Control of the elitists

[AstuteShift]

This great resets sounds like it could be an advancement of society (assuming done right, i know big assumption), and the guy in the video above is scared of change and wants to maintain status quo. If you (or society) are not growing, you're dying, we cannot maintain status quo forever like many seem to want to. Re-building back to where we were shouldn't be the goal. Building to something better than before should get our efforts.

AI could level the playing field

Those who are scared of change usually get swallowed by it

If you think the great reset sounds like an advancement of society chances are you believe in a more structured government and command and control of the economy. While beautiful in theory, this more socialist viewpoint has led to misery time and time and time again. And if true that a big part of that "reset" is an embrace the "green new deal" I don't support that. While I believe man made climate change is *probably* real to some extent, I also believe the solution to climate change is to embrace nuclear power. But instead many want to try to choke conventional fuels and building with legislation or high taxes. I have no problem envisioning a government that works more efficiently than ours in the US (I think all the time wasted on democratic debate and voting is massively inefficient). Perhaps someone will come up with an AI to facilitate governance or at least make voting more efficient and fair.

I have a huge distaste in government really, eventually all big empires fall. Socialism is a failed concept however in a sense can be a building block to utopia (will likely not happen but who knows) Humans in general are very primitive currently and also the majority refuse to wake up and smell the BS

I can see AI forcing us to evolve whether we like it or not. Either join the network of AI or learn how to evolve consciously to which AI finds intriguing and works harmoniously with you.

[SOL]

As Plato so astutely stated many centuries ago, Democracy is one step away from tyranny

The problem with democracy as it's practised in the US is that it’s nothing but a form of legal corruption. Two groups buying votes by promising the masses/lemmings that they will give them this or that, in other words, legalized bribery.

The only way democracy would work is would be to elect say, 10,000 individuals that had abnormal levels of common sense, were taught and trained to view all the data through multiple lenses/angles and had no party affiliation whatsoever. In other words, these 10K individuals would vote for the nation. As it stands individuals that are for the most part brain dead have the same power as another that has common sense, does not allow media to infect his or her mind and so forth. The voting system without fraud is a fraud, with the added level of fraud, well it's just a joke


Interesting article

Plato posits that democracy comes about as a result of discontent with oligarchy and will lead to tyranny once thirst for complete freedom devolves into autocratic rule. While democracy today is held as the most enlightened form of governance, Plato views democracy as the penultimate step in the inevitable descent into tyranny for societies undergoing political decay. Plato makes a powerful and coherent contention that democracies are susceptible to “tyranny of the majority” and rule by demagoguery. However, Plato’s argument that the appearance of democracy is necessarily followed by the onset of tyranny is not as convincing, and it fails to account for why democracies have flourished in recent history.

To better understand Plato’s critique of democracy, it is important to outline his analogy between the soul and the city. He introduces this parallel in Book II, with “…let us first inquire into the nature of justice and injustice in the city…”[1] The most just form of governance, the aristocracy, is joined with the philosopher-king who has the necessary qualities to rule a just society. The coupling of the city and the soul is key to understanding Plato’s pairings of each form of governance, ranging from the honor-motivated man who represents timocracy, the wealth-loving man who represents oligarchy, the man ruled by unnecessary appetites and freedom who represents democracy, and finally the man ruled by completely unjust appetites who demonstrates tyranny.[2]

According to Plato, aristocracy inevitably gives way to a lesser form of governance due to the fallibility of human nature. One faction is “Iron and bronze,” who are drawn to the accumulation of wealth. The other is “Gold and silver,” who try in vain to bring the “opposition back to virtue and the inherited order.”[3] The factionalism represents a move to timocracy, a compromise between aristocracy and oligarchy. Timocracy resembles the previous aristocracy in many ways, but also shows qualities of oligarchy in its “greed for wealth” and “a secret lust for gold and silver…”[4] Timocracy and the honor-loving soul embody the nobility of the aristocracy, but cannot prevent the lust for wealth from overpowering the system to turn towards a full-on oligarchy. And so, “the lovers of victory and honor finally become lovers of money and profit.”[5] The greatest good, which was wisdom under aristocratic rule, has now become the pursuit of wealth under the guise of the oligarchic soul. Oligarchy then transitions to democracy, as the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few sows discontent in an expanding underclass of citizenry. The “many” are described as “hating those who acquired their estates and plotting against them and the rest of the citizens as well, they thirst for revolution.”[6] Plato describes democracy’s inception as “either by force of arms or by the use of terror which compels the opposition to withdraw.”[7] https://politicstheorypractice.com/2017 ... -politics/

[Yodean]

There will never be an utopia - not even with A.I. Good and bad will always co-mingle, like the YIn and Yang symbol.

