Ep. 107: Interview - What is e/acc with Reggie James and Ruby Justice Thelot

[00:01] Welcome to Boys Club Interviews. This is a show where we bring on people much smarter than us to talk about the new internet. I'm Natasha Hoskins. I'm Dina Burke. And this is Boys Club. Wait, is it just Boys Club? It's just Boys Club. The Boys Club podcast? No. Just Boys Club. [00:19] Okay, so listeners, you have a treat. [00:23] Of the ears and heart and mind coming up. We had a really, really fascinating podcast group conversation interview, I suppose, with Ruby Justice Tillow and Reggie James talking about EACC. [00:41] Natasha, we haven't debriefed about this conversation at all. How are you feeling? [00:44] Just really grateful. Just feel really grateful for their time and their generosity and wisdom. These are very important things. [00:54] philosophies, they're very important worldviews, they're informing our time and [00:59] I'm really feel really grateful, not only for them taking the time to do this, but that there are people like them who are thinking about the impact of the ways in which we work. [01:09] think about capitalism and we think about development and, [01:13] acceleration and technology and all of these things and having a balanced and critical and thoughtful perspective of what it means for humanity. And I think it's very easy to go about your life and to not have that type of reflection. And I think many people are [01:30] will...

[01:32] listen to this and want to reflect on their life and their values. And that's a really important, um, [01:38] thing to do. I do. I want to reflect. I feel like one of the things that came up for me is like, they both of them [01:47] are [01:48] seemingly so patient and open to hearing takes and philosophies from [01:54] people that they don't ideologically align with. And there was a real openness. [02:02] to entertaining ideas and entertaining... [02:06] conversation pushes me to think about like, where am I shutting things off? [02:10] Yeah. That was one thing that was really present for me in that conversation. Totally. Totally. So give it a listen. [02:16] you're going to learn a lot. [02:18] I learned a lot. I learned a lot. [02:21] Always be learning. [02:22] You know? Mm-hmm. Totally. Also, it's funny because you are so sick and your voice is so, like... [02:33] NPR. I was like, what are we doing here? I was like, this is a totally, we're somewhere else. It was really like, I wanted to make a joke about it the whole time and I had to hold it in. [02:46] I love that. Anyway, okay. I hope you enjoy. Hey, Natasha, what is crypto to you? Crypto is so much more than charts and gains. It's a whole new financial system, entirely new technological

[03:03] credit scores and spending habits, Kraken is your easy to use, newbie friendly bridge to this whole new world. Everything can be better. So why not finance? To get started, go to kraken.com backslash boys club, sign up in just a few minutes and see what crypto can be. Not investment advice. Crypto trading involves risk of loss. Cryptocurrency services are provided to US and US territory customers by Payward Ventures Incorporated, PBI, DBA, Kraken. [03:29] I am nervous and I don't know anything about what we're talking about. What we've, Natasha and I have been struggling with today is that both of you guys are intellectuals. Yes. And Natasha and I are not intellectuals. And so we're feeling very exposed in our... [03:45] Lack of... [03:46] that. So we'll just ask you to be [03:50] generous with your explanations of things today. [03:54] on this call if that's okay. [03:55] It's funny because I feel like Ruby [03:58] scares me as well. Oh, great. Great. Great. Great. Great. There's a hierarchy of fear. The hierarchy of fear. I think Ruby might be the apex predator. We're very appreciative of you both being here. So, so grateful. Okay. So I'm just going to do a quick little intro on today's show. We're going to be talking about E. [04:19] ACC [04:20] or effective accelerationism. Natasha, what's your level of comprehension about E? [04:27] ACC. Zero. Zero. Very little. My level of comprehension is that...

[04:35] People who are very based have it in their Twitter bio. That's all I know. [04:41] So I'm here today to learn and to be humbled. [04:46] Yeah, great. Same. My understanding of it is that it was at one time a somewhat kind of fringe philosophy, but it's really been thrust into a mainstream conversation over the past couple of weeks, even after the OpenAI coup attempt news. So we'll get into all that. We have two incredible guests here to act as Sherpas in this conversation. [05:07] an explainer on EACC, techno-optimism. There's a lot of words that will be flying around that hopefully we can start to define. I'm going to go through their bios quickly and then welcome them to the show. We have Ruby Justice Taylor. He is a designer, cyber ethnographer and artist based in New York, adjunct professor of design and media theory at New York University. His research and artwork focuses on the interactions between humans and artificial intelligence. [05:32] the metaverse and the implications of being online. No better person to come on and talk about this topic. And then we also have Reggie James, friend of the pod, second time guest, co-founder and CEO of Eternal. Eternal is a new media company building immersive worlds. Reggie comes from a New York family, but grew up in the Poconos. I love this fact about you. His most recent talks include embracing irrelevancy for progress at FWV Fest. This could still be a movement why Mars needs a creative director at the Long Now Foundation and [06:02] He's a product architect DJ and writes appropriately consistently on a sub stack.

[06:07] product lost. Welcome Ruby and Reggie to the show. [06:11] Thank you so much for having us. [06:13] I'm so scared. [06:15] Go fight. [06:18] We're all feeling so intimidated. I will speak for myself. I'm so intimidated to have this conversation with you guys. So with that, let's start with... [06:25] with maybe a primer, as this is kind of an explainer podcast, I feel we would be remiss to not go over the basics. Ruby, do you want to start [06:36] with a primer on this EACC world. [06:42] And then, Reggie, I'm going to ask you the same question. So. [06:45] you can prepare in the meantime. Sure. So E slash ACC or EAC or effective accelerationism [06:54] is [06:55] a modern sort of recent philosophy that's an offshoot of [07:01] accelerationism in general. [07:04] So, [07:05] I think we really need to begin there. We need to begin with what is accelerationism? So, [07:11] We start with a few folks at the University of Warwick, namely Nick Land, Sadie Plant, Mark Fisher, Alex Strinek, and Nick Williams, who formed this group called the CCRU, the Cybernetics Culture Research Unit. [07:26] and their goal is to study the impact of technology on the world. [07:30] and they take a very specific approach to this study of technology, namely [07:34] They [07:35] Take. [07:36] Marx, they take Deleuze and Guattari, who are two French philosophers. They take Lyotard, and they sort of meld it together in this new form of...

