5 ms·

Whenever I see stuff like this, all I can do is choose to believe that concentrated power will always eventually crumble under its own fragility. That's how it'

by _bxg1 8y ago

Whenever I see stuff like this, all I can do is choose to believe that concentrated power will always eventually crumble under its own fragility. That's how it's worked so far. AI may change that equation one day, but one has to be able to sleep at night.

devoply 8y ago
No it hasn't concentration of power has led to violence and revolution... at the very least to organized labor. Maybe it makes systems with certain structures fragile, like a despot but we don't have systems like these are are inherently fragile. Delusional to think that things magically fix themselves. AI consolidates power and makes revolt even more difficult once it's realized as something completely automated. China might collapse under its own weight as it does not have robust systems and the West is looking to hurt its economy to further cause instability, but corporatism elsewhere continues to grow stronger.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  > revolution...organized labor Precisely. The masses have always been able to, eventually, usurp the few. The thing that's made democratic nations like the U.S. so successful is that they harness the power of the many. A diverse system is much more fault-tolerant than a centralized one. The minds and wills of a free populace, competing but also cooperating, have always been stronger than the minds of a minority which controls a populace. What's best for people has traditionally been aligned with what's effective, in this respect. Empires always fall. But, yes, AI could change that. We'll see how it plays out.
  - meruru 8y ago
    It's not AI that's going to change that, it's mass surveillance and ubiquitous proprietary software. AI may contribute to it, but it's the fact that we've given away control over our life and our society that's the real issue.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      People comprise more value than physical resources. People can innovate, adapt, create. Those that hold the value hold the power. Any situation where the minority is in control has always been temporary historically, because of this fundamental fact. It may take years, generations, or centuries, but things have always gravitated back towards balance. The only thing that could disrupt this is AI, because it could conceivably allow a single powerful person to have the equivalent of an army of perfect (cognitive) servants. Our minds have always been our most valuable and exclusive resource. If that status quo is disrupted, all bets are off. Of course nobody actually knows what AI will do to the world. Maybe it'll allow elites to do away with the rest of humanity. Maybe it'll take control of society for our own good. Maybe it'll never actually be able to duplicate our mental plasticity and there's nothing to worry about. Maybe global warming will end civilization before we reach the singularity. Who knows. I simply choose not to spend much time thinking that far ahead, because I'm not really in a position to do anything about it.
      - glitchc 8y ago
        It’s a nice screed, but history has shown, time and time again, that monarchs and empires are the most stable form of government.
  - gabbygab 8y ago
    But the progress of our system has been to go from diverse to less diverse. Ever since 1776, we have become ever more centralized. We went from state rights to federal power. From many political parties to a persistent duopoly controlled by the same people. Also, the masses have never usurped the few. No time in human history has the masses overthrown anything. The proles are never a threat to the powerful. The few have always been usurped by the other few. The british in the US weren't overthrow by the masses. They were overthrown by the elite few. The same thing with the romanovs in russia. It was the well funded, highly educated and highly motivated portion of the elites who overthrew the romanovs. The masses rising up is a romantic myth. It isn't real. What makes the US so successful has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with colonization, resource acquisition and centralized power. We conquered a continent and much of the world. We dominate the world's trade and currency. We are the greatest empire in human history. That's why we are successful. The same thing with european democracies. They still manage a large remnant of their former colonies via business and political domination. Even military domination such as libya, mali, middle east, etc. Heck, a bunch of african countries' central banks are directly controlled by the french.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
You can also, y'know, vote.
- evanlivingston 8y ago
  Meh, nah. You can vote to further validate the legitimacy of an existing power structure. But voting, by itself, doesn't necessarily function as an act that reorganizes power structures. As an obtuse example, does voting in Russia or Venezuela help to reorganize power? At a certain point those that bestow the gift of voting upon a population also have the ability to limit the actual result of that vote.
  - solidasparagus 8y ago
    Yes, the 2018 election in Venezuela is a major reason that we are looking at a potential transition of power... If no one ever voted, low voter turnout in 2018 would not have sparked an international backlash which has supported the rise of the opposition.
    - rjf72 8y ago
      The one and only reason there is a backlash against Venezuela is because the US is exerting its clout. And, in turn, the one and only reason the US cares about Venezuela is because the Venezuelan government dropped the petrodollar in late 2017 (I mention the date to emphasize this event predates the election), swapping to the euro and yuan. The petrodollar plays a major role in sustaining the US economy and consequently moving away from it is a perceived as a direct attack on the US. Other countries that have moved away from the petrodollar include Iraq, Libya, and Iran. Notably - these countries all moved away before being invaded (and Iran has yet to be invaded). In other words, their moving away was not a consequence of our invasions but rather our invasion was a consequence of their dropping the dollar. Saudi Arabia is one of the most belligerent and despotic nations on the planet, but since they keep to the petrodollar like their life depends on it (which it does), we're best friends forever. They even held the chair of the UN human rights council. Great guys, them. There are sham elections, unrepresentative "regimes", and all other sorts of nastiness all throughout the world. Nobody cares. Unless they happen to have something somebody else wants, then it's time to go full-on won't anybody think of the children?
crispyambulance 8y ago
> concentrated power will always eventually crumble under its own fragility. That's plausible, but how long is "eventually"? I mean, the Roman empire "eventually" crumbled after ~1000 years. How long have we been waiting for North Korea to collapse? The Soviet Union already collapsed, but what do we have now in Russia? China appears to be ascendant and simultaneously accelerating towards a nightmarish Orwellian dystopia with no signs of ever slowing down. We can't afford to just wait for these things to run their course like a case of the flu. It requires will-power and a bit of courage.
- weberc2 8y ago
  Minor correction: the Roman empire crumbled after only a few hundred years.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Rome split. The Eastern Roman Empire, e.g. Byzantium, lasted much longer than the Western Roman Empire. Although towards the end it was quite pathetic. It's decline was long and thorough. Incidentally some people count the Roman Republic when talking about how long the Roman Empire lasted, which is technically incorrect, but in a sense maybe it's not. Most of the expansionism was during the Republic period, and the demotion of the Roman Senate is an example of how collapse of centralized power isn't so immediately inevitable, don't you think?
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      > Rome split. The Eastern Roman Empire, e.g. Byzantium, lasted much longer than the Western Roman Empire. Although towards the end it was quite pathetic. [Its] decline was long and thorough. In that case it crumbled after ~1500 years. > Incidentally some people count the Roman Republic when talking about how long the Roman Empire lasted, which is technically incorrect, but in a sense maybe it's not. Most of the expansionism was during the Republic period, and the demotion of the Roman Senate is an example of how collapse of centralized power isn't so immediately inevitable, don't you think? Now we're at 1700, 1800 years.

