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
clearly the quality of life has improved. Technology. Medicine. And, so on have objectively improved. Cost of things have gone down, but cost of property keeps rising. I think A.I being implemented, IoT, and advanced technology will be very beneficial and has yet to be fully unleashed so to speak.
@@Eric-bp3tc Not exactly. If a person is a waiter, or musician, or artists they still need to practice. The A.I would help a person become better by giving them advice. In the same way some schools are using A.I to educate people. A.I is just a tool. Peter Thiel 's assessment has no validity. It's personal opinion.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Nietzsche's Viewpoint on University Paradoxes and Peter Thiel's Critique: A Philosophical Exploration" 1.) How would Nietzsche interpret the notion that universities, traditionally centers of diverse thought, are now paradoxically becoming monolithic in their ideologies? Additionally, how would Nietzsche view the modern university's struggle with nihilism, relativism, and totalitarianism, and what might his perspective be on Peter Thiel's critiques? 1. The Paradox of the University as the Antonym of Diversity: Nietzsche might view the paradox of universities becoming monolithic despite their mission to foster diverse thought through the lens of his concept of the "will to power." He could argue that this paradox reflects a deeper struggle within the university system-a struggle for intellectual dominance and authority. Universities, in their quest to assert a definitive narrative or ideology, might suppress alternative viewpoints, leading to a homogenization of thought. Nietzsche might see this as a natural, albeit regrettable, outcome of the intrinsic human desire for power and control over the discourse. 2. The Challenges Faced by Universities in Modern Society: - Nihilism: Nietzsche, often misunderstood as a proponent of nihilism, actually diagnosed it as a disease of Western culture. He might view the nihilistic tendencies in modern universities as a symptom of the decay of absolute values and the loss of a unifying grand narrative. Nietzsche would likely advocate for a revaluation of values, urging universities to become breeding grounds for new, life-affirming values rather than succumbing to the abyss of meaninglessness. - Relativism: While Nietzsche critiqued the notion of objective, universal truths, he might view the extreme relativism in universities with skepticism. For Nietzsche, the creation of values and truths is an active, assertive process, not a passive acceptance of all perspectives as equally valid. He might challenge universities to not only acknowledge the multiplicity of perspectives but to engage in the vigorous intellectual confrontation and synthesis that fosters genuine growth and innovation. - Totalitarianism: Nietzsche's disdain for herd mentality and his advocacy for individualism would make him a staunch critic of totalitarian trends in academia. He would likely condemn any movement that suppresses individual thought and creativity in favor of a collective dogma, viewing it as antithetical to the development of what he termed the "Übermensch" or "overman" - the individual who transcends the conventional and creates new values. 3. Perspective on Peter Thiel: Nietzsche might find Peter Thiel's critique of the university system intriguing, especially given Thiel's emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and challenging the status quo-qualities that resonate with Nietzschean individualism and the revaluation of values. However, Nietzsche would also be critical and probing, questioning the underlying motives, values, and assumptions of Thiel's perspective, just as he scrutinized every philosophy and system of thought he encountered. In summary, Nietzsche might view the paradox of the university, the challenges it faces, and the critiques by figures like Peter Thiel as manifestations of the deeper existential and cultural struggles of modernity. He would likely advocate for a vigorous re-examination and revaluation of the values and purposes driving our educational institutions, encouraging a move away from nihilism, relativism, and authoritarianism towards the cultivation of a culture that fosters genuine creativity, critical thought, and the development of the individual. 2. In light of Nietzsche's philosophy, how might he perceive the contradiction of universities being antithetical to diversity, given their historical role as hubs of varied ideas and cultures? Furthermore, how would Nietzsche assess the contemporary challenges of nihilism, relativism, and authoritarian tendencies within universities, and what would his stance be regarding Peter Thiel's observations? Interpreting this scenario through Nietzsche's philosophy, he might view the contradiction of universities being antithetical to diversity as a manifestation of what he termed the "herd mentality." Nietzsche was critical of institutions and systems that suppress individualism and promote a collective conformity. Universities, in his time and arguably even today, were supposed to be the breeding ground for free thinkers and individuals challenging the status quo. The paradox, therefore, would likely be seen by Nietzsche as a deterioration of the university's fundamental purpose, a shift from being a platform for intellectual exploration to one of indoctrination or uniform thought. Regarding the contemporary challenges within universities-nihilism, relativism, and authoritarian tendencies-Nietzsche's insights would be particularly poignant. He might view the rise of nihilism