[07:45] sort of cultural analysis that's also engaging with technology itself. [07:50] they come to a very interesting conclusion, namely that [07:55] Capitalism, [07:56] specifically techno capital, [07:59] is increasing in speed and is [08:03] going faster than humans can interpret or comprehend it. [08:08] What they identify is actually a conclusion that Marx himself had come to in Fragments on Machine, which is that [08:16] There's a paradox in capitalism that [08:19] its own speed and acceleration is leading to its own dissolution. Dissolution is the word that Marx uses in this specific context. [08:27] And so they're like, OK. [08:30] We are-- [08:31] Some of us are [08:32] more leftist, some of them are more right wing. And they're like, we can get to... [08:37] the end of capitalism through [08:40] this idea of acceleration, meaning instead of trying to stop it, reform the system, let's go faster. [08:46] Let's bring it to its paradox, right? You can see the cracks already forming and you're just like, [08:52] Let it rip. [08:53] And so that's like the overall idea of [08:58] accelerationism. [08:59] And then it splinters off between sort of a more left-wing approach and a more right-wing approach. And even the more, like... [09:06] nihilistic approach, which is the Landian approach. We can talk about a little bit more. This effective [09:11] accelerationism is sort of new, right? Its idea is that you can take

[09:18] this increase in speed, [09:20] And instead of being captured [09:22] by uh techno capital instead of being instrumentalized as humans by it [09:27] we can potentially guide it to a world of [09:31] In the words, Marc Andreessen, growth and abundance. [09:35] Of course, that's a hypothesis, and we can discuss whether or not we believe that. [09:39] So that is like the overall lay of the land. And then there's more than just EAC. There's CAC and LAC and RAC and all sorts of other things that sort of splinter off. Those are 102, 103, 104. Yeah. That is super helpful. Two questions I have for you. This group that you... [10:00] identified at the beginning who were doing this research, what year are we in? Is that current or is that in the eighties? Like what, [10:07] Time period. [10:08] Great question. [10:10] The main body of work from LAN goes from '87 to 2007, but the group disbands in the '90s, basically. [10:19] Nick Land leaves the university, moves to Shanghai, where he sees techno capital being better realized than in the West. [10:28] People like Sadie Plant and Mark Fisher go on their own, become renowned public intellectuals. [10:32] And so we're looking at, yeah, [10:34] '87 until the mid '90s, yeah. And it's in Warwick in England. So it's not an American idea at first. And we're also not in Silicon Valley, I think, notably. Very interesting as well, yeah. Okay, so I feel like Ruby gave us a history lesson. My experience of EICC is that it's not that really

[10:54] It's [10:55] I think evolved considerably. Reggie, do you want to maybe fill us in on [11:00] the new expressions of EACC. [11:03] Yeah, the most interesting thing is that maybe one of Silicon Valley's best and worst trades is it took something that was quite... [11:11] complex, intellectualized, based in the university and sort of turned it for their own manifestation of ideals, right? And thus was able to kind of have their memification of it, which is, you know, you take accelerationism and you put like some [11:29] technical little e slash in front of it and now it's a tech idea and like a lot of [11:34] things that get memefied, you know, I think it's lost that [11:38] entirely rich root, which is quite, you know, like Ruby points out, opposite of how, you know, Marc Andreessen uses it. And broadly, Twitter people use it, right? What I find interesting is that EAC is, I would say, the poor belief of Silicon Valley from the very get, which is that we can design and engineer progress into infinity. It's actually not that new of an idea. [12:08] I think [12:09] Thank you. [12:10] because there's [12:12] a sort of [12:15] continuing butting of heads between, I would just say, trad media and technology, right, which we also see with kind of government and technology. There arose the need, I should say.

[12:28] for a better identity rapper for the people that wanted to kind of go [12:33] full speed ahead. And yeah, I kind of-- [12:37] presented that in a way that you know you're not just a tech bra on twitter but you're actually this larger movement [12:44] that can get appended to your Twitter. And then of course, you know, the Andreessen blog post comes out and people are able to just kind of parrot that, right? So now they have their like referential text. And then you just kind of get the perfect kind of storm with the open AI drama, right? Which despite [13:03] not having all of the information on it, it immediately gets framed as a safety versus [13:09] progress, [13:10] issue. [13:12] And again, very similar to SVB in a way, as in like the Silicon Valley bank drama, like, you know, [13:19] a story was sort of came out of nowhere [13:24] VCs kind of [13:26] exacerbated it and then that became sort of the canon and there's gonna have to be a lot of work to undo [13:32] that canon placement. [13:33] But for now, we're kind of stuck with the accelerate versus safety debate. And that's kind of [13:40] I think [13:41] the [13:42] where we are now. Okay, so I'm just gonna, I'm going to [13:46] Make sure that [13:48] myself and our listeners are keeping track, staying on course with us. So Ruby, you gave the [13:55] sort of history of where the origins of this philosophy came from. Academics and philosophers came together. They

[14:02] created this [14:03] theory and [14:05] saw that capitalism was moving at such a high speed that the only answer to that was for it to be accelerated and to get to its end basically as quickly as possible. And that was a belief that came together. And then... [14:20] Reggie, what you're saying is that... [14:23] That belief has been... [14:27] Maybe commodified is too... [14:29] Strong of a word, but taken by... [14:32] technologists, by venture capitalists, by, uh, [14:36] people in Silicon Valley and who work in tech as sort of, [14:41] a rapper for the beliefs that they have and have sort of been [14:47] evolved into something that is representative of our time right now. [14:52] And maybe in doing that, it seems like [14:55] there's been some things that are problematic about the way that it's evolved. Is that sort of like a fair, I know I'm missing like a lot of it, but is that sort of like a fair way to describe what's happened? [15:05] I would say so. I wouldn't say it's like problematic on its surface. I just think that [15:10] Like Ruby points out in its origins, it's... [15:13] distinctly [15:15] not [15:16] referential to its origin, but it's taken on its own characteristics, I believe, have been present in the Silicon Valley mindset from the get go. [15:27] One question I have about Ruby, this group that... [15:32] originated sort of the idea.

[15:35] Did they believe that it needed to reach its end because it was, because there is something inherently bad about it, and then to reach its end will get to something new? Or was it more like... [15:51] We don't know what's on the other side of this, but we should get there as quickly as possible. [15:55] Yeah, so... [15:56] This is different factions, so if you take [15:59] ELAC, which is leftist accelerationist, [16:03] Land as well is a post-Marxist thinker, meaning they've read Marx and they've identified that [16:09] There is an issue in capitalism. [16:12] And [16:14] So to them, it is not so much that there's something [16:17] good or positive afterwards is that it must come to an end in order to [16:24] liberate the proletariat or whatever to land [16:27] Which is why I think... [16:29] I'm trying to find it. I don't know if he removed it, but there was a land quote in Andreessen's manifesto. [16:35] last I checked. [16:36] Specifically, Land says, we're not going to get to some sort of socialist utopia. Rather, what will happen is that we'll... [16:45] sort of leap over humans entirely. [16:47] Right. [16:48] The future does not need humans to exist is one of the ideas of this sort of [16:54] post-humanist accelerationism. [16:57] If we become appendages on the machine, like we are workers and we're feeding the machine, that's like a... [17:04] At some point, once the machine can feed itself,