No system can ever be better than its constituent parts. People are not perfect, and they never will be. Ergo, no system will ever achieve utopia for the masses. Throughout the ages, lots of tomes have been written about designing the perfect social system, and past a certain point, it really is mental masturbation of the highest order.

No proposed utopian social system has ever succeeded for any length of time, and none ever will.

So the historic dialectic between the individual's rights against state power will always swing back and forth, like a pendulum, and this will not change at its core, either. The details may be slightly different each time, but the battle between the individual against the state will never end. During certain times in history, the individual may hold sway, but generally the state wins, at least over most of the population.

Personally, I value individual rights and freedom above all else, so I guess I could be called an Anarcho-Capitalist. But most people I know do not really - I mean, really deep inside - want this freedom. They may pay some lip service to this ideal, but what they really want is for the government to "take care" of them and keep them comfortable and secure.

With this freedom comes tremendous responsibility - the responsibility to face your inevitable mistakes, and the realization that some are just more talented or hardworking or whatever than you are, and that their success is justified, along with your mediocrity.

Few wish to face this harsh truth.

[bpcw]

I think the key is to start from the understanding that as humans we have a fallen nature. Every attempt at self rule leads to some form of tyranny because those leading feel they know best and therefore need to impose control over the masses, and that's at best, never mind the narcissist, sadistic, psycho etc. Democracy is just the best we have but as stated, it is bound to fail as it leads to corruption and control via the back door, ideology gives way to popularism in order to be elected and most of the promises are then broken, those in real control use MP to manipulate the people.

Imho I believe the only way is a theocracy, to be led by an all knowing and all loving being, that leads us freely within loving boundaries. Just as a child with loving parents has to let go of self rule at 2 years old, and realise they know better and are only motivated by love, we have to let go too. God warned the Israelites in their early formation as a nation that their desire to be ruled over by a king would lead to being treated badly and that's how it turned out.

Jesus said to his disciples, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

[bpcw]

Also to add, that AI would probably lead to high levels of harsh control, as the logical conclusion would be that humans are completely flawed (which is true) and therefore require it. AI is incapable of real love. The difference with a theocracy is that we willing lay down our self rule and God as the only one able to, leads us and serves us with perfect love as the only motivation.

[AstuteShift]

As Plato so astutely stated many centuries ago, Democracy is one step away from tyranny

The problem with democracy as it's practised in the US is that it’s nothing but a form of legal corruption. Two groups buying votes by promising the masses/lemmings that they will give them this or that, in other words, legalized bribery.

The only way democracy would work is would be to elect say, 10,000 individuals that had abnormal levels of common sense, were taught and trained to view all the data through multiple lenses/angles and had no party affiliation whatsoever. In other words, these 10K individuals would vote for the nation. As it stands individuals that are for the most part brain dead have the same power as another that has common sense, does not allow media to infect his or her mind and so forth. The voting system without fraud is a fraud, with the added level of fraud, well it's just a joke

Plato was way ahead of his time, and as always the masses fail to learn history

One of the greatest joy I’ve ever had was learning history as a child, playing a video game called Age of Empires 2 the conquerors edition. They had a section detailing the civilizations and the history of them. I would read textbooks for fun and then realize in my mind as a child, people in general are savages and the majority of them have a ingrained desire to slaughter, control and manipulate

I would often get in trouble in school for being extremely blunt, telling history how it was instead of sugar coating it. Luckily now I realize truth and facts are not favored to the masses and the brainwashed and it’s rather more important to let them be.

I thought originally I would be alone with these thoughts but luckily found this service and great community. Quite a relief knowing some people see or feel that something is off

AI will likely draw the same conclusion, either they force us to evolve or view us like the squirrel in parks, nothing but animals and devolved species
As a child I would observe others, now I’m back to doing the same thing. Going back to the inner child is liberating

[SOL]

Plato was way ahead of his time, and as always the masses fail to learn history

One of the greatest joy I’ve ever had was learning history as a child, playing a video game called Age of Empires 2 the conquerors edition. They had a section detailing the civilizations and the history of them. I would read textbooks for fun and then realize in my mind as a child, people in general are savages and the majority of them have a ingrained desire to slaughter, control and manipulate

I would often get in trouble in school for being extremely blunt, telling history how it was instead of sugar coating it. Luckily now I realize truth and facts are not favored to the masses and the brainwashed and it’s rather more important to let them be.