as a consequence of the death of absolute truths and values, something he famously discussed. However, he would also likely criticize nihilism for its potential to lead to a state of despair and inaction. Relativism, on the other hand, might be seen as an offshoot of the inability to establish a universal moral code, a scenario Nietzsche anticipated given his proclamation that "God is dead." Yet, he would caution against the extreme form of relativism that denies any form of structure or meaning in life. Authoritarian tendencies within universities might be particularly abhorrent to Nietzsche. He championed the idea of the "Übermensch" or "Overman," an individual who creates their own values and lives beyond the common morality of the masses. Authoritarianism, with its imposition of rigid structures and suppression of individual thought, would be antithetical to Nietzsche's ideal of personal growth and self-overcoming. Regarding Peter Thiel's observations and critiques, Nietzsche might find some alignment, especially in the criticism of the herd mentality and the challenge against the status quo. However, he would likely probe deeper, questioning the underlying motives and the potential solutions proposed. Nietzsche's philosophy encourages a continual questioning of norms and an exploration beyond surface-level critiques, seeking a profound understanding and revaluation of all values. In essence, Nietzsche's perspective on the modern university's challenges and Peter Thiel's critiques would be complex, marked by a deep understanding of the underlying philosophical dilemmas and a call for a radical rethinking of values, purposes, and individual potential within academic institutions. 3. From a Nietzschean standpoint, how would the paradox of universities serving as adversaries to diversity resonate, considering their inherent mission to foster a multitude of perspectives? Also, how would Nietzsche confront the present-day dilemmas of nihilistic, relativistic, and totalitarian trends in academic institutions, and what would be his evaluation of Peter Thiel's critical viewpoints? From a Nietzschean standpoint, the paradox of universities serving as adversaries to diversity might be seen as a manifestation of a decaying cultural and intellectual vigor. Nietzsche, who valued the Übermensch - a figure striving beyond the conventional and mediocrity - would likely critique modern universities for failing to foster genuine individualism and groundbreaking thought. He might argue that they have succumbed to the "last man" mentality, a concept he used to describe the ultimate conformist and the antithesis of the Übermensch. This paradox, therefore, might be perceived as a betrayal of the very essence of education and intellectual pursuit, which should challenge, not conform. Regarding the present-day dilemmas faced by academic institutions, Nietzsche's perspective would be multifaceted. He might view the rise of nihilism within universities as both a crisis and an opportunity. For Nietzsche, nihilism, while representing a profound disenchantment with traditional values and meaning, also provides a fertile ground for the revaluation of all values and the creation of new ones. The presence of relativism could be seen in a similar vein - not just as a challenge, but as a space for reimagining and redefining truth and morality beyond dogmatic boundaries. The trends of totalitarianism or authoritarian tendencies within universities would likely be met with stern criticism from Nietzsche. He consistently opposed any form of thought or system that stifles individuality and the flourishing of the human spirit. Nietzsche might argue that the true purpose of education is to cultivate critical thinkers and creators, not to enforce a homogenized worldview. As for Peter Thiel's critical viewpoints, Nietzsche might appreciate the challenge to the status quo and the call for a reassessment of the university's role in society. However, he would likely push the conversation further, probing the foundational values and assumptions underpinning Thiel's critiques and the broader societal context in which they are made. Nietzsche's approach would not be to take sides but to delve deeper into the underlying philosophical dynamics at play, challenging all involved to transcend the ordinary and strive for the extraordinary. In conclusion, from a Nietzschean lens, the paradox of universities opposing diversity, along with the challenges of nihilism, relativism, and totalitarianism, would be seen as indicative of a broader cultural and philosophical malaise. Nietzsche would likely call for a radical rethinking and revaluation of values within the academic sphere, advocating for an environment that nurtures true individuality, critical thought, and the courage to forge new paths.
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
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.
The ability to create is born out of personal experiences,the reason the world is stuck in terms of new innovations is because we are all under European anxiety as experiences used to create by impulsive and autistic constructs. The European concept of humanity is based on politics, as the anxiety of boys who feel entitled to react to their anxiety with no regard for others
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.
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.
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.
Engineering died because domestic hi tech manufacturing (in particular - all manufacturing in general) was siphoned off by Japan Korea Taiwan China etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.....
