> Overall, libertarians tend to be more radical in their belief in minimal government interference, while neoliberals are more pragmatic and may be more willing to accept a limited role for government in certain situations. (ChatGpt)
E/acc is much less radical than all the other flavors of accelerationism. E/acc should be mostly appealing to centrist Silicon Valley tech bros. There is no prescription for a departure from current modes of thought and living, and it seems mostly interested in doing what’s already being done (“advancing” tech for capitalist interests while maintaining democracy) but “faster”.
First, they attempt to derive some telos from “first principles” in physics, essentially that beings exist to maximize heat dissipation, then they argue that this is the natural order of things (which, if it is, why the need to do anything at all? The natural order of things will eventually prevail anyways). Instead of going full acceleration, they let off the gas by saying we need to be “stewards of consciousness” (no Nick Land letting the outside come in, becoming-machine type talk), and yet we need to “not have guardrails on AI” and essentially just let Jesus take the wheel when it comes to the formation of AGI (forgetting that intelligent systems don’t necessarily beget consciousness). I really don’t think these guys spent time researching much original accelerationist texts. It reads like they just picked up a copy of Fanged Noumena, read select parts of “Meltdown”, then proceeded to forget the meaning of Noumena and why the Noumena might have fangs at all. Oh, and then keep yelling “scale the Kardashev gradient”. E/acc is like a friendly child’s fairytale compared to the original formulation by Nick Land.
Do you ever feel like the movement was naive to the hurdles of “accelerating”? Sure you need some naivety to do great things but it bordered on the lines of delusion and denial.
how is this not right-wing/libertarian lol
It’s essentially neoliberal/acc
Why?
> Overall, libertarians tend to be more radical in their belief in minimal government interference, while neoliberals are more pragmatic and may be more willing to accept a limited role for government in certain situations. (ChatGpt)
So you think e/acc is less radical?
E/acc is much less radical than all the other flavors of accelerationism. E/acc should be mostly appealing to centrist Silicon Valley tech bros. There is no prescription for a departure from current modes of thought and living, and it seems mostly interested in doing what’s already being done (“advancing” tech for capitalist interests while maintaining democracy) but “faster”.
First, they attempt to derive some telos from “first principles” in physics, essentially that beings exist to maximize heat dissipation, then they argue that this is the natural order of things (which, if it is, why the need to do anything at all? The natural order of things will eventually prevail anyways). Instead of going full acceleration, they let off the gas by saying we need to be “stewards of consciousness” (no Nick Land letting the outside come in, becoming-machine type talk), and yet we need to “not have guardrails on AI” and essentially just let Jesus take the wheel when it comes to the formation of AGI (forgetting that intelligent systems don’t necessarily beget consciousness). I really don’t think these guys spent time researching much original accelerationist texts. It reads like they just picked up a copy of Fanged Noumena, read select parts of “Meltdown”, then proceeded to forget the meaning of Noumena and why the Noumena might have fangs at all. Oh, and then keep yelling “scale the Kardashev gradient”. E/acc is like a friendly child’s fairytale compared to the original formulation by Nick Land.
LFGG🚀🚀🚀
Do you ever feel like the movement was naive to the hurdles of “accelerating”? Sure you need some naivety to do great things but it bordered on the lines of delusion and denial.
ifykyk
LFG🚀🚀