[17:06] we become sort of useless in the [17:09] grand goals of Techno Capital. [17:12] And for Tulta Land, if humanity disappears tomorrow, [17:17] Who cares? On that note, when someone has EACC, [17:21] In their Twitter bio. Mm-hmm. [17:24] Ruby, you don't have it. Reggie, you don't have it. Natasha, you don't have it. I don't have it. Can you imagine? I have it, but I have no idea what it is. What is that saying? So when I'm hearing from you guys that it's-- [17:35] is that it's, [17:37] It's... [17:38] Saying that I am a devout person [17:43] techno-optimist, [17:44] I believe in the power of progress [17:48] especially with the lens of technology, and probably even more specifically now within the lens of AI. [17:55] and [17:56] that [17:57] put that pushing progress at all costs. [18:01] is [18:02] going to lead to this utopia. And the combination of the technology and the capitalism is what's going to get us there. [18:09] Is that accurate? [18:10] - Yeah, I think it's essentially the same idea that you can actually get to [18:14] instead of having the finality being [18:17] the end of... [18:19] the human species as land understands it, they say, well, we can divert this and create a world of growth and abundance. [18:27] right those are the two words that come back often in the words of Andreessen and the ideas of [18:34] the [18:35] EAC movement. Maybe these were too dramatic with what they see as the consequences of techno-capital

[18:42] they believe that we can, as a society, drive it towards [18:46] A utopia of growth and abundance, yeah. [18:48] I think what I would say about actually having it in your profile, I kind of always come back to, [18:54] Why? [18:56] might someone associate with any label right and i think that we [19:01] reach a certain [19:03] cultural point where, you know, folks are not necessarily like [19:08] proud to be working in technology. You know, like there was a time where when you would say you were working at like Snapchat or Facebook, you were like, yeah, I work at Facebook. Like we're, we're doing the thing. We're connecting everyone. And now I think if you're at Thanksgiving and you like work at Facebook, you're kind of not saying that necessarily. And I think. [19:27] And I think similar for like [19:29] you know, crypto people like, you know, when you went to the Thanksgiving table and Bitcoin was up, you were like, you're welcome, idiots. And you went home last Thanksgiving, in particular, it was kind of just like, hey, you know, you're like hiding your face, you know, and similar to when you know, you're in college, and you have like your university and your Instagram bio, people want to be [19:53] proud of the things that they're doing. [19:55] And they want it to be associated with a larger positive movement. [19:59] It's incredibly human of us. And I think that [20:02] after going through this phase or still being in this phase of, [20:06] you know, [20:07] not necessarily being proud to be associated with building technology. I think IAC gives a path to presenting again, this identity wrapper of, no, we are doing something really good and we do actually have a,

[20:22] common enemy, which makes me think about, you know, I think both [20:26] McLuhan talks about this and [20:29] Elias Canetti talks about this in Crowds and Power, which is identity through violence. You need a sort of opposing force to give a sense of self. Iyak kind of has a known enemy, in this case, maybe the safetiest or the, you know, the doomers. [20:47] And so it kind of gives, you know, a sort of infinite battlefield of what the future might look like. And I think [20:55] In general, that is. [20:57] Positive today, obviously, like all identity quests. [21:00] it can take a, it can choose to fork off and become quite negative. And I'm sure we'll see splinterings of the movement that has its factions. So... [21:10] Yeah, I think that identity labels is a really big part of it. Just to sort of round this out, I think 23 years after the dot-com boom, [21:20] a lot of major [21:22] thinkers and venture capitalists realize that they've generated a lot and a lot of wealth. [21:28] But... [21:29] cultural impact is still lacking, namely because that wealth and these products and these things [21:35] are now... [21:36] ubiquitous, a lot of people use them, but there is no sort of overarching theory or philosophy behind them. [21:43] It's been a great project. Thousands and thousands of people have worked on the platforms we use. [21:48] And still, it isn't clear [21:51] Until... [21:52] Now, like what the utopia

[21:56] People were trying to build, deploying billions of dollars every year. [21:59] in building these new technological tools. [22:02] What Andreessen does with the manifesto, essentially, is a classic move of any person who wants to [22:09] corral a group of individuals who were maybe [22:13] a bit dispersed and don't have like a clear idea of what they want to do. [22:17] you know, [22:17] "The Lost Souls" airing in San Francisco, it tells them this is what we are trying to do. [22:24] And the manifesto, which is a sort of storied [22:28] literary form does a few things. [22:31] it sets up one. [22:33] What is wrong with the world? [22:35] There's a specter haunting Europe, right? [22:37] 2. Who is the enemy? [22:39] The history of the world has been a history of a war between classes. [22:44] Three, how do we fix the issue? And four, how do we get to that utopia? So that's the format that it follows. And it makes it very clear. [22:51] what to do. EdReason has a section called The Enemies, and you can see all the enemies. [22:57] And [22:58] It's very Girardian in that sense. It's very like you pick an L group, I think, [23:02] similar to what the thinkers Reggie mentioned, [23:05] Do it's like you pick a now group. These are people we're trying to fight against. This is the world we're trying to build. [23:10] And [23:11] This is a very powerful social tool because [23:15] Five years ago, [23:17] If you are, say, working on Facebook and like, why are you doing it? Like, what's the world that you're trying to build behind it? [23:23] Because the connect the world thing, sure, but like,

[23:26] So this provides people with this like telos, this end goal to sort of strive after. Okay. Speaking about the Marc Andreessen piece specifically, I think one... [23:35] Common criticism that you see for IAC maybe generally, but specifically around the Mark injuries and peace is that [23:43] It's written by a wealthy, privileged, [23:46] dude to maintain and confirm his position of power. I think he's pumping his bags. He's pumping his bags. And having this manifesto take hold, like very much benefits Mark Andrewson personally, who profits from the success of Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist. And also in sort of coalescing his, his army of builders who all, [24:09] sort of believe the same. I guess I would be curious what say you both to this criticism and [24:15] What do you think that techno-optimism makes possible, and for whom, I think is one of the questions that-- [24:21] Is there for me? I think the first thing here is, [24:24] why would you write a manifesto that doesn't benefit you, right? So that's like the first thing. Any person will, you know, I think we see it as like pumping their bags, but I think it's, [24:33] if I'm being generous, he's pumping his philosophical bags, right? He wants his ideology to be realized throughout the world. [24:42] and he wants to disseminate it and he wants [24:45] people to [24:46] not only read but act in a certain way. And so if you take a look at the futurists, take a look at the surrealists, or even groups like-- more contrarian groups like the xenofeminists, the Laboria Cubonics Collective, who have this gender abolitionist theory behind their own manifesto.

