Historian Jill Lepore says Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy

In her forthcoming book, The Rise and Fall of the Artificial State, Harvard historian and New Yorker staff writer Jill Lepore issues a sobering warning: the modern tech industry is systematically usurping the traditional functions of democratic governance. According to Lepore, this transition represents a dangerous regression toward a form of "tyranny and mystification," where the machinery of the state is replaced by the opaque, algorithmic rule of private corporations.

During a recent appearance on the Equity podcast, Lepore—a Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar of the U.S. Constitution—discussed the intellectual evolution of the "artificial state." She argues that the prevailing belief that society should be governed by machines is not merely a technological trend, but a profound political shift that threatens the foundations of liberal democracy.

The Rise of the Artificial State

Lepore is careful to clarify that her critique is not a condemnation of technology itself. She describes herself as an enthusiast for intellectual revolutions and notes that she is married to a computer scientist. Her concern lies specifically with the encroachment of corporate power into the public sphere.

"My beef is the ways in which private corporations have increasingly taken on the functions of the state. No one consented to that. This has been a kind of gradual, largely accidental transformation of how many nation-states around the world work."

She posits that while early efforts to integrate technology into government were often rooted in a desire for efficiency and cost-reduction, the last two decades have seen a more deliberate usurpation of power. Many prominent figures in Silicon Valley have openly expressed a desire to move beyond the era of the nation-state, often drawing inspiration from libertarian philosophies that gained traction in the 1990s.

From Macintosh to Machine Rule

To understand how we arrived at this juncture, Lepore points to the iconic 1984 Macintosh Super Bowl advertisement. At the time, Apple positioned the personal computer as a tool for liberation—a way to shatter the totalitarian "mainframe" represented by IBM.

However, Lepore suggests that this narrative was largely a marketing artifice. While the personal computer did indeed usher in a new era of connectivity, it did not inherently improve the quality of citizenship or civil society. Today, that narrative has curdled into something more concerning.

• 2016: Facebook establishes an oversight board, mimicking a judicial body.
• 2023: Anthropic hires a moral philosopher to draft a "constitution" for its AI.
• Recent: Sam Altman suggests that an "AI president" could be a viable path forward.

"They’re not people with a sophisticated political philosophy," Lepore observes. "But it’s like a cartoon version of that 1984 Macintosh ad, except that it takes itself so seriously."

The Distortion Machine: The Myth of the Digital Town Hall

Lepore also dismantles the long-standing narrative that platforms like Twitter (now X) serve as modern-day town squares. She characterizes the industry's promotion of this idea as "bananas," noting that it bears no resemblance to the actual function of the electorate.

She points to the Twitter Politics and Elections Handbook from 2012 as a prime example of corporate gaslighting. At that time, only one in five Americans used the platform, and the vast majority of political discourse was driven by a tiny, hyper-partisan minority. By framing this echo chamber as a democratic town hall, tech companies effectively distorted how politicians gauged public sentiment, leading to a feedback loop of misinformation and polarization.

Science Fiction as a Misread Manual

A significant portion of Lepore’s new work examines the "parable of the artificial state" in literature. She argues that Silicon Valley leaders are often poor readers of the very science fiction that informs their worldview.

While many tech moguls look to authors like Robert Heinlein to justify their technocratic, libertarian visions, they often ignore the cautionary nature of the genre. Lepore highlights E.M. Forster’s 1909 story, The Machine Stops, as a chillingly prescient work. In the story, humanity lives in isolated cells, entirely dependent on a machine that provides for every need, only to face catastrophe when that machine inevitably fails.

"They read a lot of warning stories, or at least ambivalent stories, as if they were manuals for the future."

Lepore argues that the artificial state is fundamentally doomed because it requires the destruction of the natural world to sustain its own existence. Because the artificial state cannot survive without the resources of the planet it alienates, its collapse is an inherent feature of its design.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Democracy

When asked how society might resist this trend, Lepore emphasizes the necessity of returning to democratic consultation. She points to the growing backlash against data centers as a sign that citizens are beginning to push back against corporate encroachment.

In local town meetings across the United States, residents are increasingly questioning the energy consumption, water usage, and long-term economic impact of massive tech infrastructure. These local struggles, she suggests, are where the battle for the future of the state is currently being fought.

Key Takeaways from the Discussion:

• Technological Progress vs. Moral Progress: Society has mistakenly conflated technological advancement with moral improvement, ignoring earlier, more human-centric definitions of progress.
• The Historian's Role: Lepore advocates for a deeper engagement between academic historians and technologists to better understand how change occurs and what guardrails are necessary for new innovations.
• The Failure of Disruption: She stands by her previous critiques of "disruptive innovation," labeling it a flawed theory of history that lacks rigorous evidentiary support.

Ultimately, Lepore calls for a more robust conversation between those building the future and those who study the past. She believes that by understanding the "paths not taken" and the historical precedents of technological integration, we can avoid the pitfalls of the artificial state and ensure that governance remains a human endeavor, accountable to the people it serves.