driving Bentleys too if they have a sufficiently big market
That you see owning a Bentley as a success is kinda sad though.
lol, where I come from if you did Mech E you would end up as a software engineer
@@Tobself paid off Bentley. also max out my 401k, take 2 luxury vacations a year...
@BBSara01 Having sufficient material wealth is essenmtial for a happy living. But to condition your happiness on material things is a sign of an unhappy existence. What good does your Bentley do to you that a Tesla or a Toyota couldn't? Why stop at Bentley? What about a super-yacht? Do you have that yet? A private jet? A private island? There are plenty of people still richer than you. You are still poor to them.
Wasn't he the voice actor for Jack Carver in the first Far Cry game?
Can anyone summarize his main points? His lectures come off as stream of conciousness ramblings.
Yep.
1. Question everything you hold ideologically dear.
2. Embrace the dual edge sword of technology, and don’t use it as an excuse to stunt progress, or to view technology negatively.
3. Economic growth via technological progress undergirds all other forms of social stability.
4. Embrace elitism, where a small number of interested and intelligent individuals do most of the work. Convince the best and brightest of what’s worth doing instead of trying to pull up the rear.
@@MrClockw3rk He is anti-regulation which I disagree with. All our bubbles popping (housing, banking, tech) were because of speculations in unsafe 'vehicles'. of investment. But everything has a balance point.
Does anyone know of a guy, was on Rogan podcast, he has a theory that the world is full of mindless people, and we are led forward only by a few rare leaders, like Ghandi, or Jesus, or Einstein, or Trump.
JK about that last one.
He talks in analogies, symbolism and principles. He is one of the best speakers in the world.
@@noahway13 Trump established peace in the middle east with the Abraham Accords, furthered peace between north and south Korea, established a path towards energy independence, and was one of the few people who begged NATO to stop relying on Russain oil and opposed the totalitarian agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF)....all until Joe Biden reversed ALL OF THOSE THINGS. But Trump said a few bad words so I guess his quest for saving humanity means nothing.
His book changed my like for good.
I don't understand how he can be so dismissive of the Humanities,
when his entire approach is self-evidently deeply informed by History, Philosophy, Political Science, Law, Literature ...etc...
All received via an education in the Humanities
Jean Gimpel title?
Love this video and love the pragmatic libertarianism. Interesting that the next recommended video by Peter is that competition is for losers. The best way to "win" is to obtain a government sponsored monopoly - through IP, regulatory barriers etc. Seems like to fully support the libertarian view, you also have to accept that "big wins" might have to go away and be ok with that.
I think he isn't in support of monopolies that are state sponsored, he means that when starting a business a Friedman-defined natural monopoly is optimal. E.g. Google where network effects make it an effective monopoly on search w/o government force.
Thanks for enabling the comments...
I wonder if Peter asked them to enable it
Why not?
I like how he always takes time at the start of his talks to insult the audience.
well, he did pay the airfare of all the attendees which is also why he was allowed to blather with whatever random thoughts which came to mind for so long
He's gone off his rocker.
Spotted Nellie Bowles and Bari Weiss in the audience at 43:36
14:30 so true, if I search for engineers online I find only programmers
as a programmer, nothing we do resembles engineering at its core
we develop things that break all the time, and are expected to break all the time
an engineer cannot afford a bridge to break, we are not the same
a programmer is lower than a secretary imho:) As a secretary, say for a high powered law firm or corporation, you actually make decisions on your feet and are responsible for making sure the clients are IMPRESSED. and that is no small task:) Some Secretaries can even write code.
I started software development (as a professional) in 1988. It truly amazes me how so much of what I learned on my first job is STILL used today. It's like time stood still.
@@Kathryn551 the fact that you use terms like ‘lower’ says everything. Lol.
Peter Thiel is a very interesting if strange man with a lot of interesting insights. I don't want him in charge of our political system.