[25:04] well, a lot of them are living that truth, right? They're not... [25:08] It's [25:09] People are always, specifically for manifestos, which are calls to action, [25:14] or [25:15] trying to get people to join their own causes. So it seems like a normal thing to do. I think we have like a societal disdain, I think, when it's in that direction. But I like the transparency of it. [25:27] And [25:28] I think people can understand who the person is and what it means to them, and they can choose to follow or not follow, criticize or embrace. [25:37] Reggie? [25:38] Yeah, I think to Ruby's point, no one writes a manifesto that isn't aligned with who they are, what they do, for sure. [25:46] I've had the pleasure of [25:47] meeting Mark. [25:49] And [25:50] you know, despite... [25:52] being a billionaire, like, I don't think he's very motivated by money. I think he's very motivated by, like, [25:58] being right and technology being a force of sort of [26:03] proving things that are like true about the world and that should [26:07] bring about some sense of progress. And so then you have to go back to who Mark is. [26:14] Mark founded Netscape. Like if there's someone who has an opinion about the power of the internet and like the internet as a project, he's someone that I genuinely want to [26:23] hear from. And so I think something that's funny is [26:28] maybe [26:29] a week before he wrote [26:31] that manifesto, I published a new technologist manifesto

[26:35] and like Paki from A16Z like retweeted and was like we need more manifestos and then like a week later Mark's manifesto came out and I was like rugged like yeah absolutely rugged like Mark you could have tweeted this I thought we were boys but um so then so then the criticism comes down to like okay like let's look at the power of this manifesto and then let's look at like [26:58] Again, that question of... [26:59] is it just trying to benefit him/who is it trying to benefit? [27:05] I think my main criticism about the manifesto is that one, I don't think many new ideas were presented. [27:10] And two, I don't, [27:12] I think it was like that well written. It just kind of felt like, [27:15] long and I heard this speech before. [27:19] Um... [27:20] And to my point about EAC being just what Silicon Valley has always been/represented, the entire-- [27:30] point, at least for me as like a 28 year old, since I've started [27:35] being [27:35] at least mentally associated with Silicon Valley as like a broader thing other than its geography. [27:40] is that we can design progress, that we can be broadly optimistic about the future if we're willing to like fight and pour a lot of energy and capital into it, and that we shouldn't be ashamed of those things. [27:51] And again, I think there's like a cultural trend of people feeling a bit defeatist about their own work in which maybe it's trying to... [27:58] unstick them from that mud. But as an idea, that idea is not new. And I think the [28:05] broad operating ethos of Silicon Valley has been that for a while. It just kind of is a restatement of it.

[28:11] And I think that's why I wasn't. [28:13] too exciting for me personally. And then I think, you know, is it dubious that he wrote this as like a billionaire who has like a really large [28:21] venture capital firm is like, [28:22] No. [28:23] Like, [28:24] At best, it inspires people who maybe were stuck and gets them out and building again. And then at worst, it's a piece of marketing for A16Z. It's just like, [28:35] Okay. Like I'm not, [28:37] I'm not really mad about that. And then I think the final question of like, [28:41] Who gets the benefit from it broadly? I think... [28:45] I see no negative side of [28:50] getting more people to build along a value line that is optimistic towards the future. So, [28:56] you know, [28:57] I think maybe the [29:00] espresso that it came through may not be inspiring for a lot of people, you know, like an already successful [29:06] white guy. But I think if you remove sort of those associating [29:13] you know, identity labels from him, you start to free up your mind to like really look at like, well, what is the power of technology? Do I align with that? [29:21] And is that why I have this job, you know, here at Facebook or Google? Or was it just like the non McKinsey or Goldman thing to do? And you get to sort of have like an inward reflection of why you're working in the first place. And I think that is. [29:34] broadly [29:36] positive and ideally will [29:38] spur motions and then we kind of allow the memetic

[29:41] wheels to turn of people being like, oh, why'd you make that motion? No, I made this motion because of X, Y, Z. Oh, I haven't thought about that for myself in a while. And then, you know. [29:50] Goodness. [29:51] occurs, I guess. That's a very optimistic take and I appreciate it very much. I [29:57] I think to counter that as the technology culture or society, we've kind of evolved past the idea of move fast and break things. That was very much the thing. [30:07] 15 years ago 10 years ago and I think that [30:09] for lots of different reasons, that's kind of been abandoned in many ways. At least that is kind of like a tagline or kind of a way of at least – [30:18] expressing the work. Maybe that's still how it is that we work as an industry, but we haven't talked about AI yet, so maybe we can jump into that now. But I think that there's a [30:30] moving past and breaking things or [30:33] accelerationism or techno-optimism, [30:36] could be at odds with [30:39] human values in some ways and or [30:42] marginalized communities or I'm curious if that comes up for you. Maybe Ruby can start with you. [30:46] I think the question of growth and abundance for whom is a very legitimate one. Basically, it comes down to whether or not you believe the... [30:56] positive impacts [30:58] from [31:00] technological advances, [31:03] are [31:05] First of all, distributed. [31:09] or potentially evenly distributed. So if we agree that the value created by a new technology, such as AI,

[31:16] will accrue to the shareholders of Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI when it IPOs. [31:24] we may also say that [31:26] Mm-hmm. [31:27] 70 or 80% of the sort of financial value, let's say, will be in the hands of those who hold stock and [31:34] that tends not to be the American public. [31:37] unless of course pension funds invested in, but mostly as like individuals, they will not reap the benefits of that growth in abundance. [31:45] And [31:46] The sort of leftist take here is that [31:49] Well, sure, you will see growth and you will see abundance, but if the last [31:55] 60 years of American history or any guide [31:59] Will those benefits be in the hands of the American public or will they be in the hands of the select few? Will we see distribution of that wealth or will we see [32:08] it being aggregated to [32:11] this billionaire class or this investor class or the stockholder class, right? And it's sort of the Marxist take. Now, it's highly debatable, right? Because now someone will come back and say, well, now the models are open source, right? [32:25] So if you do want to spin up a llama instance, you go on YouTube, you find this and you can maybe [32:31] And I think Mark is pro open source. And in the techno-optimism, there is this idea of like, [32:36] allowing that creation to broaden, not only for [32:40] VC funded companies, but any person who wants to stand up their own thing. It just becomes a matter of whether or not you believe that will happen, right?