by _bxg1 8y ago

devoply 8y ago

No it hasn't concentration of power has led to violence and revolution... at the very least to organized labor. Maybe it makes systems with certain structures fragile, like a despot but we don't have systems like these are are inherently fragile. Delusional to think that things magically fix themselves. AI consolidates power and makes revolt even more difficult once it's realized as something completely automated. China might collapse under its own weight as it does not have robust systems and the West is looking to hurt its economy to further cause instability, but corporatism elsewhere continues to grow stronger.

_bxg1 8y ago
> revolution...organized labor Precisely. The masses have always been able to, eventually, usurp the few. The thing that's made democratic nations like the U.S. so successful is that they harness the power of the many. A diverse system is much more fault-tolerant than a centralized one. The minds and wills of a free populace, competing but also cooperating, have always been stronger than the minds of a minority which controls a populace. What's best for people has traditionally been aligned with what's effective, in this respect. Empires always fall. But, yes, AI could change that. We'll see how it plays out.
- meruru 8y ago
  It's not AI that's going to change that, it's mass surveillance and ubiquitous proprietary software. AI may contribute to it, but it's the fact that we've given away control over our life and our society that's the real issue.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    People comprise more value than physical resources. People can innovate, adapt, create. Those that hold the value hold the power. Any situation where the minority is in control has always been temporary historically, because of this fundamental fact. It may take years, generations, or centuries, but things have always gravitated back towards balance. The only thing that could disrupt this is AI, because it could conceivably allow a single powerful person to have the equivalent of an army of perfect (cognitive) servants. Our minds have always been our most valuable and exclusive resource. If that status quo is disrupted, all bets are off. Of course nobody actually knows what AI will do to the world. Maybe it'll allow elites to do away with the rest of humanity. Maybe it'll take control of society for our own good. Maybe it'll never actually be able to duplicate our mental plasticity and there's nothing to worry about. Maybe global warming will end civilization before we reach the singularity. Who knows. I simply choose not to spend much time thinking that far ahead, because I'm not really in a position to do anything about it.
    - glitchc 8y ago
      It’s a nice screed, but history has shown, time and time again, that monarchs and empires are the most stable form of government.
- gabbygab 8y ago
  But the progress of our system has been to go from diverse to less diverse. Ever since 1776, we have become ever more centralized. We went from state rights to federal power. From many political parties to a persistent duopoly controlled by the same people. Also, the masses have never usurped the few. No time in human history has the masses overthrown anything. The proles are never a threat to the powerful. The few have always been usurped by the other few. The british in the US weren't overthrow by the masses. They were overthrown by the elite few. The same thing with the romanovs in russia. It was the well funded, highly educated and highly motivated portion of the elites who overthrew the romanovs. The masses rising up is a romantic myth. It isn't real. What makes the US so successful has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with colonization, resource acquisition and centralized power. We conquered a continent and much of the world. We dominate the world's trade and currency. We are the greatest empire in human history. That's why we are successful. The same thing with european democracies. They still manage a large remnant of their former colonies via business and political domination. Even military domination such as libya, mali, middle east, etc. Heck, a bunch of african countries' central banks are directly controlled by the french.

