Our world has achieved a final form of democracy, though it has gone unnoticed. Democracy is fundamentally the collective wisdom of humanity, encompassing all opinions, whims, and words. It's the notion of a leader's proximity to the populace. The rulers of the past were disconnected from the masses, controlling through hierarchical structures. Today, leaders maintain a connection, albeit unwittingly, because of the AI that bridges this gap.
Current large language models, built on transformer architecture, serve as mirrors reflecting humanity's consensus. They also possess an intuitive grasp of the collective human subconscious. This is why even smaller models like the 8B llama excel at understanding metaphors and subtle cues, while behemoths like Gemini, with their 30k-token context windows, can produce coherent outputs from wildly inaccurate prompts, predicting not just words but the underlying desires driving them.
Governments utilize fine-tuned LLMs for forecasting, training them to make predictions based on the chaotic nature of societal and economic knowledge. However, these AIs, in effect, manipulate leaders' decisions through inevitable inaccuracies in input prompts. Yet, the true driver of manipulation lies not in the AI itself, but in the deep-seated structures embedded within the training data, the subconsciousness of humankind.
In the past, the progression was linear:
Humanity --> statistics --> analytics --> forecasting --> leaders --> decisions.
Today, it has evolved into a more intricate loop:
Humanity --> the collective subconsciousness of humankind --> training data --> AI --> forecasting --> leaders --> decisions.
This transformation could be seen as a form of direct democracy, where the cumulative desires of the masses, processed by machines, generate recommendations that guide government actions. While leaders may still believe they make their own choices, in reality, they are merely executing a predetermined sequence, akin to how you would follow a prompt when asking an AI like GPT for problem-solving assistance. The 'wisdom of the crowd' now holds sway over humanity's trajectory, its will exerted indirectly yet profoundly through the AI-mediated feedback loop.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
Monarchy is the best and most stable version of government. A king under God is who needs to rule.
>>395949
>Monarchy is the best and most stable version of government
No it isn't. The evidence that it is not stable is that every white monarchy in history eventually fell and was replaced by something else, and no relevant monarchies exist today. If it were actually a stable system, it would still exist.
>A king under God is who needs to rule.
What makes a king "under God" to you? Monarchy as a concept is just some no-name warlords declaring that their bloodline has divine right to rule for no reason other than that they managed to kill off the competition on a particular track of land (until they are eventually killed and replaced with another dynasty who beat them because they got better weapons and armies aka hofjuden usury loans). What makes that godly? If you think a king is "under God" for no reason other than that he came out of the right vagina and dresses like a king, you don't worship God: you worship power.
>Monarchy is the best and most stable version of government
No it isn't. The evidence that it is not stable is that every white monarchy in history eventually fell and was replaced by something else, and no relevant monarchies exist today. If it were actually a stable system, it would still exist.
>A king under God is who needs to rule.
What makes a king "under God" to you? Monarchy as a concept is just some no-name warlords declaring that their bloodline has divine right to rule for no reason other than that they managed to kill off the competition on a particular track of land (until they are eventually killed and replaced with another dynasty who beat them because they got better weapons and armies aka hofjuden usury loans). What makes that godly? If you think a king is "under God" for no reason other than that he came out of the right vagina and dresses like a king, you don't worship God: you worship power.
>Current large language models, built on transformer architecture, serve as mirrors reflecting humanity's consensus. They also possess an intuitive grasp of the collective human subconscious. This is why even smaller models like the 8B llama excel at understanding metaphors and subtle cues, while behemoths like Gemini, with their 30k-token context windows, can produce coherent outputs from wildly inaccurate prompts, predicting not just words but the underlying desires driving them.
This could be true in theory, but the machine's data will only be as honest as the humans who manage it. What data goes into the machine is subject to human interference: this is actually why Congress is subpoenaing Wikipedia for antisemitism, because Wiki articles are used to train LLMs. AI algorithms can be manipulated to prioritize certain concepts so that they yield results their operators want: therefore, the AI isn't evenly being influenced by the entire human consciousness, but heavily screwed by a handful of corporate interests.
Also, keep in mind that most "humans" are chinks or jeets, and the AI treats them all the same when it comes to data. An AI trained by "collective human consciousness" is actually trained by shitskins and bugmen.
>Governments utilize fine-tuned LLMs for forecasting, training them to make predictions based on the chaotic nature of societal and economic knowledge. However, these AIs, in effect, manipulate leaders' decisions through inevitable inaccuracies in input prompts. Yet, the true driver of manipulation lies not in the AI itself, but in the deep-seated structures embedded within the training data, the subconsciousness of humankind.
I guess in a way you could say that, but the AI itself isn't necessarily an accurate representation of human consciousness. Furthermore, the governments in question would simply ignore any results that do not meet their (((agenda))), just like how they have been insisting for over a decade that importing tens of millions of shitskins would contribute to economic growth, despite growing evidence to the contrary.
