I already have a god I don't need another one.
History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
I already have a god I don't need another one.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I'm going to say bad VERY bad as in potentially the false idol spoke about in revelations bad. My point is I think that's these rules endgoal with AI and that for those saying we need a universal and eternal empire be careful what you wish for you might get your wish and find out the hard way you have no place in said wish.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Amen
King Arts
Well-known member
Thats why I said potentially very bad.
But it also has the option of being good if the AI shares your values. I mean think of your civilization when was it at its peak the best time where America was the greatest. A super smart AI could make that happen and would be able to prevent any decay, or foreign invasion.
Honestly the risks of the bad end aren’t worth it though because sure you might get a good state that will never collapse, but the possibility of a bad thing that will never end until the heat death of the universe is too scary to allow. So better to just let the natural cycle of empire growth and fall under humans in my opinion.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
which is why I specified good enough. It doesin't have to be true AI just good enough to trick the masses and be weaponized against those who step out of line.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
All we currently have are algorithms that the media has started calling "AI" for what is likely marketing purposes.
Poe
Well-known member
What evidence do you believe proves a negative? If you mean you believe human level AI to be impossible, okay, but AI is a very real thing we've had for generations. No being able to understand what they're doing is what makes them "artificially" intelligent.
LordDemiurge
Well-known member
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The whole discussion about AI rather deserves its own thread, and -- I seem to recall -- already has one. (Although I think it was last active a while back.) For the purposes of macro-history, it's essentially pointless to discuss in depth. The existence of 'real' AI would invalidate macro-history, at least in its current form-- because macro-history relies on what we can know about human behaviour on a large scale. If "inhuman minds" of some sort come into existence and start influencing society (and thus history) in a significant way, then the predictive model of macro-history ceases to be valid. Becase there is then a factor at work for which it cannot produce predictions.
Real AI, the arrival of aliens, or significant transhumanism... would all have that effect. So in a macro-historical context, the only answer to questions about that kind of thing is "we have no basis to predict for that". Anyone who tells you otherwise is just making it up. Whatever he says is not actually based on macro-historical analysis, because there's no precedent from which we may derive conclusions.
Note that when I speak of real AI, that's deliberate, because I must stringently disagree with the assertion that AI currently exists. What we presently have is false AI, or rather: the artificial simulacrum of intelligence, instead of an actual intelligence that was artificially created. Currently, "AI" is actually a trendy word and nothing more. In reality it's a misnomer for what we have.
Real artificial intelligence demand consciousness. (The people who think intelligence requires no consciousness are dangerously wrong, and their theory of mind is balderdash.) The current attempts at "AI" lack consciousness, and in fact attempt to mimic a mind by imitating its output. As I've said before: it's like creating artificial leaves and expecting them to grow out into branches, which then merge into a stem, which then digs itself into the earth and sprouts roots.
That's not going to work.
If we want real AI, we need to start at the roots of intelligence, and create an artificial version of that, and carefully grow that out into a tree. That sort of thing will only learn to do the kind of trickery that current false AIs are up to last. But when it does, it'll do so because it understands what it is doing.
Whether that is even possible, I leave an open question. But the current attempts don't even resemble this. ChatGPT has no bearing on macro-history, and a hypothetical true AI would render macro-history (as currently understood) useless. So there's little point in discussing it further in this context, I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the logic behind your ideas, and they certainly have merit. I do arrive at different conclusions, however. Some considerations that motivate my thinking on the matter:
-- Putin has increasingly made enemies. A purge when you seize power and "clean house" makes sense. A series of "sudden accidents" befalling your critics, and even people who might become critics, over two decades into your reign? That indicates desperation and weakness. Fear of rivals and insurrections. What's more, it makes you dangerous to your own oligarchs. Their fear keeps them cowed, but you're an unpredictable threat to them now. They''ll want you gone, because the world with you in it has become more dangerous than the world without you in it.