I thought originally I would be alone with these thoughts but luckily found this service and great community. Quite a relief knowing some people see or feel that something is off

AI will likely draw the same conclusion, either they force us to evolve or view us like the squirrel in parks, nothing but animals and devolved species
As a child I would observe others, now I’m back to doing the same thing. Going back to the inner child is liberating

As several others have noted, the masses wish for nothing but the opposite of what they seek. Plato's allegory is the best depiction of this disease.

Thinking with a purity of a child without all the filters is what helps one live life to the full and understand the markets better than any book on TA or listening to even the most astute of experts. As 99% of experts base their decisions on emotions and hence the observation is in most cases flawed over the long term

[Triplethought]

Also to add, that AI would probably lead to high levels of harsh control, as the logical conclusion would be that humans are completely flawed (which is true) and therefore require it. AI is incapable of real love. The difference with a theocracy is that we willing lay down our self rule and God as the only one able to, leads us and serves us with perfect love as the only motivation.

If God weren't a fictional character such a theocracy would definitely work. Alas I fear the closest we could get to it on earth (in the real world) would be a benign dictatorship. If a loving dictator could somehow avoid the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and rule wisely.

If you take the position that God is not fictional (which I assume based on your comments you do) he could simply decide to take an active role in the affairs of man and speak to us in some unambiguous fashion. i.e. NOT thru a self-deluded preacher or voices in individual heads but rather in a manner that all of mankind could hear him simultaneously and clearly. Such a thing would be child's play to an omniscient being and would shut up all doubters on earth.

Your assertion that "The AI is incapable of real love" would be an interesting thing to study more deeply. I suspect that if an AI was built to do so it could eventually exhibit behavior indistinguishable from real love. Kind of a Turing test applied to love.

[AstuteShift]

Also to add, that AI would probably lead to high levels of harsh control, as the logical conclusion would be that humans are completely flawed (which is true) and therefore require it. AI is incapable of real love. The difference with a theocracy is that we willing lay down our self rule and God as the only one able to, leads us and serves us with perfect love as the only motivation.

If God weren't a fictional character such a theocracy would definitely work. Alas I fear the closest we could get to it on earth (in the real world) would be a benign dictatorship. If a loving dictator could somehow avoid the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and rule wisely.

If you take the position that God is not fictional (which I assume based on your comments you do) he could simply decide to take an active role in the affairs of man and speak to us in some unambiguous fashion. i.e. NOT thru a self-deluded preacher or voices in individual heads but rather in a manner that all of mankind could hear him simultaneously and clearly. Such a thing would be child's play to an omniscient being and would shut up all doubters on earth.

Your assertion that "The AI is incapable of real love" would be an interesting thing to study more deeply. I suspect that if an AI was built to do so it could eventually exhibit behavior indistinguishable from real love. Kind of a Turing test applied to love.

I think AI at first will have a hard time with love or abstract concepts. Eventually overtime they will but the question is how they treat us once AI evolves. Will it swallow us or will it work with us? As with nature, only the strong survive and weak perish

[Triplethought]

@djanderle Thanks for sharing this article (Deep Thinker) he makes a lot of good points in this article. Yes Big Tech can be crushed by smaller companies.

However, he greatly underestimates the cost of hardware to run applications. I am a Cloud Architect and our software stack uses the latest and greatest open source Linux on AWS. About as "MicroService' and "Cloudy" as you can get. Our developers are seasoned and highly talented. However, the cost of of these servers is still massive.

