I think it’s true that when Musk or Altman is just unambiguously being like, “Yes, this story is a template for what I should do with my company,” that’s bonkers. But there is [also] this technocratic libertarian thread in science fiction that they are picking up on.

Is there some evidence for this claim? Lepore in her reply says "I guess Bezos is a big Robert Heinlein fan" and then there is a lot of talk about Asimov. I also read a very old article about Amazon, and the journalist noted that a book by David Niven was the only one on Bezos' office bookshelf.

But, so what? I read Heinlein and Niven and Asimov when I was young, too, along with a bunch of much pulpier stuff (James P. Hogan, anyone?). Does that make me and millions of other science fiction fans technocratic libertarians? If not, why do people regularly point to science fiction as the source of these three men's libertarian leanings?

▲

swiftcoder 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Did you also get hold of a billion dollars at some point? For some reason, those of us who work for a living seem less inclined to such psychosis

	▲	hunterpayne 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The historian in the article I don't think has a billion dollars either. She still seems pretty inclined to that type of thinking. Lots of cherry-picking and very little data. I think its a lack of consequences for bad decisions and ideas that is what is in common here. When that happens, people go off the rails and fall for this type of magical thinking.

▲

strken 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm baffled by the claim that tech oligarchs are bad readers, as opposed to getting the point but disagreeing.

Some authors seem to think that readers may only read Heinlein if they are prepared to join the army the next day or renounce their citizenship.

▲

hunterpayne 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Think about it from the POV of psychology and it will make more sense. She thinks she deserves more status than she has. Other people have more status than her. She doesn't like this, so she smears their reputation to reduce that gap.

Look at the arguments. They are all over the place, and almost schizophrenic. There is a lot of reaching and pulling of narratives from individual quotes. When someone is selling you something, its probably best to ignore any sort of deeper meaning in what they are saying. They are selling you something, full stop. Anything else you are reading into what they are saying is pure projection. They will say whatever they think will get you to buy. There is no deeper meaning. People with actual life experience know this. Somehow, she doesn't. The executives will say whatever they have to to get you to buy.

	▲	Jtsummers 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Anything else you are reading into what they are saying is pure projection. It's sort of funny that you accuse the author (using evidence only from an interview) of projection and also write this in the same comment: > She thinks she deserves more status than she has. Other people have more status than her. She doesn't like this, so she smears their reputation to reduce that gap. Talk about projection.

▲

ReptileMan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Some authors seem to think that readers may only read Heinlein if they are prepared to join the army the next day or renounce their citizenship.

I am kinda tired of those [expletive]. Paul Verhoeven the first in line.

Heinlein's thesis was that power unearned is power abused. And since voting is gifted power - people abuse it. Heinlein's idea that the only way to earn the franchise is to first serve the society may be wrong, but no one engages with its bigger idea - that the franchise must be earned. And it is true - people will gladly vote hitler and hamas into power. They will vote on tribal, ethnic, cultural and religious lines. They will vote to troll.

What people rarely vote for is the best interests of themselves or their nation.