[32:48] Reggie? Yeah. I mean, I think to go to the move fast and break things kind of-- [32:56] part of the question. You know, I think it's always important to think about the environment that was like first dated in. And it's because I think it's easy to think like, oh, well, you know, Facebook as the longest enduring social network. [33:09] They didn't have competitors because, you know... [33:12] social networks as we think of them today didn't exist, but there was Friendster, there was MySpace, there were all these things. Yahoo was, you know, big, AOL. And it's important to [33:22] Think through what it means. [33:25] move fast and break things. It doesn't really matter... [33:29] in a broader sociological context, [33:33] If you only have... [33:35] 500,000 users or something like that, right? A million users, right? Like, no one's thinking that an election is going to get [33:43] impacted. [33:44] by that platform at that time. [33:47] Like that was a statement. [33:49] around [33:50] shipping to capture value, to move at a pace that incumbents cannot move at. [33:56] Right. Up until they became the very incumbent themselves. And then they started actually having these like global impact moments. That was a sign of their maturity. Right. And eventually the move fast and break things turned into like move fast with good like fundamentals. Or I forgot like how the phrase like changed, you know, and I'm sure like. [34:16] the phrase within the company itself.

[34:19] shifted. [34:19] But I think-- [34:21] me personally, as a, you know, [34:25] technologist and like founder while i maybe wouldn't use move fast and break things i don't think there's anything inherently wrong because in order to [34:33] remove incumbents, you need to be [34:37] simply faster than the incumbents. And, um, [34:43] That seems to be [34:46] a fundamental startup physics principle [34:49] that hasn't [34:50] been proven false just yet. [34:53] So I think it would be smart for like any, you know, [34:56] builder that genuinely wants to build a company [34:59] to displace an incumbent because you believe, you know, this thing is fundamentally better, to not necessarily shy away from [35:07] speed. [35:08] But then we get into that question of, [35:12] speed for what purpose and the classic Silicon Valley of like the future is here is just not evenly distributed. But to Ruby's point of like the distribution of value, you know, it's a really, really fair question. [35:24] But I also think this is why disrupting incumbents is important because [35:30] If... [35:31] Google or Microsoft reaps the... [35:35] majority of benefits of AI. [35:37] That's really not changing the distribution of the goods now. [35:41] We need to be like critical in how we talk about this because I think a kid... [35:46] using Google [35:48] for free.

[35:49] able to access this tool [35:51] is really important. [35:52] like that, that is a good distribution of value. And, and I think a lot of, [35:57] folks that are critical about the distribution of financial value do, you know, discredit that distribution of [36:04] the [36:05] good and something that the internet has been really good at is basically distributing a lot of [36:10] tools for free. [36:12] I think. [36:13] you know, the new [36:14] questions become on these sort of like [36:17] what we view today as like societal change functions of [36:22] quite cheap. [36:24] AI. [36:25] of [36:26] autonomous vehicles, right, which is not widely distributed at all, nor like standard set, but clearly [36:33] work quite well in San Francisco and the Bay Area. [36:36] and other kind of pocketed communities. You know, how will those things get distributed? And what will the kind of like spread of value be? And then finally, you know, not to be like all surveillance capital vibes, but like when we have all these cameras just like, [36:51] gliding about [36:52] you know, [36:53] marginalized communities, how might that [36:55] then get repurposed from institutions of power and government and what have you, where there might be a misalignment between those communities and those that are able to more easily affect [37:08] workings of those communities. I think all those are like really valid questions that EAC doesn't really [37:16] dive into because [37:18] Like any identity, it's scary to challenge the premise of your own identity, but

[37:25] Yeah, I think it's. [37:26] I think it's incredibly valid. And I, I would, I think one thing from the Andreessen piece that really was frustrating is when I, when I wrote my piece, I talked about kind of like a core tenant of the new technologist is a welcoming of [37:41] and producing of good critique. And if you kind of do like a little [37:46] Command F and search critique in the Andreessen piece, you know, it is a quick dismissal of opposing forces. [37:53] critique and I don't think that that is a [37:58] sustainable nor helpful view of what [38:03] good critique [38:04] brings um but i also understand why some like why you would dismiss it really quickly because again they're already kind of the critique class is already kind of labeled as an oppositional force to um progress and acceleration so you know [38:21] Okay, so I just want to make sure... [38:25] that when I'm making some assumptions about people, my assumptions are correct. So if I have EICC, if I see [38:32] See... [38:33] EACC in someone's bio. [38:35] I can assume. [38:36] That they are pro-capitalism. [38:38] And that they are pro-technology. [38:40] Yep. [38:41] Yeah, the two tenets of a good person. [38:47] Why don't you have it in your bio, Reggie? [38:50] He's not trying to be captured by some like some specific ideology. Yeah.

[38:55] It's funny because you're you're. [38:57] Yeah, you're quite critical of it, which... [39:00] I appreciate it. I'm both critical of it, but if I was [39:04] to be put in like the binary situation. I'm definitely yak, you know, like I'm trying to [39:10] I'm trying to ship. We're trying to ship out here. You know, but and that's and that's the thing, like the Internet is really, really good at flattening identity for one. [39:21] ease of consumption of whoever might be behind that label. And then two, for the sake of the further production of, you know, [39:28] sort of discourse networks to use it. [39:31] Is that Kittler? No, that's not Kittler. Kittler, yeah, yeah. Oh, it is Kittler. Yeah! Thank you, Ruby. [39:36] But yeah, it's just really good for that kind of stuff. [39:39] So if I am... [39:41] Anti- [39:43] EAC, do I have anything in my bio? [39:46] You can pick and choose, right? So the current EAC is... [39:52] somewhere between-- they reject the Lanyon idea of the end of humanity. They reject that idea that the techno-capitalist machine will [40:01] lead to the [40:03] "The future does not need humans in it," which is the land quote. So they're removed from that, but they're still in the space where they want to accelerate. [40:12] you can choose to be [40:13] like Alex Srinik and Nick Williams on the leftist side of this acceleration. [40:18] the idea that through it you can bring the fall of capitalism, [40:22] with its inherent paradoxes, and then make way for a new system of--

[40:28] government or whatnot. [40:29] You can be in the [40:32] idea of Fedorov, right, who Fedorov [40:36] is sort of a precursor to this accelerationist idea where he says, well, we can, with human will, right, he thinks that human will can control the techno-capitalist machine. [40:46] and lead us to [40:48] whatever it is that we dream of as a society. He doesn't use the word growth and abundance, which is why I think his perspective is a bit interesting. [40:55] He talks a little bit about interplanetary life and stuff like that, but doesn't specifically use the capitalist coded word of, [41:03] Yeah, growth and abundance. And so that's another route you can go. [41:08] and [41:10] One of the things that I like about Arya Deen has this piece called Notes on Blackceleration. [41:16] And she mentions that acceleration also has a direction. [41:20] So you can kind of go any way you want. [41:23] Because it's going to go. It's just where is it going to go? [41:26] And so you can be a capitalist, but also [41:31] not be [41:33] EAC, right? Okay. Because you might not want, you might be a [41:37] what the kids call like state capitalists, right? Just like lots of FTC, lots of regulation, you know, but still have the free market. But there's lots of ways that you can be an enemy of Mark Andreessen and still be a capitalist, right? [41:52] Let's talk about some of those enemies, just so I'm clear about who IAC is opposed to.

