"The truth about the American technology business is that it is in fact a sacred artifact of all Man’s existence. Few involved from the inside will see its true archetypal power. But it is one of the most important engines of Man’s destiny. It should be treated as sacred, not merely profitable. It should be cherished as incredibly rare and precious, like a Promethean flame in a fragile fennel stalk carried on into the dark. Technology’s humanistic ambitions are not crisp enough at all in the minds of Americans nor the world. Without symbols and enduring iconography, which valorize it as a sacred flame, the industry risks remaining a collection of companies rather than a true civilizational force."
The essay raises an important tension: Exit can feel adolescent if it never grows into stewardship.
But I’m not sure cultural dominance is the missing ingredient. In a pluralistic society, the deeper challenge may be building shared civic infrastructure that allows many cultures to coexist without one needing to dominate the others.
Instead of monuments, maybe what we need are composable trust systems and visible norms – infrastructure that supports meaning rather than prescribing it.
If tech is maturing, perhaps the next step isn’t dominance, but designing the civic layer we all live on.
Ross Calvin, I say this with kindness: this is the worse written article I have come across in a long while. Which is sad given the topic and the a16z platform. Best of luck trying to change the world, if this is your chosen method.
Also has me wondering, maybe your perspective of the Bay Area is badly skewed by the company you keep if none of them has given you feedback that this is a poor way to discuss a worthy topic.
Food for thought, broaden your social circles to evolve your perspective, and learn how to communicate better.
I literally never write comments online as I find the comment section the last place to go looking for meaningful insight and rather rank with poorly communicated emotional reactions. But I felt compelled to comment here in hopes to offer a suggestion to the author: The best messages are the easiest to understand, this missed the mark.
I was intrigued to read as I thought this may provide insightful perspective on Tech & the Bay Area from a reputable source (a16z). I could not get through the first two paragraphs without clearly understanding what you were trying to say. The unnecessary overuse of lofty concepts and big words assuming that they are both common and generally accepted, had me scratching my head trying to understand (what is this article trying to say, and is this the best way to say it?). So rather than punish myself to continue reading i copied the link and put it into AI and asked it to summarize. This is also NOT something I normally do as call me old fashioned but I like to read opinion pieces to critique and form my own opinion, but in this case when the position seemed so unnecessarily perplexing i thought i would have AI translate for me so I wasn’t misinterpreting it.
Once ChatGPT summarized it with the following: “The overall message is philosophical and cultural rather than business-specific: the author challenges the tech industry to rethink “Exit” from purely economic or engineering terms toward becoming a cultural power with meaning and legacy.”
I thought, that’s a noble thought. Then i went back to the article and reread it and also found it extremely ironic that article challenging an industry to be more culturally relevant, couldn’t be bothered with using culturally relevant prose itself. Which seems like the epitome of the dynamics at play. I realize that this is an article for VC/Tech community who very much likes to get high on its own supply, but as a Startup Founder, 16 year resident of SF, and Corporate Executive, I encourage you to try and step out of your ivory tower and communicate in more effective ways to people who don’t look and talk like you. Then maybe you’ll realize your perception of the area you critique is not as narrow as you have perceived it to be based solely on your limited interactions where prose like this may be acceptable. There’s a lot of merit in the argument you present, but you have not helped your cause in how you have made this argument, which has me questioning the merits of your perspective, and your cause. Doesn’t that seem counterproductive?
My suggestion: Do Better. Model what you espouse, and try again.
Хороший диллер ЛСД у автора, поделитесь контактом?)
А если серьезно, то памятники ставят посмертно, а ИТ/ИИ отрасль еще в самом рассвете сил и не стоит загонять мышление юных инноваторов в наратив стариков и памятников )
this is grade A bullshit right here:)
"The truth about the American technology business is that it is in fact a sacred artifact of all Man’s existence. Few involved from the inside will see its true archetypal power. But it is one of the most important engines of Man’s destiny. It should be treated as sacred, not merely profitable. It should be cherished as incredibly rare and precious, like a Promethean flame in a fragile fennel stalk carried on into the dark. Technology’s humanistic ambitions are not crisp enough at all in the minds of Americans nor the world. Without symbols and enduring iconography, which valorize it as a sacred flame, the industry risks remaining a collection of companies rather than a true civilizational force."