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.
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
‘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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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)
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. 🤣🤣
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
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.
This might be true in sunny countries but definitely not everywhere else. In the country I am from solar panels produce close to 0% of their peak power for 6 months a year. Here is not much wind as well. 100% renewables is just not realistic.
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.
@@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
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.
We are close to horrific disaster. The new war pigs, the democrats, won't allow their egos to make peace with Russia, who's willing. We are the fucking problem. Biden will act to prioritize his corruption distraction. And America will lose. Why are we so stupid as a country?
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
clearly the quality of life has improved. Technology. Medicine. And, so on have objectively improved. Cost of things have gone down, but cost of property keeps rising.
I think A.I being implemented, IoT, and advanced technology will be very beneficial and has yet to be fully unleashed so to speak.
@@kknn523 AI just gonna make us stupider as it decreases the need for cognition. what are you talking about my dude?
@@Eric-bp3tc Not exactly. If a person is a waiter, or musician, or artists they still need to practice. The A.I would help a person become better by giving them advice. In the same way some schools are using A.I to educate people. A.I is just a tool. Peter Thiel 's assessment has no validity. It's personal opinion.
@@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
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
One of the billionairs I respect.
"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
Thank you!
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.
@@O8b4UVdoKD 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
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.
Jay Battachara (35:50) and Johnnie Cochran?!
What a crowd!
I agree, most peoppe in the west fear inovation and real progress
"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.
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.
That last statement was very confronting and strong!
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.
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.
@@justinfuller5912 Ohh, like that
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 man, the myth, the legend
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.
"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.
Loved that he used 1 Thessalonians 5:3.
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.
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.
@Netgerland
True
@@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?
nice spiel Thiel ...... good educational chat -
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.
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.
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
Jesus Thiel we don't have all day!
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.
Maye the force
It was a good talk. His ending comments were some of the best
"Nietzsche's Viewpoint on University Paradoxes and Peter Thiel's Critique: A Philosophical Exploration"
1.) How would Nietzsche interpret the notion that universities, traditionally centers of diverse thought, are now paradoxically becoming monolithic in their ideologies? Additionally, how would Nietzsche view the modern university's struggle with nihilism, relativism, and totalitarianism, and what might his perspective be on Peter Thiel's critiques?
1. The Paradox of the University as the Antonym of Diversity:
Nietzsche might view the paradox of universities becoming monolithic despite their mission to foster diverse thought through the lens of his concept of the "will to power." He could argue that this paradox reflects a deeper struggle within the university system-a struggle for intellectual dominance and authority. Universities, in their quest to assert a definitive narrative or ideology, might suppress alternative viewpoints, leading to a homogenization of thought. Nietzsche might see this as a natural, albeit regrettable, outcome of the intrinsic human desire for power and control over the discourse.
2. The Challenges Faced by Universities in Modern Society:
- Nihilism: Nietzsche, often misunderstood as a proponent of nihilism, actually diagnosed it as a disease of Western culture. He might view the nihilistic tendencies in modern universities as a symptom of the decay of absolute values and the loss of a unifying grand narrative. Nietzsche would likely advocate for a revaluation of values, urging universities to become breeding grounds for new, life-affirming values rather than succumbing to the abyss of meaninglessness.
- Relativism: While Nietzsche critiqued the notion of objective, universal truths, he might view the extreme relativism in universities with skepticism. For Nietzsche, the creation of values and truths is an active, assertive process, not a passive acceptance of all perspectives as equally valid. He might challenge universities to not only acknowledge the multiplicity of perspectives but to engage in the vigorous intellectual confrontation and synthesis that fosters genuine growth and innovation.
- Totalitarianism: Nietzsche's disdain for herd mentality and his advocacy for individualism would make him a staunch critic of totalitarian trends in academia. He would likely condemn any movement that suppresses individual thought and creativity in favor of a collective dogma, viewing it as antithetical to the development of what he termed the "Übermensch" or "overman" - the individual who transcends the conventional and creates new values.
3. Perspective on Peter Thiel:
Nietzsche might find Peter Thiel's critique of the university system intriguing, especially given Thiel's emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and challenging the status quo-qualities that resonate with Nietzschean individualism and the revaluation of values. However, Nietzsche would also be critical and probing, questioning the underlying motives, values, and assumptions of Thiel's perspective, just as he scrutinized every philosophy and system of thought he encountered.
