Tech Tyrants And Their Twisted Theories

When I began this newsletter ten editions ago, I aimed to merge two topics that remain distinct sections in newspapers yet urgently require combined consideration: technology and politics. There are numerous factors to consider at this intersection, particularly everything surrounding AI, data protection, and algorithmic bias. However, today I wish to introduce something deeper—a philosophy, a political idea that is shaping many current political and technological developments: Dark Enlightenment.

This will occupy quite a bit of space in today’s “Odds & Sods” and will also become a recurring theme in the future, as I feel strongly about it and its implications. Further on, you will find a few additional topics, albeit kept brief.

Voting Booths Out, Tech CEO Thrones In

What we need to talk about is the ideology seemingly driving US politics since Trump regained power. Silicon Valley elites such as Peter Thiel or Marc Andreessen align with so-called Dark Enlightenment ideas; their goal is to reshape the tech industry's influence on governance. Some believe Vice President J.D. Vance was positioned as Trump’s running mate due to his connections in the tech industry. Though the key figure behind this idea is a blogger called Curtis Yarvin.

Dark Enlightenment rejects democracy. Yarvin argues that society would function better if governed by a small group rather than allowing universal suffrage. He envisions a system where nations are managed like tech companies. The movement seeks to accelerate technological advancement, particularly in AI and surveillance, to establish governance systems overseen by a technological elite instead of elected representatives. Yarvin also advocates dismantling democratic institutions and social welfare programmes to accelerate societal collapse, which he believes will pave the way for a new order led by a technological aristocracy.

Does this seem far-fetched to you? It reads like a dystopian novel; surely, this can’t happen in our real world. Well. Vice President J.D. Vance, influenced by Yarvin’s ideas, has proposed firing all mid-level bureaucrats and civil servants, replacing them with ideologically aligned individuals. Peter Thiel, a prominent right-wing donor whose influence cannot be overstated, has invested in Yarvin’s tech ventures and praised his anti-democratic ideology. Thiel, co-founder of Paypal and an early investor in Facebook, wrote in 2009, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” This mindset appears not to have changed; an investor told me about having dinner with Thiel just a few years ago and how he rambled on about this.

Most prominently, Elon Musk has gained control over the Treasury’s payment system through DOGE, processing $6 trillion annually, potentially bypassing congressional authority. The movement’s influence extends to key government agencies, with efforts to undermine the bureaucracy and control digital platforms. The concentration of power in the hands of these unelected corporate leaders and billionaires poses a significant threat to the system of checks and balances and the rule of law in the United States.

Yarvin's intelligence—or lack thereof—becomes apparent when you listen to him, as shown in this podcast episode where the New York Times softballs him. He’s the bloke who doesn’t stop talking at you while sitting in the kitchen at a party at 4 am. When the interviewer finally cuts through Yarvin’s verbose confusion, confronting him with his admiration for despotism, our self-styled philosopher king falls back on the cliché that “human history has always been a mixed bag.” This is the most compelling defence he can offer after years spent indulging in his neo-reactionary fantasies when faced with basic ethical challenges. It’s no surprise that his followers consist of a group of Silicon Valley magnates eager for unrestrained authority. Or, as someone wrote in the comments: “I don’t worry about Yarvin; it’s people who take him seriously I worry about.”

And that is precisely it. The issue isn’t the few individuals with problematic ideas; the fools in power believe them. Yarvin has become the Rasputin of the Reddit age, a Machiavelli of the motherboard. One might be tempted to dismiss this ideological flatulence as mere adolescent posturing were it not for the alarming fact that its proponents now frequent the corridors of power, whispering sweet nothings of techno-feudalism into the ears of elected officials.

Anything I read from those Dark Enlightenment tech bros feels like someone instructed an AI to generate what Ayn Rand’s views on the potential of AI might be. (Do you recall that video John Oliver produced about her a decade ago? I also wish to share what the late Christopher Hitchens remarked about her: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”)

While we may scoff at their juvenile longings for a world operated like a startup, their ideas have resonated with those who shape our future. Picture a dystopia where your worth is assessed not by your humanity but by your credit score and genetic potential. Envision a society in which democracy has been supplanted by a grotesque parody of meritocracy, where the right to vote is contingent upon your ability to code or your willingness to be microchipped like a compliant pet. My best guess: If you want to picture a world governed by tech bros, open LinkedIn. Or, even better, watch one of those so-called motivational videos where they lose their composure.

However, Dark Enlightenment is not merely a harmless thought experiment; it is a cancerous ideology that threatens to metastasise throughout our body politic. Unless we remain vigilant and fight tooth and nail for the principles of democracy and human dignity, we may wake up in a world where freedom is merely another app we can no longer afford to download. Thus, let us laugh at these wannabe overlords and recognise the genuine danger they pose. In their vision of the future, we are not citizens but users, not humans but mere data points. In that future, the light of reason and compassion that has guided us through our darkest hours will be extinguished, replaced by the cold, unfeeling glow of a screen that reads: “Democracy has encountered a fatal error. Would you like to restart in Safe Mode?”

I want to conclude with a comment I came across beneath a video featuring Curtis Yarvin: “When you’re a hammer, everything is a nail. When you’re a tech bro, everything’s a startup.”

First definitive proof that AI has a gender

Here’s an accurate and humorous joke by Elizabeth F. Cohen from Boston University. After a study revealed a common trend among AI models — that "rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided confabulations — plausible-sounding incorrect or speculative answers," she commented on Bluesky: First definitive proof that AI has a gender. No further comment needed. The same study reveals that AI search engines cite incorrect news sources at an alarming 60% rate, by the way.

Not So Fair Use

Let us, while talking tech ethics, briefly touch on the supreme arrogance of Sam Altman. He claims that the “AI race" is over if he can’t take advantage of humanity's intellectual creations. OpenAI sees copyrighted material as nothing more than raw material for their algorithms. Altman's low regard for human creativity, compared to his obsession with technology, highlights the moral emptiness of this AI movement. It shows how the industry is willing to destroy art and literature to become the best in artificial intelligence. This situation increases my disdain for AI and those who overlook human creativity. If the future of the "AI race" depends on such intellectual theft, then let it fail because of its own ethical failings.

Family Sues Google After Teen’s Suicide

Here’s a sad story to which I have no additional comment: A Google DeepMind study warned about AI chatbot dangers to minors in April 2024. In February of this year, a 14-year-old boy died by suicide after developing an obsessive relationship with an AI chatbot. His mother sued Character.AI and Google, claiming Google supported the platform despite knowing the risks. This incident highlighted the ethical concerns surrounding AI chatbots and tech companies’ responsibilities. You can read the story here.

As mentioned above, this is my tenth edition of “Odds & Sods.” All I wanted was to try this out—putting my subjective thoughts and rants into a newsletter. Just a few weeks, to see how it goes. The response—I must say—is astounding, both in numbers and in written feedback. This means I will have to continue, which I will gladly do, every Thursday at noon. Spread the word.

Thank you for reading.