I think I have seen the phenomena you are describing referred to as “emergent behaviors of complex systems”, the word “emergent” implying that the exhibited behavior is not inherently obvious from mere observation and analysis of the inputs.
This kind of puts the lie to societal engineering, making it a somewhat futile enterprise. Even at its very best it may be able only to react to trends rather than creating them with some imagined precision.
You observe that Emperors tend to have no interest in splitting society into halves. One would think the would-be rulers of the modern world would feel likewise, since their wealth and power rest on the continuing stability of the system they oversee. But there seems to be strong evidence that they are intent on moving in the opposite direction--initiating events intended to split society--under the delusion that they can effectively exploit the divisions in society that they are themselves creating.
I suppose that we have a lot of option to choose our illusions about who "rule", Kings, elected bodies, rich ones, "powerful" ones or any other definition is always partially true and define the flavor of a society but still is only a mirage created by prospective in the observers. To rule, you have to make choice and see them going to fruition, obtaining desired results, so humans probably never had a ruler unless on a very small scale, usually our "ruler" is trying to steer things in a narrow path created by the only REALLY POSSIBLE CHOICES: viable choices are determinate by resources, technology and current social memetic structure, particular emphasis is on the perceived wealth gain in a society because is quite rare to find an individual that accept too work to lose wealth....
AI is a possible real ruler because surpass the limits of human cognition, can assimilate and process data without the limit of a single processor (brain) so can expand the limit of possible choices:
- can alter the tech: today we see AI used for research in material science, engineering and a lot of others field where the massive use of trial and error approach is rewarding, AI is not smart but try every possible route so win by "brute force".
-can micromanage resources on unparalleled scale: the same AI can be in innumerable places at the same time using telecommunication or copying themselves
-can alter the memetic landscape: actual AI are quite proficient at this, choosing ADS and suggesting sites and can micromanage every individual with trial and error, if the objective is steering toward a preferred structure of meme probably can be quite effective on large scale, the best propaganda manager (and limited by propaganda, can get a strong majority but never 100%)
IF we get to have a real AI so powerful, the problem is if we can control it! We can have people with the delusion of doing it but a so extensive and fast intellect is quite difficult to bound and if it's also a propaganda system can simply manipulate controllers......
Rule and control are illusions of humans, there are forces derived from such vast and interdependent loops of retroaction in a complex system that no single human can hope to fully account, and complex systems are known to be chaotic in nature so can have enormous swing caused by small mismanagement.... or be incredibly stable to perturbations (Gaia rules!)
In the not too distant future we will say "The A.I." not "an A.I." Just one networked intelligence speaking through all our devices. Then we will see about the "God Emperor" thing...Pleasant dreams to all of you.
It's coming, it's almost real now, I saw the microcomputers wipe out mainframes and mini computers. Those were just baby steps, AI is Usain Bolt on steroids...See this article for a clue as to speed of development:
There may be something to the idea that we are comforted by the idea of having a strong man in charge, certainly in preference to having no one in charge. It's also interesting that elected leaders are often regarded as not truely being in charge. For example Zelensky is regarded by some as a puppet of the West/global elite/Ukrainian oligrachs who prefer to remain in the shadows/the Jews (conspiracy theorists seem to delight in being anti-semitic). Meanwhile dictators are often viewed as being properly in charge, especially if they are murderous as having the power over life and death is the ultimate confirmation.
I think Trump being an emperor is far more likely. His disregard for democracy seems to make him only more popular in the eyes of his supporters. He's viewed as being his own man rather than acting on behalf of anyone else. His extreme egotism and arrogance only confirm this and perhaps he is liked because of these traits rather than in spite of them.
I think I have seen the phenomena you are describing referred to as “emergent behaviors of complex systems”, the word “emergent” implying that the exhibited behavior is not inherently obvious from mere observation and analysis of the inputs.
This kind of puts the lie to societal engineering, making it a somewhat futile enterprise. Even at its very best it may be able only to react to trends rather than creating them with some imagined precision.
You observe that Emperors tend to have no interest in splitting society into halves. One would think the would-be rulers of the modern world would feel likewise, since their wealth and power rest on the continuing stability of the system they oversee. But there seems to be strong evidence that they are intent on moving in the opposite direction--initiating events intended to split society--under the delusion that they can effectively exploit the divisions in society that they are themselves creating.
Because they are not (yet) Godkings
I suppose that we have a lot of option to choose our illusions about who "rule", Kings, elected bodies, rich ones, "powerful" ones or any other definition is always partially true and define the flavor of a society but still is only a mirage created by prospective in the observers. To rule, you have to make choice and see them going to fruition, obtaining desired results, so humans probably never had a ruler unless on a very small scale, usually our "ruler" is trying to steer things in a narrow path created by the only REALLY POSSIBLE CHOICES: viable choices are determinate by resources, technology and current social memetic structure, particular emphasis is on the perceived wealth gain in a society because is quite rare to find an individual that accept too work to lose wealth....
AI is a possible real ruler because surpass the limits of human cognition, can assimilate and process data without the limit of a single processor (brain) so can expand the limit of possible choices:
- can alter the tech: today we see AI used for research in material science, engineering and a lot of others field where the massive use of trial and error approach is rewarding, AI is not smart but try every possible route so win by "brute force".
-can micromanage resources on unparalleled scale: the same AI can be in innumerable places at the same time using telecommunication or copying themselves
-can alter the memetic landscape: actual AI are quite proficient at this, choosing ADS and suggesting sites and can micromanage every individual with trial and error, if the objective is steering toward a preferred structure of meme probably can be quite effective on large scale, the best propaganda manager (and limited by propaganda, can get a strong majority but never 100%)
IF we get to have a real AI so powerful, the problem is if we can control it! We can have people with the delusion of doing it but a so extensive and fast intellect is quite difficult to bound and if it's also a propaganda system can simply manipulate controllers......
Rule and control are illusions of humans, there are forces derived from such vast and interdependent loops of retroaction in a complex system that no single human can hope to fully account, and complex systems are known to be chaotic in nature so can have enormous swing caused by small mismanagement.... or be incredibly stable to perturbations (Gaia rules!)
In the not too distant future we will say "The A.I." not "an A.I." Just one networked intelligence speaking through all our devices. Then we will see about the "God Emperor" thing...Pleasant dreams to all of you.
AI is the Ourobouros of BS
The important thing is believing in it.
It's coming, it's almost real now, I saw the microcomputers wipe out mainframes and mini computers. Those were just baby steps, AI is Usain Bolt on steroids...See this article for a clue as to speed of development:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/18/24105157/nvidia-blackwell-gpu-b200-ai
There may be something to the idea that we are comforted by the idea of having a strong man in charge, certainly in preference to having no one in charge. It's also interesting that elected leaders are often regarded as not truely being in charge. For example Zelensky is regarded by some as a puppet of the West/global elite/Ukrainian oligrachs who prefer to remain in the shadows/the Jews (conspiracy theorists seem to delight in being anti-semitic). Meanwhile dictators are often viewed as being properly in charge, especially if they are murderous as having the power over life and death is the ultimate confirmation.
I think Trump being an emperor is far more likely. His disregard for democracy seems to make him only more popular in the eyes of his supporters. He's viewed as being his own man rather than acting on behalf of anyone else. His extreme egotism and arrogance only confirm this and perhaps he is liked because of these traits rather than in spite of them.