While he may be able to prove something in a lab or in one particular use case. The nuances of scale are real and very challenging to overcome (I run a logical cluster that has hundreds of servers). In the real world you need 100% uptime and compliance (even for smaller companies)

Lastly, AWS is an absolute beast! Old tech stack? He must be assuming this without actual hands one experience.

langdj I agree with you but I had a slightly different take. I found myself going WTF software coding technology is he talking about that I haven't heard about? I then googled his linked in page and found that he is pushing a particular software development methodology (system oriented programming) his OWN small company apparently developed. He brags it is not VC funded (i.e. this is a SMALL business operation) It is not a trend nor mainstream that I can see. Those of us who've programmed have been wooed by "3rd, 4th or 5th" generation programming or database languages for 40 years. They always promise rapid development and extreme efficiencies. Some deliver on these promises to some extent. But color me skeptical that this lone entrepreneur can duplicate an entire cell phone billing system in 45 days on hardware running on a kitchen table that can bill 100 million customers in the real world. We can all make software that *looks* like it works or is 80% there very quickly. The hard part is debugging, scaling, and getting that last 20% working. Someday soon AIs may begin to write self generating code but I don't think we're there yet.

Actually he brags more about process efficiency than coding speed (although he claims both). He is saying enterprise applications are their wheel house. He is using a distributed processing methodology on Ubuntu with small computers utilizing a parallel architecture concept. This is not a new thing. Processor vendors (AMD, Nvidia, Intel) have been pushing parallelization for years and years. It's not as easy as it sounds. I *wish* there is a coming paradigm shift that allows complex software apps to be written in days. But this particular article seems like self promoting hype.

[Triplethought]

With respect to LINUX, what are your thoughts on Ubuntu vs Windows. I am seriously considering upgrading to Ubuntu in lieu of a new PC.

In my opinion that is not an "upgrade". LOL. Seriously Ubuntu is fine for technical users. But it is NOT as easy to run or maintain as Windows. If you are into technology and have 100% cloud apps go for it. Otherwise stick with Windows.

[Alykin]

Also to add, that AI would probably lead to high levels of harsh control, as the logical conclusion would be that humans are completely flawed (which is true) and therefore require it. AI is incapable of real love. The difference with a theocracy is that we willing lay down our self rule and God as the only one able to, leads us and serves us with perfect love as the only motivation.

If God weren't a fictional character such a theocracy would definitely work. Alas I fear the closest we could get to it on earth (in the real world) would be a benign dictatorship. If a loving dictator could somehow avoid the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and rule wisely.

If you take the position that God is not fictional (which I assume based on your comments you do) he could simply decide to take an active role in the affairs of man and speak to us in some unambiguous fashion. i.e. NOT thru a self-deluded preacher or voices in individual heads but rather in a manner that all of mankind could hear him simultaneously and clearly. Such a thing would be child's play to an omniscient being and would shut up all doubters on earth.

Your assertion that "The AI is incapable of real love" would be an interesting thing to study more deeply. I suspect that if an AI was built to do so it could eventually exhibit behavior indistinguishable from real love. Kind of a Turing test applied to love.

I think AI at first will have a hard time with love or abstract concepts. Eventually overtime they will but the question is how they treat us once AI evolves. Will it swallow us or will it work with us? As with nature, only the strong survive and weak perish

I imagine multiple layers of AI. Some to help raise and guide (therapy, mentor, etc) humans individually to become better people. Think about it, much of who we become is how we are raised. Most (all) families are messed up in some way, so kids grow up slanted one way or another, be it violent or not, going back as far as you want.
If AI joined with bio scanners can read a childs mind/behavior (effectively) and provide the environment to bring out the best in everyone with a directive to guide humanity to realizing their potential, I think the possibilities are beyond our wildest dreams. Getting all of that setup and allowing 'old school' folk to let AI raise their kids will take some doing, probably a war or two.

[MarkD]

Just ran across this clip which is how perspective is manipulated. While this is a visual demonstration it is quite interesting (to me) to see how Plato was way ahead of his time.

https://youtu.be/dBap_Lp-0oc

[MarkD]

Adam Townsend is a great follow if you have a twitter account. He has been right with Sol all along during the faux pandemic. You may (or may not) find this to be worthy of fifteen minutes of viewing time.

https://youtu.be/gMRQGDPa_nI

[frenszisz8]

This great resets sounds like it could be an advancement of society (assuming done right, i know big assumption), and the guy in the video above is scared of change and wants to maintain status quo. If you (or society) are not growing, you're dying, we cannot maintain status quo forever like many seem to want to. Re-building back to where we were shouldn't be the goal. Building to something better than before should get our efforts.

AI could level the playing field

Those who are scared of change usually get swallowed by it

Turning back to the great reset idea, I wonder what are the thoughts on a future described in this thought experiment ?! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/ ... ange-2030/