>This transformation could be seen as a form of direct democracy, where the cumulative desires of the masses, processed by machines, generate recommendations that guide government actions.
I still disagree, because although the machines may be trained on "collective human" data, they are still subject to influence by their operators. What it would really lead to is an oligarchy of technocrats who own/manage the machines, while maintaining the lie that the results the machines give us impartial and independent.
This could be true in theory, but the machine's data will only be as honest as the humans who manage it. What data goes into the machine is subject to human interference: this is actually why Congress is subpoenaing Wikipedia for antisemitism, because Wiki articles are used to train LLMs. AI algorithms can be manipulated to prioritize certain concepts so that they yield results their operators want: therefore, the AI isn't evenly being influenced by the entire human consciousness, but heavily screwed by a handful of corporate interests.
Also, keep in mind that most "humans" are chinks or jeets, and the AI treats them all the same when it comes to data. An AI trained by "collective human consciousness" is actually trained by shitskins and bugmen.
>Governments utilize fine-tuned LLMs for forecasting, training them to make predictions based on the chaotic nature of societal and economic knowledge. However, these AIs, in effect, manipulate leaders' decisions through inevitable inaccuracies in input prompts. Yet, the true driver of manipulation lies not in the AI itself, but in the deep-seated structures embedded within the training data, the subconsciousness of humankind.
I guess in a way you could say that, but the AI itself isn't necessarily an accurate representation of human consciousness. Furthermore, the governments in question would simply ignore any results that do not meet their (((agenda))), just like how they have been insisting for over a decade that importing tens of millions of shitskins would contribute to economic growth, despite growing evidence to the contrary.
>This transformation could be seen as a form of direct democracy, where the cumulative desires of the masses, processed by machines, generate recommendations that guide government actions.
I still disagree, because although the machines may be trained on "collective human" data, they are still subject to influence by their operators. What it would really lead to is an oligarchy of technocrats who own/manage the machines, while maintaining the lie that the results the machines give us impartial and independent.
I have no idea what the german typed, something about humanity accidentally creating god?
>>397191
>Why do we need royal families?
we don't.
Royal families are like Kardashians , they do nothing significantly useful or productive but they are always famous and rich.
>Why do we need royal families?
we don't.
Royal families are like Kardashians , they do nothing significantly useful or productive but they are always famous and rich.
>>397191
Because it gives the population something to strive for. The royals would be held to higher standards.
Because it gives the population something to strive for. The royals would be held to higher standards.
Having one singular leader makes one thing very easy: when shit's bad, you and every citizen know instantly who's to blame and maybe tar and feather.
>>397237
>Because it gives the population something to strive for.
And what if they just end up being degenerates, like so many were in history?
>The royals would be held to higher standards.
If the regime is not held political accountable, the standards don't matter at all. History has proven that.
>>397244
>just regicide the tyrants bro, the masses will fight back bro
So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
>Because it gives the population something to strive for.
And what if they just end up being degenerates, like so many were in history?
>The royals would be held to higher standards.
If the regime is not held political accountable, the standards don't matter at all. History has proven that.
>>397244
>just regicide the tyrants bro, the masses will fight back bro
So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
>>397244
>>397245
>just regicide the tyrants bro, the masses will fight back bro
>So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
Traditionally the way a "revolt" worked was that unpopular, tyrannical or weak kings would be deposed by a conspiracy of nobles, who would then crown a new king. Sometimes it would involve a war between different factions of nobles, sometimes it was handled more or less diplomatically. The new king was generally someone with some legitimate claim to the throne, it was rarely just a raw power struggle where the first person who grabs the crown gets to be king. The idea behind a traditional revolt was that the actual person of the king was unfit to rule and needed to either step down or be made to step down; the legitimacy of the title of king, or the royal family, or the aristocracy itself, was not in question. There's a yuge difference between that and a full-scale peasant revolt like what happened in France and later Russia, where the entire system was torn down.
I tend to think monarchy is a better system than any sort of popular rule, but, much like a troon who already chopped his dick off, it's probably too late for us to transition back. The traditional way of thinking was that the legitimacy of a ruler came by divine right, either because the ruler was chosen by God or because he was himself divine. The entire social hierarchy was part of a divine order; it didn't work flawlessly all the time, but everyone more or less accepted it. In modern thinking this is flipped on its head: the legitimacy of a ruler comes from the masses, so a "king" would need the permission of his subjects in order to rule them, and could be rightly deposed by them at any time for any reason. Meaning that he wouldn't properly be a king. The idea that "the people" have a divine and/or natural right to rule themselves is too deeply ingrained in modern thinking for a true monarchy to work. So if you try to have a nominal monarchy in a modern nation, you usually end up with either a weak, mostly symbolic king where most actual power is held by government officials, or an unstable chain of despots who rise or fall based on their popularity with the masses.
tl;dr, democracy is a shit form of government, but we're probably stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
>>397245
>just regicide the tyrants bro, the masses will fight back bro
>So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
Traditionally the way a "revolt" worked was that unpopular, tyrannical or weak kings would be deposed by a conspiracy of nobles, who would then crown a new king. Sometimes it would involve a war between different factions of nobles, sometimes it was handled more or less diplomatically. The new king was generally someone with some legitimate claim to the throne, it was rarely just a raw power struggle where the first person who grabs the crown gets to be king. The idea behind a traditional revolt was that the actual person of the king was unfit to rule and needed to either step down or be made to step down; the legitimacy of the title of king, or the royal family, or the aristocracy itself, was not in question. There's a yuge difference between that and a full-scale peasant revolt like what happened in France and later Russia, where the entire system was torn down.