FURTHER THOUGHT: I will say this for Thiel. While a technocrat, he has the older and far better attitude that technocracy is about technical things, important for that reason, but should not be allowed to displace a larger liberal culture of free though and discussion nor displace a democratic political culture. One of the main things that has gone wrong in the US in the last 30 years is, not just the spread of PC and Woke, but displacement of a culture both liberal and democratic with a censorious culture of semi-literate and expensively credentialed busybodies, buttressed by unaccountable (and often incompetent) technocracy.
I would literally choose thiel over anyone else in the country than again we are a constitutional republic so your comment is a waste of time.
@@moosefootloose He's a bot:)
I've long suspected Thiel of bot-tism 😆
He has a good grasp of abstract ideas and technology and an interesting perspective on society. His understanding of people is limited and largely consists of theories.
@@bostonseeker Billionaires are routinely fawned over. Hell, they can easily hire professional sycophants. So I think I'll hold off on praising his magic special understanding. But I can think of lots of non-billionaires who truly have mastered -- pioneered! -- ideas and concepts that people like Thiel have leeched off of. (Speaking of leeches, is Thiel still looking to harvest the blood of young people?)
Thiel's discussion of PC/Woke reminds me of something else. I was also at Stanford at the end of the 80s and remember several things clearly about the roots of this change. It wasn't just the rise of the "tenured radicals," although that had something to do with the spread and persistence of bad ideas. Already then the negative role of administrators was evident, and that has ballooned in the last 30 years into something truly frightening. Administrative bloat and pretensions are the practical machinery of PC/Woke, not tenured radicals.
For the specific idea of "intersectionality," there's little doubt this was driven mainly by Critical Legal Studies and then-new idea of "protected classes" in US law, mainly at the hands of legal scholars and judges, not much by statutory law (not since the 1960s, and the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s were not framed that way). Intersectionality is basically a contest, a sweepstakes, to see who's "more oppressed"; i.e., who's the "most protected class." (And guess what? For some reason, Jews always end up as "white oppressors," at the other end of the "oppressor/oppressed" hierarchy -- this is the core of the "new" leftist antisemitism.) Because the legal system and universities have been surreptitiously misused to impose these ideas, they've taken a characteristically legal-academic form, at least in the US. Because in America, the legal profession has a unique authority, scope, and size that it lacks in other advanced democracies. It's our clerisy, our One Party of Rightthink.
Jesus Thiel we don't have all day!
‘Let me steel man the opposition’ followed by mockery and literally no discussion that makes sense. What a myopic view to think technological progress has slowed down. My grandparents were born before sliced bread and live where we can live video chat across the country. Wild that Peter can’t see we’ve had more advance in the last century than any time in history
The best way to improve our civilization's technology would be to improve the lives of every person so they can all contribute positively.
Since that's not happening, we can only assume 2 things: either we can't do it, or some gatekeepers somewhere are making sure we don't.
I'd prefer to believe the former, but who knows?
another bot:)
You either didn't watch the talk or you need to work on your critical comprehension skills, the time frame he specified was post-70's and specifically granted the technological boom up until then.
@@PhilosoFeed a bit of both. The actual problem that I think he was trying to spell out, idk that was hard work, is a product of deliberate defunding public education. This is a direct result of campaigns from people against the desegregation of the school. Basically when they lost they resorted to defunding all public education. To understand this question as to why technological progress hasn't been seen across society, you would need to ask someone from the humanities.....
live video chat with your grandparents falls under the umbrella of computer science since it's software. he specifically said the only thing that has continued to advance rapidly is computer science, so you kind of proved his point. advancements in things like medicine, aviation, nuclear power and many other areas have slowed to a crawl. have you been to an airport in the last couple of years? it's an absolute disaster. flights are delayed or canceled constantly, and planes are often grounded or don't have enough pilots. if it wasn't for elon musk we wouldn't have high quality electric cars like we do today, we wouldn't have good satellite internet with starlink and we certainly wouldn't be launching re-usable rockets in an attempt to colonize mars.
