Marc Andreessen's billionaire bubble

the importance of steelmanning critics

Engaging critics was key to Abraham Lincoln’s success / First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln by Francis Bicknell Carpenter (1864)

Marc Andreessen is a legendary figure in Silicon Valley. In the 1990s he developed one of the first Web browsers and today presides over a venture fund with $35 billion in assets under management.¹ So when he writes something, the entire tech world pays attention.

Last week, Andreessen released a 5,000-word “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that argues for unbridled technology acceleration.² Written in the style of a screed, Andreessen champions a future of ambition and abundance through technology. Problem is, he dismisses any concerns about technology risks — like, say, bioweapons — and engages in blind boosterism to the extent that it undermines his credibility. Ultimately, the manifesto is a lesson on the importance of engaging critics and steelmanning their positions, a concept I will explain later in the essay.

To be clear: I share Andreessen’s enthusiasm for technology innovation. I want to support him. And I know several people who felt inspired by his manifesto. But when I read it, I felt buzzing bees of annoyance rise within me. It begins with the sentence, “We are being lied to” and reads like it could’ve been written by the teenage main character of the 1990 film, “Pump up the Volume,” who rants on private radio broadcasts about the hypocrisies and injustices of his suburban town. The writing has an outsider, adolescent quality rather than something you’d expect from a 50-something billionaire at the center of Silicon Valley’s power structure.

Christian Slater in the 1990 film “Pump up the Volume”

After reading it, I went on a walk and reflected on why I found it so annoying, considering I directionally agreed with it. Here’s what it was: Andreessen doesn’t address any of the risks, guardrails, or considerations related to techno-accelerationism. It’s pom-pom cheerleading. Of course technology innovation is mostly good. Most people do not dispute that. But as journalist Matt Yglesias points out in his critique of Andreessen’s manifesto, nuclear fission can be pretty dangerous! Yglesias elaborates: 

Almost every powerful and useful technology has the potential to create harms, and most technology is only useful and usable because there are safeguards and coordinating mechanisms in place.³

Andreessen glosses over such issues. To me, and I think many others, his manifesto reads like a parody of techno-optimism rather than a serious attempt to accelerate. I wanted to read it and say, Sign me up! Instead it made me bury my head.

Some of you may be familiar with the term steelmanning. Steelmanning an argument is the opposite of strawmanning an argument. It means understanding and addressing the strongest form of an opposing viewpoint. Steelmanning is an exercise in intellectual empathy. It forces you to step into your critics’ shoes, internalize their perspective, and address their strongest points.

If I were lucky enough to have Andreessen’s ear, I would tell him to take a page from great leaders like Abraham Lincoln who regularly engaged critics, steelmanned their views, and improved and adapted accordingly. I would encourage him to step into more of a statesman role for technology and get out more. For example, I would suggest he build a relationship with the thoughtful team at the Center for Humane Technology. These are the people who made “The Social Dilemma” documentary and who produce a podcast that grapples with the consequences of powerful technology.⁴ I would encourage him to participate in policy discussions about China’s rampant intellectual property theft, space traffic management, and other issues.⁵

For a tech billionaire like Andreessen, I imagine it is easy to surround oneself with yes-men who tell you you’re brilliant, hang on your every word, and wipe you down after your neoliberal wet dreams. Attacked by the media and bootlicked by the tech world, I imagine it is all too easy to create your own echo chamber even as you tell yourself a lie that you are super-open to new ideas and information. You can see this dynamic with Elon Musk, a tech billionaire of a similar vintage. As owner of X, Musk has the entire information ecosystem available to him and yet he surrounds himself with sketchy propagandists who feed his ego. This is the paradox of the tech billionaire — having access to everything yet becoming prisoners of their own echo chambers.⁶

The tendency to sequester ourselves in echo chambers is true for all of us, even if we are not billionaires and do not have yes-men. When I went down a political rabbit hole a number of years ago, I felt misunderstood by those who were not in my tribe. My social media footprint was organized around these people. So was my information diet. For a long time, it felt safe to live in this space where I felt understood, reinforced, and somewhat popular. Confirmation bias was my mistress.

Three things helped me emerge from this bubble: quitting Twitter for a year, diversifying my information diet, and regularly reaching out to people I disagree with. By exposing myself to other viewpoints, I have been able to strengthen my views, make surprising friendships, and evolve as a person, a process that continues today. I would advise something similar for Andreessen or anyone else seeking to wean themselves off of their own Kool-Aid.

I’m not saying I’m good at it. But for me, steelmanning is becoming more than a tactical approach to conversations.

It is a lifestyle — a way to excavate the truth and grow as a person.

It is a communication strategy — a way to anticipate and address objections to succeed in winning hearts and minds.

It is a philosophy of progress — a way to advance ideas that serve humanity.

I know bursting our bubbles can feel scary, especially when it threatens our sense of self. And I am not suggesting engaging with bad-faith trolls but rather good-faith interlocutors who value the truth as much as you do. Engaging with critics is how we accelerate as humans. It is the dialectic of human progress.

At the end of the Civil War, an old woman once rebuked Abraham Lincoln for his conciliatory attitude toward the South, which she felt should be destroyed. The President famously replied, “Madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

Andreessen would be wise to be more like Lincoln. We all would.

---

Conversation starters:

• When have you shifted a position after listening to other views?

• What do you think of the concept of steelmanning? Were you familiar with it?

• What did you think of Andreessen’s manifesto? Am I being too harsh?

Music inspiration for this article:

We can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come
From out of this world
Leave the real one far behind

1. https://a16z.com/about

2. https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto

3. The techno-optimist's fallacy

4. Center for Humane Technology: https://www.humanetech.com
The Social Dilemma: https://www.thesocialdilemma.com
Your Undivided Attention podcast: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast 

5. China intellectual property theft: https://www.reuters.com/world/five-eyes-intelligence-chiefs-warn-chinas-theft-intellectual-property-2023-10-18/
Silicon Valley spy wars: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/27/silicon-valley-spies-china-russia-219071
Space traffic management: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1949-1.html

6. As a counterpoint, Peter Thiel’s “Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti Classical Liberalism” speech at the Oxford Union is a good example of steelmanning.