I see this so much with regard to Chinese/Russians and increasingly Americans (I know people in each camp). The point of the propaganda is just that, to make them distrust all information and fall in line by default. It makes it impossible to argue against the main narrative being broadcast because "who's to say what's true?" And frankly I'm getting real sick of it. It's not the same thing as being media literate.

Why stop at international law? It's no different than a lot of civil, financial, criminal law. You just get big enough and now there's nothing the system can do about you. It's become increasingly apparent that having the right friends and enough money is the only 'law' that matters at any level of society, and people will be too disengaged or selfish to do anything about it besides reap the rewards if they're in the right place. Laws only work on the disempowered, and in that sense international law is exactly as powerful as the law of the land in whatever country you live in.

>Why stop at international law? It's no different than a lot of civil, financial, criminal law. You just get big enough and now there's nothing the system can do about you.

It stops at international law because thats the only level without a governance system over it.

There is no governance system over the USA, UK, etc.

There is a governance system over Ohio, New Mexico, etc.

You are only right if you get big enough that you are a peer of the USA, UK, etc. AKA sovereign.

The troubling thing here is: what is a "better" society? As you said, it's just the one that outcompetes the other societies on the globe. We'd like to believe such a thing is an egalitarian "healthy" liberal society, but it's just as likely to be some form of enslaved/boot stomping on face society. Some think people won't accept this, but given human history I'm pretty sure they will. I think these sorts of societies are more of a local minima, but they only need to grant enough of a short term boost to unseat the other major powers. Once competition is out of the way they'll probably survive as a bloated mess for quite some time. The price of entry is so high they won't have to worry about being unseated by competition unless they really screw the pooch. I think this is the troubling conclusion a lot of people, including those in power, are reaching.

I tend to agree.

I'm certain neanderthals were just calmer, more empathetic. And then we came along and abused that until they were all gone.

We're still animals on this planet. We just sing about our conquests afterwards.

It's worth thinking about, but why hasn't this already happened? Or maybe it already has, and if so, what about AI specifically is it that will make it suddenly much worse?

We've had plenty of examples of all those things, over and over, throughout history. Nothing's really new. Societies that get into faceboot territory run afoul of what's already known (there's apparently a CIA handbook to this effect that's being largely ignored in modern America): assert hard rather than soft power and you generate determined and desperate resistance more than you undermine it. That's being demonstrated in countless places right now.

I'm arguing that the egalatarian 'lift my lamp beside the golden door' society is a cheat code for producing the variety and ferment that makes everybody frustrated and unhappy but producing with wild abandon. As a society this tactic dominates the hell out of would-be ethnostates and dictatorships, which seems to also be a natural tendency of humans. They are interested in not being challenged, in those like them not being challenged. Comfortable for those fortunate individuals, hopelessly suboptimal for the society they're in.

The rallying cry of 'NO New York Cities! Only sundown towns where if you don't look right you are killed and nobody ever knows about it!' might please some people (who have never been anywhere near those evil cities) but it just goes to show that many people have unhealthy wishes that are bad for them and the societies they're in.

I'm open to the idea that companies need much larger barriers to functioning internationally. Not just because of their ability to pump money overseas, but also because they are often used to blatantly further the security goals of their parent countries (looking at you two USA and China, but everyone able to, seems to do it).

Maybe the current system would've worked if it was built on many more small companies. These monolithic corporations funneling power upward are the death of civilization, and leadership are clearly high on their own farts. Or just want to be on top in a new feudal age.

This also makes labor laws much less effective because the companies move countries to avoid them.

Looking back at the degrading lives commoners have suffered throughout a lot of human history, I'm pretty split. And that was before rulers had AI and autonomous defenses to keep everyone in line. Frankly, I think this exact line of thought is what's pushing a lot of AI investment right now.

I share your concerns, but also I don't think this analogy is very close. Historically the reason why commoners could be kept oppressed is because the relative amount of "firepower" available to individuals was fairly small to begin with, and easy to regulate. Many places banned military weapons like swords for the commoners, for example, precisely so that they couldn't quickly form a militia capable of challenging their feudal lord's retinue. I don't think that's possible in the modern world, though, because even with heavy regulation of arms, the stuff that's readily available (or can be put together from things that are readily available) is already too destructive to contain.

The modern rulers rely more on brainwashing and less on direct oppression for this exact reason. Not that the latter doesn't happen, mind you, but I also can't think of any modern day regime that is sustained solely by force, without some measure of popular support.

"Source of truth." Right, that reminds me of the other issue exacerbated by AI: widespread media illiteracy. (Apologies if that was the joke, can't tell anymore).

You'd think on a form for programmers we'd all understand that moving everything to a single thread isn't optimal.

I'm assuming the joke is that what remains of them seem to be entirely on board with this.

Honestly, during the dotcom bubble at least workers were getting paid and jobs were abundant. Things didn't start getting bad for workers until it popped. We're supposed to be in the 'positive' part of the AI bubble and people already seem desperate and out of hope.

Everyone not directly involved seems to want AI to pop. I'm not sure if that says anything about its longevity. Not very fun to have a bubble that feels bad on both sides.

I like the idea behind https://oasis-ai.org/ where you can actually try to take advantage of the 'dream logic' inconsistency of each frame being procedurally generated based on the last one. For example, instead of building a house, build the corner of a house, look at that, then look back up and check if it hallucinated the rest of your ephemeral house for you. Of course that uses AI as the entire gameplay loop and not just a graphics filter. It's also... not great, but an interesting concept that I could see producing a fun dream logic game in the future.