[41:58] regulation for sure feels like it's at the top of the list. The regulatory body's [42:04] I guess my nuance there is like... [42:07] - Mm-hmm. [42:08] I think regulation before like regulation is, [42:11] ready, right? Like, for example, I think [42:14] Right now, I would argue the reason why crypto can't accelerate in a lot of ways is because the regulation is actually just like quite thin and not defined. And because of that, when you do accelerate, you're kind of get you get punched in the face. Right. [42:28] In a lot of crypto ways, people want regulation for the sake of clarity to actually be able to accelerate in a direction. [42:34] But then for AI, [42:37] And I think part of the critique, in my opinion, is the AI founders went on an AI is scary tour. And now we've got to undo that. But there's a bunch of people just trying to create regulation off of theory and zero practice. That's, I think... [42:54] more of what IAC is against in terms of a regulatory mindset. I think it's a good nuance, yeah. [42:59] Okay, let's hear the let's hear the list. It's more like ideology. So existential risk is [43:04] sustainability, [43:06] ESG, sustainable development goals, social responsibility, stakeholder capitalism, precautionary principle, trust and safety, [43:14] tech ethics, risk management, degrowth, and the limits of growth. [43:20] God. [43:21] That seems like a lot of good things. That brings up a lot. [43:25] I'm like, okay. But again, I think the important...

[43:31] One of the important nuances is to like, why would something like tech ethics be on their shit list? And then you have to look at, well, what are like the tech ethics like platforms today? [43:45] And like, how are they run? And have they even like really produced anything? Or have they just been like, [43:51] these people are bad. And you know, [43:53] being sympathetic to IAC, like, I would say, like, [43:58] I couldn't name one good like tech ethics structure. And they aren't necessarily encouraging of growth. You know, they're very encouraging of like, [44:09] in short, codifying certain ideologies. Now, when you build ideologies are [44:15] inherently embodied in whatever you're building because it's all an extension of whatever you [44:20] the group and the humans putting their energy into it is. But, you know, [44:25] I don't know. It's one of those things where you hear like tech ethics and you're like, oh, we should be ethical about tech. It's like, [44:30] Yes, but if you look at the institutions that are kind of [44:35] holding that [44:37] that identity label today. I don't think it's necessarily like institutions that are exciting to partner with, to figure out what ethics mean. [44:45] in this arena you know and when their response would also be [44:50] Or at least when the memification of their response is, don't launch the new AI model, which a lot of people's work and paycheck work. [45:00] relies on launching the new AI model today. You know, it's a very-- it's like, well, now you're stopping

[45:05] what I do and how I pay my kids private school and whatnot. Ruby, what comes up for you when you list off that? [45:13] We can even reframe it in, I think, a way that a rationalist would like to think about this, which is that, [45:22] If in 10 years we can bring [45:24] a world where each child in America, due to, for instance, AI, has everything they need to [45:30] live. [45:32] Right. [45:32] we take them out of poverty or whatever, [45:35] uh, [45:36] 10 years if we go at the current pace then each of these things potentially through their [45:42] checks and balances, through their regulatory committees and through their [45:48] Red tape, stop that future from happening. And this is why they are bad. [45:53] Now, the question is, [45:55] is that will that future really happen in 10 years, right? So it really becomes a question of faith. [46:00] If you believe that future is happening, it's 10 years down the line, 2033, then of course you're going to hate these things, because they're stopping you from-- [46:08] feeding every child in America. [46:09] - Bye. [46:10] because every cow will be chipped and you'll-- whatever AI future with the cows. [46:16] But I think a very fair criticism here is, [46:21] You are using the future to dictate how something right now is being used. And there is a lot of uncertainty there. [46:27] whether or not [46:29] truly in 2033 as this example, we will actually see the end of child poverty, or we will see growth and abundance, to use the terms he uses again.

[46:38] And so there's this tension between hypotheses. [46:41] that is very hard to deal with. And then the third layer on top of that is people who say, [46:47] for the last 20 to 30 years, we've let you do this thing where you kind of run with an idea and you get like a 10 year runway to execute. [46:57] And what does that let us to? And so you have the Tristan Harris's of this world who probably make a pretty penny just going around explaining the faults that they've created, themselves have created in the world and being like, well, you're supposed to connect the world, but in reality. [47:13] that path, you've led to increase in misinformation, [47:20] not errors, but whatever happens with the elections, like mistakes in elections. So all these consequences were unaccounted for in the goal of connecting the world, which we can agree has happened specifically through WhatsApp, I think. That's like a huge net positive. [47:34] But... [47:35] Okay. [47:36] There's a lot of stuff. [47:38] a lot of consequences [47:40] you know, a lot of [47:42] dead societal consequences on the trail of that goal of connecting the world. And as a society, what we have to do in this sort of EAC versus [47:50] conscious accelerationism, whatever you want to call it is, [47:53] Was that really worth getting [47:56] to say WhatsApp, as it is now where I can call my family in Haiti anytime. [48:02] Would it have been okay in 15 years if we could have stopped, say, the election denial, the QAnon conspiracies and misinformation potentially...

[48:13] depression in teenagers, whatever consequences you want to associate with social media, [48:18] Were they worth this in that timeline? [48:21] I don't have the answer, but as a society, we can decide and we can say yes. [48:25] or no. [48:25] I think Europe is right now saying a bit more no, but America, we can, well, I can't vote, but we can decide through our political system to say, we agree that it actually was worth it, or we can say no. [48:38] So that is the conundrum here. [48:41] I think the thing is, I don't think we can agree. Ruby, to your point, when we were talking about FWB Fest, and you were just like, well, yeah, everything's political. It's just like, it becomes a true matter of politics. And it kind of reminds me... [48:54] or like what you were saying kind of reminds me of just like, technologies kind of have a sort of like Republicanism, similar to like gun laws, where it's just like, well, you know, [49:04] guns don't kill people, people kill people, you know, and in a similar way, it's like, well, the code didn't do it. People using the code did it. And whether or not that is, you know, [49:13] correct and then like the safeguards that we put up that that's what becomes like a super political statement. That's why I think again, even like [49:21] the broad Balaji-esque tech versus the media. It's all... [49:26] like politics is about power, right? And whether it's tech versus the media, or tech versus government, like, [49:32] My favorite thing kind of [49:34] during COVID and like just pre-COVID were when Congress decided it was going to [49:40] look good on them to like drag all the social media founders up in front of Congress and be like, how did Trump get elected?

