How are alternatives working out? Because we're watching people worry so much about an Orwellian future that they're running headlong into a Stephensonian future.

The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power the way Orwell does.

And the alternatives are fantastic, for those who chose to use them intelligently.

If we're going to require intelligence for the whole system to succeed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Half of everyone is below average.

> The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power...

So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand?

Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome?

Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?

If this were true, Trump wouldn’t have so much trouble with them.

Them is the IC right?

Not sure who the IC is, but I thought we were talking about the New York Times.

The "Intelligence Community".

That massive (and growing) unaccountable bureaucracy with secret law that types up the talking points the NYT helpfully launders into national security "journalism".