Damn dude just spent 10mins straight whining about some person that got a nobel prize 30yrs ago. All this to claim its thanks to him, great speach yes thanks for blowing my mind.
"the other side"? - He does not represent any ironman accurately and viewing it all as a dichotomy is such an inaccurate simplification.
Peter often mentions that there were only a few fields that were good ideas to study, like computer science or petro-engineering. But fields, or academic subject areas, are classifications of convenience. Scientific and philosophical questions can cut straight across "subject matters" or the answers to questions can cut across subjects. You can study anwers to questions that you actually have and resolve your own problems (conflicts between ideas) as you learn. There's nothing for you to figure out unless you already have some confusion about something or some reason to think that there's more to a particular problem than appears at first thought. Once you get those misconceptions then you can guess some solutions. And those solutions could solve problems that a lot of other people noticed or didn't even notice but now see that there was a problem and now we have a solution to a problem we didn't even know about. Some solutions turn out to be incredibly valuable and some don't matter much and its hard to tell before hand.
This is so bizarre. This is the Logic Certainty of a communist.
Don’t know who decided that technological advancement was the purpose of existence
no, but survival and prosperity is - which is impossible with a growing population and depleting resources unless you have technology
@@pratik92 survival and prosperity? according to who? Darwin?
Not the purpose, surely, but as a foundation of a decent life for all (i.e., material sufficiency), pretty important.
Ghouls like Thiel, however, are absolutely NOT a part of this in any way. Far from it -- his kind want to horde everything in sight for themselves, and then pull up the ladders. They demonstrate this daily. Their endless need for more more more is a real pathology.
@wealth and wisdom. exactly!
The Matrix
Good to see Peter Thiel has kept his sanity over the years. Important talk
oh yeah..?
PALANTIR says otherwise
35:30 ooh, Jay in background ;)
100% right about the dual-nature reluctance toward technological progress seeping in to current AI research. It's going to be hampered by the same worries that have slowed technological progress to a crawl in the world of atoms.
In the 1970s, the average gasoline engine had a thermal efficiency of roughly 20-25%. In 2023, the most efficient gasoline engines for passenger vehicles achieved thermal efficiencies in the ballpark of 40%. Only 15% improvement in 50 years!! This summarizes the problem of progress of our species
Years of pedestrian accounts seems reasonable nowish
Always entertaining to see a financial free man talking to an audience of wage slaves
Who are there willingly, probably to figure out why he’s freer than them
Attending a conference in one of the most elite universities in the world =/= wage slave. Talk to me after get injured on a job making $14/hr and your employer fires you bc you cant work after they set you up to be permanently disabled..
@@MrClockw3rk yea but these rich guys never tell the truth when they speak to wage slaves because it’s too painful. The truth is “I wanted to own my time so I didn’t need a boss controlling me, so I figured out a clever strategy to get rich by leveraging other peoples scientific innovations, labor, and ideas. Meanwhile you suckers are devoting your entire life to invent scientific breakthroughs that you will never own because the university will make them public domain; and guys like me will edploit those inventions to make billions of dollars.”
The truth is too painful so they need to water it down😂
Well, he's financial free because he made it. Clearly a smart guy.
@@depression_isnt_real "myself included"
I highly doubt that you are smarter than Elon Musk by any metric. You come off as boasting if anything. A subset of smart people making it doesn't mean all smart folks would get rich but it does prove people who made it are smart.
Hopefully you understand that since you are so intelligent.
"It's better for undergrads to major in the humanities because they know they'll be unemployable."
Most coherent philosophy major right there
You’re right, they usually aren’t.