In summary, Nietzsche might view the paradox of the university, the challenges it faces, and the critiques by figures like Peter Thiel as manifestations of the deeper existential and cultural struggles of modernity. He would likely advocate for a vigorous re-examination and revaluation of the values and purposes driving our educational institutions, encouraging a move away from nihilism, relativism, and authoritarianism towards the cultivation of a culture that fosters genuine creativity, critical thought, and the development of the individual.
2. In light of Nietzsche's philosophy, how might he perceive the contradiction of universities being antithetical to diversity, given their historical role as hubs of varied ideas and cultures? Furthermore, how would Nietzsche assess the contemporary challenges of nihilism, relativism, and authoritarian tendencies within universities, and what would his stance be regarding Peter Thiel's observations?
Interpreting this scenario through Nietzsche's philosophy, he might view the contradiction of universities being antithetical to diversity as a manifestation of what he termed the "herd mentality." Nietzsche was critical of institutions and systems that suppress individualism and promote a collective conformity. Universities, in his time and arguably even today, were supposed to be the breeding ground for free thinkers and individuals challenging the status quo. The paradox, therefore, would likely be seen by Nietzsche as a deterioration of the university's fundamental purpose, a shift from being a platform for intellectual exploration to one of indoctrination or uniform thought.
Regarding the contemporary challenges within universities-nihilism, relativism, and authoritarian tendencies-Nietzsche's insights would be particularly poignant. He might view the rise of nihilism as a consequence of the death of absolute truths and values, something he famously discussed. However, he would also likely criticize nihilism for its potential to lead to a state of despair and inaction. Relativism, on the other hand, might be seen as an offshoot of the inability to establish a universal moral code, a scenario Nietzsche anticipated given his proclamation that "God is dead." Yet, he would caution against the extreme form of relativism that denies any form of structure or meaning in life.
Authoritarian tendencies within universities might be particularly abhorrent to Nietzsche. He championed the idea of the "Übermensch" or "Overman," an individual who creates their own values and lives beyond the common morality of the masses. Authoritarianism, with its imposition of rigid structures and suppression of individual thought, would be antithetical to Nietzsche's ideal of personal growth and self-overcoming.
Regarding Peter Thiel's observations and critiques, Nietzsche might find some alignment, especially in the criticism of the herd mentality and the challenge against the status quo. However, he would likely probe deeper, questioning the underlying motives and the potential solutions proposed. Nietzsche's philosophy encourages a continual questioning of norms and an exploration beyond surface-level critiques, seeking a profound understanding and revaluation of all values.
In essence, Nietzsche's perspective on the modern university's challenges and Peter Thiel's critiques would be complex, marked by a deep understanding of the underlying philosophical dilemmas and a call for a radical rethinking of values, purposes, and individual potential within academic institutions.
3. From a Nietzschean standpoint, how would the paradox of universities serving as adversaries to diversity resonate, considering their inherent mission to foster a multitude of perspectives? Also, how would Nietzsche confront the present-day dilemmas of nihilistic, relativistic, and totalitarian trends in academic institutions, and what would be his evaluation of Peter Thiel's critical viewpoints?
From a Nietzschean standpoint, the paradox of universities serving as adversaries to diversity might be seen as a manifestation of a decaying cultural and intellectual vigor. Nietzsche, who valued the Übermensch - a figure striving beyond the conventional and mediocrity - would likely critique modern universities for failing to foster genuine individualism and groundbreaking thought. He might argue that they have succumbed to the "last man" mentality, a concept he used to describe the ultimate conformist and the antithesis of the Übermensch. This paradox, therefore, might be perceived as a betrayal of the very essence of education and intellectual pursuit, which should challenge, not conform.
Regarding the present-day dilemmas faced by academic institutions, Nietzsche's perspective would be multifaceted. He might view the rise of nihilism within universities as both a crisis and an opportunity. For Nietzsche, nihilism, while representing a profound disenchantment with traditional values and meaning, also provides a fertile ground for the revaluation of all values and the creation of new ones. The presence of relativism could be seen in a similar vein - not just as a challenge, but as a space for reimagining and redefining truth and morality beyond dogmatic boundaries.
The trends of totalitarianism or authoritarian tendencies within universities would likely be met with stern criticism from Nietzsche. He consistently opposed any form of thought or system that stifles individuality and the flourishing of the human spirit. Nietzsche might argue that the true purpose of education is to cultivate critical thinkers and creators, not to enforce a homogenized worldview.