[49:47] And then [49:48] Because to me, it was just like this struggle of who's going to regulate who. Right. Are you going to regulate us or are we just going to tell you what it is and you're going to have to deal with that? And I think when you look back on those tapes, whether it's like Mark talking to Congress, you know, Jack Dorsey talking to Congress, what have you, it's very clear that. [50:06] the technologists are in control and like the government has to [50:10] operate within that system. Because the reality is, is like on Twitter, just as our shared reference, my profile looks the same as the New York Times profile looks the same as-- [50:21] So, [50:22] George Santos profile. And we can all spit the same lie. And that's the thing George Santos recognized. Like he could just spit the lie on the network and get elected. [50:31] And then Congress hated him for that, you know? And so I think in a very similar way, like, [50:37] Sherry Turkle says we take things at interface value. And because it's [50:42] interface also flattens, it creates an incredibly [50:47] equal playing field, despite maybe the weight of your physical identity [50:52] in the material world. So then it just becomes like a battlefield for the mind and [50:58] Um, [50:59] to Ruby's question of like, it happened in 10 years, would we be mad if it happened in 15? The battlefield of the mind says, well, [51:07] If you stop it from happening in 10 years, it might not even exist to get to year 11 or 12, right? And that's the... [51:16] capitalist imperative in this question, right? Because if you slow it down, you might slow it down to the point that

[51:24] Like a shark, it dies, right? And so, hence, you know, Shark Tank. And so you can't let the shark die. So you can't put up, you know, any sort of like barriers to its maneuvering. And that becomes a deeply political problem. [51:38] question. And that's also why I think, you know, Peter Thiel spent so much time sort of backing someone like a Blake Masters, you know, who follows me on Twitter. Shout out. [51:47] Blake Masters for that follow-up. Shout out to Oomphys in Congress. It's going to be very clear that over the next 10 years, because our questions are going to get increasingly [51:57] technological [51:59] in terms of how society is even governed. [52:02] that these same people that may just seem silly, [52:07] EAC, like, oh, it's just like an internet fringe thing. Will actually be the people running for [52:12] public offices, you know? And that's like the whole thing about, oh, we need like an anime president. It's like we actually do need maybe not an anime president, but we need an anime like representative, you know, because that is kind of going to be the identity structures that start to mean more to us and represent. [52:29] pockets of value, um, [52:32] as we wrestle with these questions and then [52:35] living in those systems. I think one thing I want to add to the manifesto, or at least the current ideology behind IAC is also an attempt [52:42] at placing technology in the realm of the political world. [52:46] It's been really strange. Oh, for sure. [52:51] Mark Zuckerberg, billion dollar company, this and that, like it feels like

[52:57] But then at the same time, they were potentially favoring Democrats. It was kind of unclear what the stance politically was of these platforms. [53:05] And so by naming the enemies [53:08] I think they're kind of staking their political ground, and this enables [53:12] well, mimetic or political warfare, because now you're like, these are the representatives that follow this thing, and we can support them because they agree with these specific guidelines. [53:22] And [53:23] The cool thing here is that if you oppose this, you actually know which representatives to vote against if, once again, you don't agree with [53:30] the 10 versus 15 idea, or if you don't believe that in 10 years, [53:34] Um, [53:35] that whatever promise is being made, if you feel like you've been lied to too much by technologists, you don't want to believe anymore and you want to... [53:43] I think that's an important thing to note because [53:46] That is sort of the... [53:48] maybe hidden [53:50] It's not even that hidden. I think it's quite clear that this is one of the things that they're trying to do. [53:57] its own political party or just a guiding principle for existing political parties on who you align with. I think the feel way of doing it is you just kind of pick [54:07] people who follow it. It's not at the party level, more like informal leaders. [54:13] Now, where this gets kind of interesting [54:15] is [54:17] to come back station of [54:20] Um, [54:21] acceleration. [54:22] safetyist and the doomers and the effective altruists. Because Balaji is something that was, you know, once again, I'm sure he's

[54:30] extremely intelligent, but he... [54:33] sort of [54:33] Put the EAs in... [54:36] the categories of the wokes. [54:38] And one thing that may become extremely complex in our world in the next five years is [54:42] is trying to figure out who is what and who's on what side. [54:47] This thing, this map that I just described, [54:50] It is just a Mac. [54:52] it is highly imperfect to understand the actual ideology behind builders behind um what i would call like the academic class and behind the critic class like the media [55:03] And so, [55:04] When biology says that the EAs are woke, [55:08] That's actually... [55:09] sort of factually incorrect. But the only way for it to work in this framework is to say, accelerationists, those are the folks that are on my side, the EA people who did the coup on Sam Altman, they're the wokes. But [55:22] if you meet a rationalist, they're not woke at all. That's not their purview. They're not in the world of identity politics or... [55:30] you know, feel good about that poor person. They will give $5 to Africa before they give $5 to Black Lives Matter because it saves more. It saves more children's lives like any day of the week. Right. So, [55:43] the flattening will become a very difficult [55:46] plane to navigate. [55:47] if people don't actually go back to these foundational texts to understand what it means to be X-AC or C-AC or E-AC or whatever. [55:57] MS. [55:58] I'd love for you to just define EA so that we can get that in there for people because who comes to mind for me is SBF, which I don't think is a picture of what you guys want. So if you could define that and then I have a question to close us out here. But effective altruism, what does that mean?

[56:21] We can... [56:23] my god, behind a lot of these things. But God bless. So EA is associated with the Institute for the Future. No, Institute. [56:34] misquoting the name of it. [56:37] People like Nick Vosch consider sort of long-termists, and their idea is to take rationalism and to take utilitarianism, which is a philosophy came up by Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill, who are two British philosophers, and use this framework of utilitarianism, which is that... [56:54] We should maximize the happiness or utility or hedons like [57:01] units of hedonism in the world. [57:04] So [57:05] What this means then is that when you're making decisions, your goal should be to [57:10] have the highest positive impact in each one of your decisions. [57:15] Now, [57:15] This was just... [57:18] sort of a way to see the world and a way to understand what was a moral action or not. [57:23] So. [57:24] I could say get into a fight with someone if this fight was to lead to a higher amount of utility or happiness in the world, the expected value of that fight, then it would be moral to do it because more people would benefit from it. [57:38] right, essentially kind of using [57:41] pseudo-mathematical [57:43] way to, especially in a post [57:46] in a post-religious world of philosophy and really roots it in the field of mathematics and specifically the attempt to define the expected value of a lot of these decisions