He is not…its far, far cry from anything coherent…
@@philipps3988 I agree, it was a sarcastic comment
@@Vim_Tim uff…so glad…somehow its more worrying that people believe this is intellectually sound in any way….Yes, he made a lot of money. Is he having any logical coherent theory/story to tell, compelling arguments, new ideas? None of that…only a guy who got rich and now is believed to be smart. But you can get richt with very limited intellectual capacities in regards of science or philosophy or logic…simply cruel to listen to
@@philipps3988 you're rich?
Does the Zuck talk like Peter, or does Peter talk like the Zuck???
Edward Dutton would probably argue that technological progress has stalled because the median IQ has dropped below a critical threshold. There is empirical evidence that reaction times have collapsed since the late Victorian era, and that sheds light on why the Victorian-age people were more culturally and intellectually productive that our people, even given their generally harsh living conditions. I mean, seriously, 19th Century novelists were producing excellent works, often one after another, by writing them out in long hand.
IQ? Reaction times??? 😂
Have you considered that the causal cascade you describe, if valid, is directly downstream of technology? If so, it is the proximate cause of its own demise. Or maybe that is where you were headed here. Gaia would approve. Homeostasis is a bitch.
And one of the New Eugenicists chimes in with the latest crank "theory".
@@tragicworms3418 No, dude, see, it's science, really. Why are you so jealous of Thiel? He's a billionaire -- what have YOU done? QED.
@@samuelglover7685 Ok... Firstly I am not jealous of anyone. But seeing as you equate wealth with intelligence I can infer you are an Elon Musk nut gobbler that can't be reasoned with. I was just poking fun at this comment which suggests that statistics such as reaction time, IQ, living conditions, and printing methods are directly related to the "stalling of technological progress" (not true btw).
I don't doubt that there are very bright minds in this space but it seems like many listeners parrot the opinions of so called "smart" billionaires without analyzing with their own brains.
It's funny, Thiel doesn't seem to know that the MIRI paper he referenced about dying with dignity was published on April 1st ... not much for a steel man argument.
The date isn’t the important point. The thrust of it is.
I'm confused. What's the 1st of April got to do with it?? 🤔😉
@@cruzilla6265 April Fools' Day
From the paper:
"Q6: Hey, this was posted on April 1st. All of this is just an April Fool's joke, right?
A: Why, of course! Or rather, it's a preview of what might be needful to say later, if matters really do get that desperate. You don't want to drop that on people suddenly and with no warning.
Q6: Oh. Really? That would be such a relief!
A: Only you can decide whether to live in one mental world or the other."
Sounds to me like the author is dead serious but was using April 1st as an easy escape hatch. It disarms would-be critics by making people second guess the authors true intentions. Yet the author is just as careful to never fully say he isn't serious. TLDR I think Peters point still stands, the paper represents people's actual thoughts.
@@jacobsheppard862 Agreed 100%, posting it April 1st was weaselly shit for Yudkowsky to get out of any accountability for basically something that would outright inspire mass suicide in a similar eschatological vein. His words in other places absolutely reaffirm the idea he thinks we're about to -die-. He's just bullshitting when he leans on it being April 1st, but more importantly, OTHER people who defend him miss the point even more than he ever could have.
Timestamps would greatly help your nice videos! 🙂
Maybe if it was in fact a nice video.
More great content from Stanford’s pro god-king initiative
I really don't want to veer into anti-intellectualism, but more and more I get the feeling that Stanford and the Ivies have one helluva lot to apologize for.....
@@samuelglover7685 could you elaborate? not sure what this is in reference to
The younger generation IS doing better :)
Interesting talk. Personally I'm not a fan of Thiel (billionaire with mystery background, serving a closed loop circle of more or less parasitical mystery interests, via predatory finance), but he presents many good points here, and sounds sane - which is quite rare nowadays.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
@@KnowL-oo5po AGI will be the last invention because the human brain has reached its limits.
We need AGI to re-accelerate stagnant scientific progress.
Rich dad is talking to a room full of poor dads.