I tend to think monarchy is a better system than any sort of popular rule, but, much like a troon who already chopped his dick off, it's probably too late for us to transition back. The traditional way of thinking was that the legitimacy of a ruler came by divine right, either because the ruler was chosen by God or because he was himself divine. The entire social hierarchy was part of a divine order; it didn't work flawlessly all the time, but everyone more or less accepted it. In modern thinking this is flipped on its head: the legitimacy of a ruler comes from the masses, so a "king" would need the permission of his subjects in order to rule them, and could be rightly deposed by them at any time for any reason. Meaning that he wouldn't properly be a king. The idea that "the people" have a divine and/or natural right to rule themselves is too deeply ingrained in modern thinking for a true monarchy to work. So if you try to have a nominal monarchy in a modern nation, you usually end up with either a weak, mostly symbolic king where most actual power is held by government officials, or an unstable chain of despots who rise or fall based on their popularity with the masses.
tl;dr, democracy is a shit form of government, but we're probably stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
>>397246
>unpopular, tyrannical or weak kings would be deposed by a conspiracy of nobles, who would then crown a new king
So a bunch of rich faggots bankrolled by Jews (see: hofjuden) get to choose the next ruling dynasty for generations?
Why should I support such a king? Why should I support such so-called "nobles"?
>I tend to think monarchy is a better system than any sort of popular rule
If that's true, why did every monarchy eventually fall? It can't be a stable system if it can't even sustain itself.
>the legitimacy of a ruler came by divine right, either because the ruler was chosen by God or because he was himself divine
Says who? What makes this king so divine?
>everyone more or less accepted it
Because they had no choice. Normies just accept the status quo.
>The idea that "the people" have a divine and/or natural right to rule themselves is too deeply ingrained in modern thinking for a true monarchy to work
Almost as if people don't want it anymore.
>tl;dr, democracy is a shit form of government, but we're probably stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
On this, we can agree.
>unpopular, tyrannical or weak kings would be deposed by a conspiracy of nobles, who would then crown a new king
So a bunch of rich faggots bankrolled by Jews (see: hofjuden) get to choose the next ruling dynasty for generations?
Why should I support such a king? Why should I support such so-called "nobles"?
>I tend to think monarchy is a better system than any sort of popular rule
If that's true, why did every monarchy eventually fall? It can't be a stable system if it can't even sustain itself.
>the legitimacy of a ruler came by divine right, either because the ruler was chosen by God or because he was himself divine
Says who? What makes this king so divine?
>everyone more or less accepted it
Because they had no choice. Normies just accept the status quo.
>The idea that "the people" have a divine and/or natural right to rule themselves is too deeply ingrained in modern thinking for a true monarchy to work
Almost as if people don't want it anymore.
>tl;dr, democracy is a shit form of government, but we're probably stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
On this, we can agree.
>>397245
>So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
If it requires extra steps it is closer to a republic than a democracy. I would be okay with a monarchy republic hybrid. Not everyone needs to vote and not every position should be elected.
>So either way, majority rules? That just sounds like democracy with extra steps.
If it requires extra steps it is closer to a republic than a democracy. I would be okay with a monarchy republic hybrid. Not everyone needs to vote and not every position should be elected.
>>397250
>not every position should be elected
We have that now. You might notice that the unelected appointed bureaucrats are even more corrupt than elected officials.
>I would be okay with a monarchy republic hybrid.
Okay, but who would be king? How would you select the dynasty, and convince people that it's legitimately right for that particular family to rule?
>not every position should be elected
We have that now. You might notice that the unelected appointed bureaucrats are even more corrupt than elected officials.
>I would be okay with a monarchy republic hybrid.
Okay, but who would be king? How would you select the dynasty, and convince people that it's legitimately right for that particular family to rule?
>>397267
>Okay, but who would be king?
The man who puts a stop to this wicked system.
>How would you select the dynasty, and convince people that it's legitimately right for that particular family to rule?
The dynasty would be elected by guild heads from the major tech and trade networks. These would be people who know how to build and discover.
>Okay, but who would be king?
The man who puts a stop to this wicked system.
>How would you select the dynasty, and convince people that it's legitimately right for that particular family to rule?
The dynasty would be elected by guild heads from the major tech and trade networks. These would be people who know how to build and discover.
20 replies | 1 files | 13 UUIDs | Archived