[58:00] What they'll do, and I mentioned the donation to Africa, the malaria nets is a classic one. They are very concerned with the impact of each of their deeds. Namely, if you give a dollar and a malaria net is a dollar, they have a good sense that that will save the life of one child. [58:16] And so they'd rather give that dollar to Africa, where they know it's going to save a life because they know that dollar will buy malaria net, than to give it to a homeless person in New York. [58:26] So, [58:27] Because it is utility, more happiness than to give it to a person in New York who probably can't do anything with that dollar. [58:34] So in theory, I think that [58:36] philosophy can seem highly appealing, but once you push it to an extreme, [58:41] it starts to break down a little bit. I think SBF, rather, is the example of what happens when you push [58:47] this mathematical moral to its end. [58:52] And in the weird things that happens is that they say, so long termists, they say, [58:58] how can I make sure that the trillion humans who will be alive in 10,000 years are happy? Because their lives are worth just as much as the lives of the 7 billion in our current world. And so if AI [59:13] comes in and kills us all. [59:15] then we are reducing the overall happiness in history by a trillion, because those trillion humans will no longer get to live. [59:25] Okay. [59:26] I'm tracking. I am really grateful to you both for spending this time with us and, and being so generous with,

[59:35] your worldviews and what you know and your knowledge. I... [59:39] have a feeling that's coming up for me around this. And I know we're at times when we need to close out here, but where... [59:46] I think a problem that exists in the world and exists in this conversation is that, unfortunately, most people in the world are not... [59:57] thinking that hard about the ways in which they live and the decisions that they're making. And I think [1:00:03] in both of these sort of [1:00:05] polls, you're required to sit with a full... [1:00:10] philosophy around your life and your work and the things that you care about. And they're incredibly nuanced. And that's what that's the main thing that's coming up for me in this conversation is like all of these things are nuanced. All of them have pros and cons to them. [1:00:23] And all of them have areas where they break and they have problems. [1:00:32] I think challenging people to sit with that and decide for themselves what makes sense for people. [1:00:39] their values and their life and the, the way that they spend every given day is really important. So I want to close out quickly with, um, [1:00:47] giving you both an opportunity to really challenge people on, if they've listened to this and they're thinking about their lives, like what would be, [1:00:55] one [1:00:56] question one guiding principle for people as they [1:01:00] have taken all this information in and for them to make decisions around these different ways of approaching

[1:01:07] this conversation? Like what would be one question or one thing to sort of meditate and sit on as just a [1:01:14] average person walking around in the world. [1:01:16] And that's been asked for when we think about [1:01:20] at least the EA question, right? The question of morals was discussed by Aristotle. Like, it's an ancient question. We [1:01:26] have been thinking about it for a very long time. And this is not a new iteration of it. [1:01:32] Bentham and Miller from the 19th century. [1:01:36] if not earlier. And so, [1:01:39] I guess to me... [1:01:42] When you think about [1:01:44] accelerationism or when you think about [1:01:47] technology, my question always comes back to, [1:01:52] What is your utopia? [1:01:54] What is the future you want to see [1:01:57] built for yourself, [1:01:59] for your children and for your children's children. [1:02:03] and think very [1:02:05] deeply about that future, how you are [1:02:09] trying to build it. [1:02:11] and how the people you give your money to or you elect [1:02:15] or you delegate your power to, [1:02:18] are making that utopia a reality. [1:02:25] is that [1:02:26] It tells you what that utopia is. [1:02:29] So-- [1:02:31] Now you know, and you can decide for yourself, that is the world you want to live in. And if you believe in that vision of the world,

[1:02:38] And then you decide, yeah. [1:02:41] I love that. [1:02:42] I love that. [1:02:43] Yeah, it's good. [1:02:45] Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I feel like... [1:02:48] Most people are trying to just [1:02:50] live life, fall in love, [1:02:53] - Live, laugh, love. - Live, laugh, love. [1:02:57] It's kind of that thing when you keep looking at it, you're like, wow, this really did. They got it. [1:03:06] Hold your heart. [1:03:07] And then there's a Bible verse. It's like out of the abundance of the heart, [1:03:12] the mouth speaks. And I think that [1:03:14] The thing that holds all of my attention... [1:03:17] Thank you. [1:03:18] from like a work perspective is just looking at [1:03:23] the [1:03:24] affects [1:03:25] of our interaction with technology. [1:03:29] That is my guiding question. I interact with Uber. What does this do to me as a human? [1:03:35] You know, I interact with [1:03:37] X, what does this do to my... [1:03:39] why essentially just looking at [1:03:42] the effects of technology on us. [1:03:45] you know, in a very McLuhan-esque way, like, [1:03:47] technology, media, it massages us over, it works us over. And I think that that's a very spiritual exercise. And in a very Kevin Kelly way, you know, I view technology as a sort of, almost like a [1:04:02] a house of biology that we permanently interact with. [1:04:08] And, you know, I think to...

[1:04:09] the [1:04:11] accelerationism, you know, [1:04:14] route that we started with to try to really tie it all together. I don't think that that biology system can exist without us. I actually just think that premise that technology can just go on without us is incredibly flawed. [1:04:28] I think, I really do think that the only [1:04:31] the only thing I would ever say to anyone is just like, [1:04:35] Thank you. [1:04:35] to look at like these sort of [1:04:38] the mirror that is how you've [1:04:41] accept or move through the world. Because I think that's really all you can do and then take agency off of what you pull out of that mirror. [1:04:54] I really think that's it. You know, like that sense of, [1:04:57] Consciousness, I think, is significantly harder than it first appears. And I think [1:05:02] in like the global village of, again, another McLuhan reference, but like in the global village that we find ourselves in, like our global consciousness has been really raised, but our like, [1:05:14] internal understanding of self has been incredibly eroded um [1:05:19] And that is... [1:05:20] at the end of the day, what you always will have to live with. [1:05:23] And I think being hyper-conscious of how that is getting... [1:05:28] fought over by things like manifestos and and ruby said it really well like it's easy to subscribe to because it tells you exactly what to think [1:05:37] But that comes at, again, the cost of sort of an agency of your consciousness. I think that that is

[1:05:44] the [1:05:46] first thing you're given [1:05:47] And the thing that everyone will always fight for, um, [1:05:52] out [1:05:53] Yeah. [1:05:54] Lads, thank you so much. This is such a great conversation and you guys are both just the best. And I've learned so much, been on a whole ride here. So thank you guys so much for your time, Ruby, Reggie. [1:06:08] Thank you so much. Thank y'all. [1:06:38] Crypto trading involves risk of loss. Cryptocurrency services are provided to U.S. and U.S. territory customers by Payward Ventures, Inc. PVI, DBA, Kraken.