The antonym of diversity is monoculture.
he is the definition of realist. I like the dead serious tone he has. There is only a small group of population thats really trying to make a change, and they are trying very rigorously whlie the rest is just slacking off.
He is a billionaire parroting what has been said a million times over at a pretentiously named conference. What exactly is being changed here?
@@supersonic956 no I didn't mean him necessarily, what i have observer that in a class of 30 students only 1/2 make it upto research, most just settle for a decent enough life.
Look into the company metamaterials. They are pushing as wallstreet tries to destroy. Fascinating possibilities
The insanity and weakness here is so pathetic.
3:03 Peter Thiel
great closing quote!
It’s relevant to understanding the comment section below the video
Agreed! On point. His ability for packaging astute observations on the fly like that is quite remarkable.
Maye the force
Might be a push and pull mechanism where belief in STEM vs humanities are inversely related.
Training new employees to make codes to control devices that change the geosphere using money, is not working, but good speech!
I don’t think I understood any of that
Diversity + University = Conformity
Amen
Whoa, heavy, dude. Pass the blunt, please.
I'm pretty sure the short of it would be play stupid games win stupid prizes
So intelligent! ❤ He is gay but I have a big crush on him just the same! 😁 Everyone should read “Zero to One”!
Power erodes the soul.
Hm. Could be. But I think nothing erodes the soul more than living a life where you can't see the struggle of others directly.
When I saw that Stanford had a Classical Liberalism Chapter, I felt glad that at least somewhere there is a population of people my age (college going), that actively relate to these ideals. Towards the end (32:42), the room seems to be filled with older folk :( Makes me feel sad that there won't be many people like this around me, when I'm the age of the people in the audience
Conservatives like to call themselves “classic liberal” when they are too ashamed to call themselves conservatives.
What you are saying is also oldshaming
@@iche9373 Not quite. I'm saying they won't be around when I'm as old as them
because you have to be senile to be a libertarian!
Sorry, but Libertarians have no validity. Their beliefs require no government support, but they live in that world. All their data is from a non Libertarian existence. The "best system" of capitalism itself doesn't come true until major oversight and regulation and redistribution fixes major problems. There's little worker or consumer confidence without it .
The only way to prove your beliefs is to function without any knowledge acquired after ~1900 or so, when government begins to be directed towards wide benefit and the excesses of financing and industrialization are reigned in. Sorry, you live in a fantasy.
That last statement was very confronting and strong!
In some ways it was more free statement I think I've seen every single tech billionaire when asked that question answer with that generic statement he may as well just say shareholders and move on
Q: Who is the guy asking the first question, 33:10? Claiming that the USA could have had free and abundant energy from nuclear power plants, if it had not been for the 80s peace and green crowd.
This is misleading, because all energy markets work on the basis of the Merit Order Model ( prices being set by the variable cost of the marginal plant, i.e. the most expensive plant that is ). USA government would have had to legislate out ruling hydro, wind, solar, gas and oil as electricity & heat producing source. I doubt that vested interests in gas and oil would have let that happen.
PS/Edit: And his real world example (nuclear) he carries his argument (stagnant tech progress because irrational influences and thus gov & political regulation) has to be seen, just like all his talks and interviews, through the lens of his investments and interests. Like $500m in Helion Energy, $2mn in Transatomic Power etc. He setup a fund just for this. See also his 2016 Essay for the NYT "The single most important action we can take is thawing a nuclear energy policy that keeps our technology frozen in time."
This makes no sense, Merit Order relates to how energy is supplied, not priced. You've somehow talked yourself into thinking that supply doesn't affect price.
Total Bot BS
@@Kathryn551 Can't tell who you're replying to
his nihilism is a result of the existential threat capitalism faces due to the sinking rates of profit, the falling stock markets, building speculative bubbles and the lack of opportunities of growth due to monopoly rule.
his nihilism is not shared by entrepreneurs and scientists in the developing world.
A lot of his nihilism, his "philosophy", seems to stem from being bullied when he was a wee fascist sprout.