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

You can also, y'know, vote.

evanlivingston 8y ago
Meh, nah. You can vote to further validate the legitimacy of an existing power structure. But voting, by itself, doesn't necessarily function as an act that reorganizes power structures. As an obtuse example, does voting in Russia or Venezuela help to reorganize power? At a certain point those that bestow the gift of voting upon a population also have the ability to limit the actual result of that vote.
- solidasparagus 8y ago
  Yes, the 2018 election in Venezuela is a major reason that we are looking at a potential transition of power... If no one ever voted, low voter turnout in 2018 would not have sparked an international backlash which has supported the rise of the opposition.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    The one and only reason there is a backlash against Venezuela is because the US is exerting its clout. And, in turn, the one and only reason the US cares about Venezuela is because the Venezuelan government dropped the petrodollar in late 2017 (I mention the date to emphasize this event predates the election), swapping to the euro and yuan. The petrodollar plays a major role in sustaining the US economy and consequently moving away from it is a perceived as a direct attack on the US. Other countries that have moved away from the petrodollar include Iraq, Libya, and Iran. Notably - these countries all moved away before being invaded (and Iran has yet to be invaded). In other words, their moving away was not a consequence of our invasions but rather our invasion was a consequence of their dropping the dollar. Saudi Arabia is one of the most belligerent and despotic nations on the planet, but since they keep to the petrodollar like their life depends on it (which it does), we're best friends forever. They even held the chair of the UN human rights council. Great guys, them. There are sham elections, unrepresentative "regimes", and all other sorts of nastiness all throughout the world. Nobody cares. Unless they happen to have something somebody else wants, then it's time to go full-on won't anybody think of the children?

crispyambulance 8y ago

> concentrated power will always eventually crumble under its own fragility. That's plausible, but how long is "eventually"? I mean, the Roman empire "eventually" crumbled after ~1000 years. How long have we been waiting for North Korea to collapse? The Soviet Union already collapsed, but what do we have now in Russia? China appears to be ascendant and simultaneously accelerating towards a nightmarish Orwellian dystopia with no signs of ever slowing down. We can't afford to just wait for these things to run their course like a case of the flu. It requires will-power and a bit of courage.

weberc2 8y ago
Minor correction: the Roman empire crumbled after only a few hundred years.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Rome split. The Eastern Roman Empire, e.g. Byzantium, lasted much longer than the Western Roman Empire. Although towards the end it was quite pathetic. It's decline was long and thorough. Incidentally some people count the Roman Republic when talking about how long the Roman Empire lasted, which is technically incorrect, but in a sense maybe it's not. Most of the expansionism was during the Republic period, and the demotion of the Roman Senate is an example of how collapse of centralized power isn't so immediately inevitable, don't you think?
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > Rome split. The Eastern Roman Empire, e.g. Byzantium, lasted much longer than the Western Roman Empire. Although towards the end it was quite pathetic. [Its] decline was long and thorough. In that case it crumbled after ~1500 years. > Incidentally some people count the Roman Republic when talking about how long the Roman Empire lasted, which is technically incorrect, but in a sense maybe it's not. Most of the expansionism was during the Republic period, and the demotion of the Roman Senate is an example of how collapse of centralized power isn't so immediately inevitable, don't you think? Now we're at 1700, 1800 years.