For your utter delight and mine.
- This is readily available: https://beff.substack.com/p/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-tenets
- This appears to be the first document: https://web.archive.org/web/20220602164803/https://swarthy.substack.com/p/effective-accelerationism-eacc?s=r
The original genesis appears to have been these guys rambling on Twitter shortly before one of them posted the first essay.
cheers to @earthquake@lemm.ee and @blakestacey for finding these
this is a worse understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics than creationists.
they don’t name Nick Land as their origin, but do generally credit him as the creator of accelerationism, and also their ideas on the inevitability of techno-capitalism are straight out of “The Dark Enlightenment” by Land.
so firstly, I blame El Sandifer for speaking this fucking neutron star of stupidity into existence, and secondly myself for understanding most of this orchestra of neoreactionary dog whistles.
thirdly, these fuckers all talk like Sephiroth.
I feel like I should write it up to explain the AI grifter e/acc thing, but also it’s hard to explain this nonsense without a #include of Neoreaction A Basilisk and I’m not sure the centrist finance types of my readership have that much patience, nor that I do.
EDIT: urgh. Vitalik Buterin is philosophising again. d/acc. https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html “Special thanks to” several rationalists
A physics-first view of the principles underlying effective accelerationism
oh hey is this about building more efficient motors or something? neat
since I don’t understand any of the language in the rest of the post, I’m gonna assume that’s what it’s about.Yes that is what it is about, and you don’t have to ever look into it again (unless politicians start talking about it), now flee! And whatever you do: Don’t stare into it!
are the left/right flavours distinct because one wants to accelerate capitalism to its end and the other wants to accelerate it to its growth?
if leftists say “accelerationism” as a positive that’s what they mean, yes
in theory yes, but my understanding derived from experience is that if leftists say “accelerationism” it’s safe to assume they’re one flavour or another of cryptofascist
I thought about posting this stuff before, wasn’t sure if it was in scope. There’s more (including a couple more manifestos) here: https://www.effectiveacceleration.org/
the neoreactionaries are highly on topic for sneerclub, annoyingly
These guys use “entropy” the way that people trying to sell you healing crystals use “quantum”.
Statistical Geometric Quantum Information Entropy AI is, literally a healing crystal that grants immortality.
Should work flux in there somehow. And a horrible misinterpretation of phase
This whole, debate, is really just the question of closed systems vs open ones. That’s it. If you want a dystopia because you see yourself as the winner of the final optimization, or you demand that outcome of the universe be knowable to you specifically, you will focus on closed system thermodynamics. If you enjoy the creative beauty of nature and have the capacity to change your perspective on response to the unforseen, you embrace open systems thermodynamics.
So yeah as with abuses of Bayesian logic, your desired outcome always reflects back on which assumptions you take. These takes tell you more about the person spouting then than any meaningful observations of life.
E/acc comes across to me as run-of-the-mill libertarianism dressed in sci-fi clothes, and the idea that it’s in any way related to thermodynamics is bait.
Physicists: I have spent several months of my life on top of years of study and I’m pretty confident I can now say what is going on at this surface site on a catalytic membrane!
Physics enthusiasts: Stuff rolls down energy wells so anyway here’s how we should structure all of society.