As for Peter Thiel's critical viewpoints, Nietzsche might appreciate the challenge to the status quo and the call for a reassessment of the university's role in society. However, he would likely push the conversation further, probing the foundational values and assumptions underpinning Thiel's critiques and the broader societal context in which they are made. Nietzsche's approach would not be to take sides but to delve deeper into the underlying philosophical dynamics at play, challenging all involved to transcend the ordinary and strive for the extraordinary.
In conclusion, from a Nietzschean lens, the paradox of universities opposing diversity, along with the challenges of nihilism, relativism, and totalitarianism, would be seen as indicative of a broader cultural and philosophical malaise. Nietzsche would likely call for a radical rethinking and revaluation of values within the academic sphere, advocating for an environment that nurtures true individuality, critical thought, and the courage to forge new paths.
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.
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
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.
The ability to create is born out of personal experiences,the reason the world is stuck in terms of new innovations is because we are all under European anxiety as experiences used to create by impulsive and autistic constructs. The European concept of humanity is based on politics, as the anxiety of boys who feel entitled to react to their anxiety with no regard for others
gut!
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.
He's gone off his rocker.
Good to see Peter Thiel has kept his sanity over the years. Important talk
oh yeah..?
PALANTIR says otherwise
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.
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.
Training new employees to make codes to control devices that change the geosphere using money, is not working, but good speech!
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.
3:03 Peter Thiel
Might be a push and pull mechanism where belief in STEM vs humanities are inversely related.
Engineering died because domestic hi tech manufacturing (in particular - all manufacturing in general) was siphoned off by Japan Korea Taiwan China etc.
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.
starts 00:03:23
Thanks for enabling the comments...
I wonder if Peter asked them to enable it
Why not?
Jean Gimpel title?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Word.
Peter, "Rigoberto Menchu" has the accent on the second syllable.
Smart folks are not afraid to wrestle with complexity. They hold onto previous ideas loosely. If at all.
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
Timestamps would greatly help your nice videos! 🙂
Maybe if it was in fact a nice video.
‘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.
In ⬅️between➡️,Let there be light⬆️🔆☝️🌟
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.
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.
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
So intelligent! ❤ He is gay but I have a big crush on him just the same! 😁 Everyone should read “Zero to One”!
35:30 ooh, Jay in background ;)
Wasn't he the voice actor for Jack Carver in the first Far Cry game?
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.
@@Wyatt1314. not anymore
*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
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.
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
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. 🤣🤣
Therw goes John Vochrane. GOTTA LOVE HIM x
Yeah really lol, Johnnie seems to always speak in opposition to the person he is responding to.
Love him in Goodfellows
WOOOOOOOW!!!!!
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.
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
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.
Rich dad is talking to a room full of poor dads.
Avoide Nuclear Power, Renewables give more benefits.
Otherwhise completely agree
This might be true in sunny countries but definitely not everywhere else. In the country I am from solar panels produce close to 0% of their peak power for 6 months a year. Here is not much wind as well. 100% renewables is just not realistic.
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
Thieliological 🙏
Hahahaha good one.
trust!ende..069!.
His book changed my like for good.
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?
First ten minutes just bilge.
I don’t think I understood any of that
kartenwie nikita
32:07 37:29 41:32
26:18 Thiel absolutely *buries* the Bay Area rats and MIRI folks here.
Does the Zuck talk like Peter, or does Peter talk like the Zuck???
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.
Speaks a tad like Zuck
Diversity + University = Conformity
Amen
Whoa, heavy, dude. Pass the blunt, please.
Peter Theil - The Reptile
random political chitchat; save yourself the 49mins on 2X speed
well, Mr. Thiel, incumbents use their social network as a moat - by influencing regulators.
Nobody knows that better than Thiel himself! Christ, what a vampire chud.
@@samuelglover7685 hey come on now
@@mishmohd Just to avoid confusion -- I think we agree, right?
One of a half dozen.
We are close to horrific disaster. The new war pigs, the democrats, won't allow their egos to make peace with Russia, who's willing. We are the fucking problem. Biden will act to prioritize his corruption distraction. And America will lose. Why are we so stupid as a country?
Been hanging out with mark zuckerburg too much
The antonym of diversity is monoculture.