You seem to think that the article is against technological development. It's not. It's a critique against the libertarian hyper-capitalist model that a16z argues for in his manifesto which arguably brings downsides with it in technological advancement.
You seem to be completely missing what the article is arguing. It's not about technology, it's about responsible technological development - where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many. Which is pretty much what a16z is arguing for.
That's the point, it's not. But many people (me included) seem to be under the impression that his views will lead to this end-game.
Particularly points like:
> We believe in market discipline. The market naturally disciplines – the seller either learns and changes when the buyer fails to show, or exits the market. When market discipline is absent, there is no limit to how crazy things can get. The motto of every monopoly and cartel, every centralized institution not subject to market discipline: “We don’t care, because we don’t have to.” Markets prevent monopolies and cartels.
Are pillars of his argument while being complete horseshit (the monopoly part in particular). When he thus argues that regulations and market control are bad he does implicitly argue for this.
He isn't arguing for the benefits of the many short term. He's arguing for the benefit of the many through "abundance" at some point in the distant future. But for the moment - he'll get filthy rich off of this flavour of libertarian anarcho-capitalism. And if you're optimistic too maybe you'll get rich in a couple of decades through trickle-down technological development too! winkwink
I agree that point definitely needs fleshing out on his part of he wants it to be taken seriously – I actually made notes while reading this manifesto and that is exactly something I noted myself.
I don't agree that his making a potentially invalid point about monopolies means he made this entire manifesto in support of a future that is only good for the billionaire class.
It’s a screed against technology though. It frequently bemoans technology that “hasn’t helped”, despite all of the existing technologies that developed under the model that a16z is arguing to keep supporting.
The “libertarian hyper-capitalist” model the author is crying about is essentially the model that got us all of the things the author takes for granted. Complaints about Uber and Lyft fall flat when they were developed the same way we got cheap solar power (companies competing to beat each other in a capitalist environment).
You seem to be completely missing what the article is arguing. It's not about technology, it's about responsible technological development - where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many. Which is pretty much what a16z is arguing for.