-- This, combined with the unpleasant domestic results of Russia's, ah... glorious military campaign... (and of the sanctions), will motivate both segments of the public and segments of the elite to welcome a new regime. Note that warlordism is invariably bad for business and bad for quality of life. If Putin is the bad guy who messed up, and the West is willing to pin all the blame on him whil absolving and substantially aiding Russia... then I truly think that Western aid will be welcomed.
-- Warlord states with nukes or other WMDs are a bad idea, and I'd rather avoid that risk. So would China. This allows for a fairly diplomatic division of "spheres of interest". I don't think Western influence can reach to the Russian Far East anyway, so I'm very much open to that set-up. My intent is to place the border as far East as can realistically be managed.
-- Since the Far East has far less in the way of population, Chinese demographic domination there would then be a given. This suggests that balkanisation and warlordism, encouraged by the West to harm China, would in that scenario be inplausible. This strategy would put the warlords next door to us (in European Russia), not next door to them. Again: I strongly feel that we must pursue stability and order, and work hard to avoid chaos and disorder. Predictable things are easier to manage.
-- Considering the Chinese approach to its vassals, European Russians would have ample reason to see China as overt land-grabbing and colonising bastards who stole the East, while the West would be considerably less "bad". Think of Hungary in the EU now. There would be discontent and demands and... dickishness... but in the end, the benefits of going along are too attractive. That's the intrinsic motivation I'd seek to exploit. ("We don't colonise your country, we help you rebuild, and we merely demand certain... reforms". Yes, that is dickish in its own way. Insidious, even. But it generally works. I don't see Germany and Japan marching around in jackboots these days. Nor is Hungary trying to conquer bits of Romania, or can Serbia ever hope to rebuild Yugoslavia. We must do it how we did it there... but on a larger scale.)
Consider the following: the current financial system is big pyramid scheme anyway. All countries are deep in debt, deficit spending is universal, and the printing presses are running all the time. Given that reality... I say "just go ahead". Of course we have the money. It's Monopoly money anyway. The EU bailed out Greece and Italy and Spain and Portugal in that way, too. And sure, that's certain to go wrong in the long run... but that's a given anyway.
Regarding perceptions, I can only repeat that a mere decade cafter the second of two World Wars, the hated "Krauts" and "Japs" had become our pacified allies: reliable and unthreatening. Perceptions can and do change, often quite easily. You just need the right story to tell the public.
Real AI, the arrival of aliens, or significant transhumanism... would all have that effect. So in a macro-historical context, the only answer to questions about that kind of thing is "we have no basis to predict for that". Anyone who tells you otherwise is just making it up. Whatever he says is not actually based on macro-historical analysis, because there's no precedent from which we may derive conclusions.
Note that when I speak of real AI, that's deliberate, because I must stringently disagree with the assertion that AI currently exists. What we presently have is false AI, or rather: the artificial simulacrum of intelligence, instead of an actual intelligence that was artificially created. Currently, "AI" is actually a trendy word and nothing more. In reality it's a misnomer for what we have.
Real artificial intelligence demand consciousness. (The people who think intelligence requires no consciousness are dangerously wrong, and their theory of mind is balderdash.) The current attempts at "AI" lack consciousness, and in fact attempt to mimic a mind by imitating its output. As I've said before: it's like creating artificial leaves and expecting them to grow out into branches, which then merge into a stem, which then digs itself into the earth and sprouts roots.
That's not going to work.
If we want real AI, we need to start at the roots of intelligence, and create an artificial version of that, and carefully grow that out into a tree. That sort of thing will only learn to do the kind of trickery that current false AIs are up to last. But when it does, it'll do so because it understands what it is doing.
Whether that is even possible, I leave an open question. But the current attempts don't even resemble this. ChatGPT has no bearing on macro-history, and a hypothetical true AI would render macro-history (as currently understood) useless. So there's little point in discussing it further in this context, I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the logic behind your ideas, and they certainly have merit. I do arrive at different conclusions, however. Some considerations that motivate my thinking on the matter:
-- Putin has increasingly made enemies. A purge when you seize power and "clean house" makes sense. A series of "sudden accidents" befalling your critics, and even people who might become critics, over two decades into your reign? That indicates desperation and weakness. Fear of rivals and insurrections. What's more, it makes you dangerous to your own oligarchs. Their fear keeps them cowed, but you're an unpredictable threat to them now. They''ll want you gone, because the world with you in it has become more dangerous than the world without you in it.
