A post about it that’s in the middle of a Bluesky thread - https://subium.com/profile/figgityfigs.bsky.social/post/3kuk2hjgo3k2x
The start of the thread - https://subium.com/profile/figgityfigs.bsky.social/post/3kujzuo6shk26
Baby’s first political thought
“What if people make a bad decision? We should have one really smart guy in charge instead”
Wow fucking groundbreaking who needs the last few thousand years of political thought about the shortcomings of exactly that idea
The odd thing is usually the “Well why don’t we do the correct thing?” dumbasses just go for some sort of technocracy where the experts ™ are in charge.
How do those experts get decided? Listen, that’s for other experts to figure out, I just want shit to work.
The existing experts are able to define what expertise is for the incoming potential experts. It’s a pure meritocracy where merit is defined by those already in power. Tying this to money, prestige, and power will have no unintended consequences.
Isnt merit always defined by those who are in рower to mean those who are like them?
Yup
The Romans almost pulled it off, for a couple centuries at least. The emperor of Rome would name his adopted son as successor, but usually this “adoption” would take place well into adulthood of the adoptee, and usually after they had displayed their talent and abilities, i.e. like Mao “adopting” Deng or something.
And it only took one emperor to screw it up. Marcus Aurelius - of Gladiator fame and favorite of chud pfps everywhere - named his bio son Commodus as his heir. And kinda like how the movie shows, Commodus was pretty fucked up. From then on emperors often chose their bio kids as successors with the expected results.
Imagine knowing that voting is dumb when people can just vote for bad things and also knowing what good things actually look like and then saying that instead of a materialist restructuring of the human condition around collective good instead of capitalism, she breaks out an argument that was kind of off-putting and weird when Socrates did it.
Good news! The Lord has chosen me!
Which lord? Cause uh, Becky’s doin’ coke if she thinks I’d allow some Bronze Age storm god from a desert that has nothing to do with me establish who’s gonna ‘rule’ me lmfao.
hmm
When your entire political education is introductory Plato and The Bible.
being christian publicly is so embarrassing. either go all the way and convert to islam or keep it to yourself
Death to America
By that logic all of the Muslim world should convert to the Baháʼí faith.
Keeping it to themselves would be great though
Religion just stops analysis and rational thinking dead in its tracks. This isn’t new lol
She had me in the first half
POV: One of the reactionary socialists Marx talks in his manifesto…
Isn’t Elizabeth Bruening a Catholic? She already has a dumb theocracy run by a goofball in robes and it sucks ass. “hey what if the Vatican ruled the whole world” wow what a concept, guess they’ll give anyone a Pulitzer these days huh
Pope is elective monarch, which is way too much democracy for those types.
Democracy is okay if God (all three people) is the only one voting.
Hear me out, so what we do is this:
- Humans are naturally fallible and even smart ones are prone to snap judgment on partial or biased information or emotional entanglement
- So let’s create a decisionmaking AI - we can teach it how to govern fairly and it will make the best decisions
- But wait, any AI we create is naturally going to be programmed with our limited point of view in mind and may end up making a weird choice due to a programming flaw or edge case it wasn’t trained to handle
- So what we do is create two more AIs, with slightly different parameterizations and randomized training scenarios
- The three AIs will act as checks and balances on one another
- We can even try to embody different aspects of how humans approach problems and make decisions, using something like Jungian archetypes to help choose among difficult tradeoffs
- Everything will be fine
spoiler
unless
The problem with your plan is the AI would want me to get a can of peaches without a can opener
The problem is the human that is between the AI and the can of peaches
Results from extensive simulation trials have shown teeth are sufficient for 99.5% of cans
God’s in his heaven. All’s right with the world.
i had to scroll too far for this
deleted by creator
I think it’s a reference to I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
It’s a Neon Genesis Evangelion reference
no this is patrick!
The Tree of Life LLM must be refreshed from time to time with a corpus of real world activity and human intellectual property.
We need an American supercomputer, a Chinese supercomputer, and a Russian supercomputer. Once we have those, we can make the dreAM real
mfw you need Jacobins but all you have is Jacobin
Which Lord?
Because S’pht-Kr, The Grand Compiler would probably take too long to make a decision
If it’s Zuul - we’ll get quick results.
Its the God of Fear and Hunger im afraid making this decision
Idk I think Nas’hrah has a good head on his…well he has a good head anyway
I prefer the laid back Jjaro method of “whoever we see first is the leader I guess”
Someone got my Marathon reference
Have I told you lately how I love you?
Infinity still has the most deranged story of any game I’ve ever played
I know
Playing it at the age of 10 definitely had an effect on me
Same tbh
Just gonna let you know that I love you too
Even in the timeline where I’m hijacked by Tycho and forced to exterminate humanity
Cross over the cell bars, find a new maze, make the maze from it’s path, find the cell bars, cross over the bars, find a maze, make the maze from its path, eat the food, eat the path.
Hear me out.
What we do is we have a school, let’s call it philosophy school, and anyone can join it!
This philosophy school teaches a philosophy to everyone that makes legislation in society commits to.
These people come out of philosophy school and then spend some of their time listening to the concerns of the people in their district and some of their time solving those problems, perhaps around tables where other members of the philosophy school also weigh-in with ideas.
People with the most experience sit at higher up tables in the hierarchy and make more widespread decisions together.
These people regularly sit around a very large table and choose a core leadership group who make the most importantist of decisions and set the overall direction of the group.
We can call it philosophyism.