The essay raises an important tension: Exit can feel adolescent if it never grows into stewardship.
But I’m not sure cultural dominance is the missing ingredient. In a pluralistic society, the deeper challenge may be building shared civic infrastructure that allows many cultures to coexist without one needing to dominate the others.
Instead of monuments, maybe what we need are composable trust systems and visible norms – infrastructure that supports meaning rather than prescribing it.
If tech is maturing, perhaps the next step isn’t dominance, but designing the civic layer we all live on.
Q: What would it sound like if you got an AI really, really high?
Great timing! I also just happened to write a post about exit :)
https://www.parallelcitizen.xyz/p/exit-is-not-enough
Ross Calvin, I say this with kindness: this is the worse written article I have come across in a long while. Which is sad given the topic and the a16z platform. Best of luck trying to change the world, if this is your chosen method.
Also has me wondering, maybe your perspective of the Bay Area is badly skewed by the company you keep if none of them has given you feedback that this is a poor way to discuss a worthy topic.
Food for thought, broaden your social circles to evolve your perspective, and learn how to communicate better.
I literally never write comments online as I find the comment section the last place to go looking for meaningful insight and rather rank with poorly communicated emotional reactions. But I felt compelled to comment here in hopes to offer a suggestion to the author: The best messages are the easiest to understand, this missed the mark.
I was intrigued to read as I thought this may provide insightful perspective on Tech & the Bay Area from a reputable source (a16z). I could not get through the first two paragraphs without clearly understanding what you were trying to say. The unnecessary overuse of lofty concepts and big words assuming that they are both common and generally accepted, had me scratching my head trying to understand (what is this article trying to say, and is this the best way to say it?). So rather than punish myself to continue reading i copied the link and put it into AI and asked it to summarize. This is also NOT something I normally do as call me old fashioned but I like to read opinion pieces to critique and form my own opinion, but in this case when the position seemed so unnecessarily perplexing i thought i would have AI translate for me so I wasn’t misinterpreting it.
Once ChatGPT summarized it with the following: “The overall message is philosophical and cultural rather than business-specific: the author challenges the tech industry to rethink “Exit” from purely economic or engineering terms toward becoming a cultural power with meaning and legacy.”
I thought, that’s a noble thought. Then i went back to the article and reread it and also found it extremely ironic that article challenging an industry to be more culturally relevant, couldn’t be bothered with using culturally relevant prose itself. Which seems like the epitome of the dynamics at play. I realize that this is an article for VC/Tech community who very much likes to get high on its own supply, but as a Startup Founder, 16 year resident of SF, and Corporate Executive, I encourage you to try and step out of your ivory tower and communicate in more effective ways to people who don’t look and talk like you. Then maybe you’ll realize your perception of the area you critique is not as narrow as you have perceived it to be based solely on your limited interactions where prose like this may be acceptable. There’s a lot of merit in the argument you present, but you have not helped your cause in how you have made this argument, which has me questioning the merits of your perspective, and your cause. Doesn’t that seem counterproductive?
My suggestion: Do Better. Model what you espouse, and try again.
Хороший диллер ЛСД у автора, поделитесь контактом?)
А если серьезно, то памятники ставят посмертно, а ИТ/ИИ отрасль еще в самом рассвете сил и не стоит загонять мышление юных инноваторов в наратив стариков и памятников )
Wow dudes
What can I say..I can barely understand you and yet I not only wanna leave a comment, I'm gonna go report this everywhere.
Not sure who's side you're on.
Let me put it like this, "did you enjoy Bad Bunny's halftime show?" or did you go see "Melania" for the 3rd time?
Are you Left-tech or Right-Tech?
Are you buying BTC on the dip?
I will print this crap out on cheap paper and put it under each of my tomato plants next month.
What offensive bullshit.