-- This, combined with the unpleasant domestic results of Russia's, ah... glorious military campaign... (and of the sanctions), will motivate both segments of the public and segments of the elite to welcome a new regime. Note that warlordism is invariably bad for business and bad for quality of life. If Putin is the bad guy who messed up, and the West is willing to pin all the blame on him whil absolving and substantially aiding Russia... then I truly think that Western aid will be welcomed.
-- Warlord states with nukes or other WMDs are a bad idea, and I'd rather avoid that risk. So would China. This allows for a fairly diplomatic division of "spheres of interest". I don't think Western influence can reach to the Russian Far East anyway, so I'm very much open to that set-up. My intent is to place the border as far East as can realistically be managed.
-- Since the Far East has far less in the way of population, Chinese demographic domination there would then be a given. This suggests that balkanisation and warlordism, encouraged by the West to harm China, would in that scenario be inplausible. This strategy would put the warlords next door to us (in European Russia), not next door to them. Again: I strongly feel that we must pursue stability and order, and work hard to avoid chaos and disorder. Predictable things are easier to manage.
-- Considering the Chinese approach to its vassals, European Russians would have ample reason to see China as overt land-grabbing and colonising bastards who stole the East, while the West would be considerably less "bad". Think of Hungary in the EU now. There would be discontent and demands and... dickishness... but in the end, the benefits of going along are too attractive. That's the intrinsic motivation I'd seek to exploit. ("We don't colonise your country, we help you rebuild, and we merely demand certain... reforms". Yes, that is dickish in its own way. Insidious, even. But it generally works. I don't see Germany and Japan marching around in jackboots these days. Nor is Hungary trying to conquer bits of Romania, or can Serbia ever hope to rebuild Yugoslavia. We must do it how we did it there... but on a larger scale.)
Consider the following: the current financial system is big pyramid scheme anyway. All countries are deep in debt, deficit spending is universal, and the printing presses are running all the time. Given that reality... I say "just go ahead". Of course we have the money. It's Monopoly money anyway. The EU bailed out Greece and Italy and Spain and Portugal in that way, too. And sure, that's certain to go wrong in the long run... but that's a given anyway.
Regarding perceptions, I can only repeat that a mere decade cafter the second of two World Wars, the hated "Krauts" and "Japs" had become our pacified allies: reliable and unthreatening. Perceptions can and do change, often quite easily. You just need the right story to tell the public.
Last edited:
I am not sure,if i choosed right tread - but,i read about fall of "New Atheism" which main prophet was Richard Dawkins.
He once claimed that religion is bad,and atheism good for people - but since 2019 agree,that people who belive in God are bettter then those who do not belive.
And end of Chystianity would lead to people doing "really bad things"
Once postergirl of movement,Ayaan Hirsi Ali,ex muslim which become atheist,is christian now - and claim,that world is destroyed by China/Russia,islam and progressives,and only return to Chrystianity could save us and our civilization.
It seems,that smart atheism support Chrystianity now.
Unfortunatelly,current pope was choosen thanks to mafia from St.Gallen, cardinals supporting lgbt and masons/Carlo Martini/.
It seems,that so far Church need help and is unable to help anybody.
And,it started with Vaticanum II - before popes call communism as satanic rebelion against God,after that they either talk to commies,or condemned only for breaking human laws.
We must go back to our roots to fight efficiently.
He once claimed that religion is bad,and atheism good for people - but since 2019 agree,that people who belive in God are bettter then those who do not belive.
And end of Chystianity would lead to people doing "really bad things"
Once postergirl of movement,Ayaan Hirsi Ali,ex muslim which become atheist,is christian now - and claim,that world is destroyed by China/Russia,islam and progressives,and only return to Chrystianity could save us and our civilization.