Smart folks are not afraid to wrestle with complexity. They hold onto previous ideas loosely. If at all.
lollll I took "Europe and the Americas" 93-94 at Stanford for that CIV requirement and had to read "I, Rigoberta Menchu". Let's just say that course was a huge waste of time. 🤣🤣
Been hanging out with mark zuckerburg too much
26:18 Thiel absolutely *buries* the Bay Area rats and MIRI folks here.
For all the vitriol poured on camera against hippie humanities professors with pipes on acid, Mr. Thiel strategically avoids being overtly critical of the Capitol. Somewhat weird because I doubt you will find such a high concentration of senility in one location anywhere else in the continental US.
Speaks a tad like Zuck
More like Zuck speaks like him. In the early days he was for sure a good role model for Zuck when it comes to innovative thinking and entrepreneurship.
Peter Thiel is that rich guy or boss that people have to listen dribble on and they never get to their point. What is his point? That he thinks conservatism is good? Great, how original. What a chore it is to listen to this guy talk. Literally the only reason people listsn to him is because he's rich. There are lots of rich guys but they dont all feel like they need to ear beat everybody with rambling, incoherent speeches.
What an intellectually under challenging talk: “no progress in science…” oh wow…and the proof in the pudding is? Because Peter says so?
I haven't finished this talk yet, but i know from others that I've listened too he is referring to the crazy leaps that came from paradigm shifts in our understanding of many sciences during the mid 20th century, and how our more recent history is a refining of those technologies but we haven't really had a truly innovative paradigm shift in a while.
I don't know what he would consider truly innovate but I imagine it's probably stuff like fusion energy, curing biological aging, artificial general intelligence, some new form of propulsion that doesn't rely on expulsion of hot gases etc.
Only ONE YEAR from identification of the Covid virus to the release of effective vaccines. But "no progress", sure. Thiel is as much an ignoramus as he is a fascist ghoul. What's the German word that combines "grotesque" and "inane"?
@@samuelglover7685 spot on! and like this its every year...we as humanity make great scientific new discoveries, but guys like him are trying to convince the backwards bible belt that there is an intellectual foundation to their ignorance...wonder which word you are looking for (native german speaker here): Albern? Blödsinnig (which is more "idiotic")? Quatschig (which is still to nice)? Verrückt? Irre? need some help here... but: that dude is dangerous, so all these words are too nice and make to much fun, like a childish thing could be characterized...and that feels wrong considering how many believe that that is actually some smart argumentation...
@@philipps3988 Had no idea that there really is such a word, but I like to imagine there is.
He wasn't saying there was no scientific progress, he was saying that scientific progress is going slower than it used to.
To use an oversimplified analogy:
Say scientific progress was going 100 mph from 1920 to 1970.
Peter could say scientific progress is going like 35 mph from 1970 to 2020
I know this all sounds crazy at first, but more & more people are starting to agree with it. Especially recently.
Just being rich and doomposting
It was a good talk. His ending comments were some of the best
We Believe:
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
That government should be of laws rather than of men;
That earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
And that service to humanity is the best work of life.
"The humanities, as we all know, are ridiculous." What did he mean to communicate with that? I mean, don't tell me that historically grown political problems are best solved without historical knowledge, or that you highly value René Girards work although he should never have engaged in philosophical anthropology.
humanities are often underrated by technical minds who got rich and see themselves as superhumans only to slide into fascism, basically because they don't know the basics about humanities (otherwise they would see red flags in their own behavior and by understanding history)
i applaud peter thiel for stepping into that woke madrasa. very interesting thinker.
this conference isn't exactly the woke crowd, even if universities are like that general
@@thisoldman99 true, but those people often protest and cause a huge stink if someone like peter so much as sets foot on their campus.
Do his boot soles taste better than those of other oligarchs?
@@samuelglover7685 The term woke madrasa must really have struck a nerve.