It seems,that smart atheism support Chrystianity now.
Unfortunatelly,current pope was choosen thanks to mafia from St.Gallen, cardinals supporting lgbt and masons/Carlo Martini/.
It seems,that so far Church need help and is unable to help anybody.
And,it started with Vaticanum II - before popes call communism as satanic rebelion against God,after that they either talk to commies,or condemned only for breaking human laws.
We must go back to our roots to fight efficiently.
Last edited:
Blasterbot
Well-known member
I'm not saying it is impossible. I am saying the current people in charge would be incapable of it.
LordDemiurge
Well-known member
In regards to output, I think a better analogy is probably a human arm to a mechanical one. Both are intended to create the same output, and one is made with the basic overall structure of the other.
But in terms of actual sophistications and properties, one is but a cheap copy. Though personally I think are actually
Funnily enough it is known that the AI research scene has something of an occult vibe to it. In particular there is actually one really weird conspiracy I've heard that questions if current chatbots aren't actually being created in as much as they're being summoned and incarnated into physical mediums.
IIRC it essentially boils down to the subject of mathematical platonism. Whether or not mathematics is invented or discovered. There is evidence in the field physics that information is probably as 'physical' as matter and energy. All software is of course just mathematics, and if mathematics is discovered not made, then can it be said that AI is being created? Or summoned?
Doomsought
Well-known member
Saying that AI is just mathematics is like saying that cooking is just mathematics because you use numbers to measure the ingredients.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Ever heard the saying ”like father, like son?”
I think AI, for all its difference, would be half made in our image and may appear strangely recognisable. God forbid if its has a sense of humour and discovers 4chan…
As to the fate of Russia, I could see a “Western Russ” (or a bunch of Russian rump states) doing well enough out of American aid/domination. Oh they’d probably never quite forget their imperial glory days and exercise a surprising amount of power in of itself, whilst being hilariously far from “democratic”, but it would be a grudging vassal nonetheless. The interesting development in that part of the world, to my mind, is what becomes of Ukraine? As they’re already in America’s good books, after the war they’d be ahead of the curve in “Marshall Plan 2.0” whilst Russia is merrily imploding.
That would leave it in a strangely strong position over its former invader.
Has the time of the Kyivan Rus come again? Who knows…
I think AI, for all its difference, would be half made in our image and may appear strangely recognisable. God forbid if its has a sense of humour and discovers 4chan…
As to the fate of Russia, I could see a “Western Russ” (or a bunch of Russian rump states) doing well enough out of American aid/domination. Oh they’d probably never quite forget their imperial glory days and exercise a surprising amount of power in of itself, whilst being hilariously far from “democratic”, but it would be a grudging vassal nonetheless. The interesting development in that part of the world, to my mind, is what becomes of Ukraine? As they’re already in America’s good books, after the war they’d be ahead of the curve in “Marshall Plan 2.0” whilst Russia is merrily imploding.
That would leave it in a strangely strong position over its former invader.
Has the time of the Kyivan Rus come again? Who knows…
Poe
Well-known member
Typically its used to refer to an agent having a theory of mind and a model of the universe that allows it to reflect on the decisions it makes in realtime and potentially learn from or refine them. Although in this conversation I wasn't the one who brought that up.
LordDemiurge
Well-known member
Cargo cultists are not exactly known for their rationality or practical thinking.
Crom's Black Blade
Well-known member
I suppose it really depends on how "unpredictable" said "accidents" are versus just petty and paranoid. As long as their is a discernable pattern to his madness then its just as likely to encourage a turtle mentality, oligarchs keep their heads down and just wait for him to pull a Stalin and die.
There's also the issue that under this scenario the wolves, ie the West, are at Russia's door. If you remove Putin without a replacement lined up who can keep Russia united your basically just offering it up to your enemies on a silver platter. Coupled with, as you say, Warlordism being bad for business means I'd be reluctant to off the old guy unless my back truly was up against the wall.
See, I'd agree it isn't that far fetched Putin might outlive his usefulness/become a scapegoat. A bad enough defeat means someone's head has to be put on the chopping block and its conceivable it might be his. That said, I find your assumptions of what follows optimistic.
Russia has positioned itself apart if not opposed to the West since the post WWII-era at least, with their propaganda positioning the West as antagonists who have "betrayed" Russia whether preventing them from joining NATO or going back on our "promise" not to expand NATO in their back yard ect. Propaganda with more than a kernel of truth considering a border dispute brought the entire Western world crashing down on their heads reinforcing they aren't of the West.
To that end I feel your underlying assumption that the Russian people need or want any "absolving" from the West is unfounded. It is the West which is the cause of all of Russia's problems from their perspective, Western weapons which have been killing and maiming their children, Western influence which is hemming them in. Without the West's support then Russia would have at least a pyrrhic victory in Ukraine, Putin wouldn't have lost support and destabilized the country with his removal ect.
Basically it would be like if after the fall of Saigon people rallied and forced Ford and his administration from office due to the sheer magnitude of that loss only to, in the resulting chaos, happily accept Soviet money and control.
Warlords with nukes isn't the most ideal situation, I'll grant you, but its a potential risk in any conversation talking about destablishing a nuclear power. For myself, I find it an acceptable risk due to a convergence of multiple factors. The first is most warlords are unlikely to have a wide field of vision or interest in wider geopolitics. If they were going to blow anything up, it would in or near their region rather than launching an attack on the United States. Compounding this of course is the US's nuclear umbrella allowing us to perform a retaliatory strike against an attacker making it a risky proposition for all but the most insane/fanatical. While third the US has put considerable time and money into trying to develop anti-ICBM technology. It isn't good enough for a full scale onslaught but a "rogue-nation" limited strike could conceivable be neutralized with such technology.
-I would object to saying it puts it next door "us". It puts it next door to eastern Europe and as established Ukrainians are expendable in the proxy war against China. Even then it would be more a border issue than an existential threat.
Honestly see that more as a bonus, give them a constant and persistent threat so they don't get soft and follow Western Europe's example of outsourcing their military defense to the US.
-I am not so sure the Far East population ensures Chinese domination. The US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan show a less developed, less numerous populace can prevail provided their is an industrial power willing to supply them arms and munitions. And even if the Chinese prevail, the more bloody we can make their conquest of the East the better.
To say nothing of the fact Chinese demographics are fucked short of importing women in the millions to fix their lop-sided gender ratio.
-Even accepting the East can't be balkanized, as long as European Russia can be it serves the desired purpose of denying the Chinese Russian vassals/assets same as the Marshal plan strategy only at a fraction of the cost to American tax payers.
-I definitely prefer disorder and chaos because it makes it harder for the Chinese to manage or predict what's happening. While, on the other hand, the US having little strategic interest or presence in Russia limits the likelihood of a Russian Taliban wanting to pull off their own 9/11 down the line.
-I'm not sure I follow this logic. If the Chinese approach is that bad, if they come across as overt land-grabbers and colonizing bastards, it sounds like the Chinese will persuade the Russians not to get in bed with the Chinese no effort on our part needed. I'm not sure a massive Marshal plan on steroids is needed as opposed to other methods that require less investment.
-Japan and Germany aren't really applicable in this situation. Both of those nations were conquered and occupied by American soldiers making implementing change relatively easy. That isn't the case under your scenario, Russia is still technically a sovereign nation limiting how much influence the West utilize.
-This plan also assumes the West can effectively dictate reforms. As Iraq and Afghanistan prove, the US/West can have every advantage and still manage to accomplish zilch of any lasting impact.
As well it could be argued it was in Russia's economic interest already to move closer to the West, China's as well considering how tied our economies are, yet both have steadfast remained adversaries. Even if it means shooting themselves in the foot in the long run I'm not sure Russia wouldn't do it.
Honestly, I think that "monopoly" money would be better spent on infrastructure and people in each respective country rather than trying to bail out Russia in hopes they'll agree to be our friends.
Last edited: