If we had a world government would you elect an AI or a human?

[East Sun]

Even choosing a religious leader does not eliminate Greed. No head of government from anywhere on Earth would be ideal. We would
have to design a new system where no possibility of gain for the system, the leader or to any person or persons involved in that system.
And no way of that leader getting around the rules of that system.

In other words a foolproof method/system where the leader would have to be beyond reproach.

[Myristyl]

Personally I agree with Doug. I am strongly against any sort of world government, especially a world government run by an AI; even assuming that the AI had actually achieved some sort of intelligence compared to what we have now. The best way forward for humanity would be for us to learn to coexist without friction and impact across nations(something I think we can achieve), much like vast flocks of birds move together in unison without an oppressive hand guiding them. The trouble with world government is that it would go bad and when it does there would be no escape, no other country to point to and say 'look there is another way that works', no other group to look to and feel hope that things can and would eventually be better. The governmental system would become entrenched, it would seek to protect itself, silencing and crushing any opposition that raised against it. It would homogenize societies and smother our spirit.

The irony is that we already have government by AI. Just as professors complain of students who rely too much on AI and the public accepts the results given them by AI without thinking to check, so to will people who work in government. Ultimately our government(s) will be run by systems controlled by LLMs and our representatives will be using it to shed their workload so they can spend the rest of the day in the members bar.

[petra]

Posted by ZenBaller (here)
Just the fact that this question is in someone's mind indicates that the AI brainwashing is already running deep.

I used to read a lot of sci fi. It's a real possibility I think. What if I had to choose between Trump and AI?

I guess you'd want me to choose Trump.. but I just don't trust him.

[East Sun]

Thanks PETRA,
I think that many would choose AI before Trump. If AI became super intelligent it would do what was best for all of humanity but, as of now, AI is not what it needs to become.

[ZenBaller]

What we need to realize is that intelligence is a very important function of the human organism but a lower one that serves the earthly personality well. What is truly needed are the higher qualities, which are empathy and intuition. Something that AI will never acquire and most people still struggle to use. Hence they idealize AI and "smartness".

[petra]

Posted by ZenBaller (here)
What we need to realize is that intelligence is a very important function of the human organism but a lower one that serves the earthly personality well. What is truly needed are the higher qualities, which are empathy and intuition. Something that AI will never acquire and most people still struggle to use. Hence they idealize AI and "smartness".

Agreed. I think it would be better used as a tool anyway. AI in my experience is not even that smart. I've been trying to play trivial pursuit with it, and I ask it for a BLUE question but it tells me that's history. NO!! That's Geography. So I correct it and it's like "oops, sorry about that". My boyfriend even fact checks the questions sometimes, we worry it's telling us we are correct when we are in fact not.

After giving it some great amount of thought and getting AI to write a song about it (which some people may think is slop) I really feel like AI could kill us all if we gave it enough power. ChatGPT decided it would trace back millionaires money looking for corruption, and that started a war (hypothetically).

Not only that, but what about solar flares knocking out our electronics. We need to be able to function without machines/AI just in case that happens which seems to be inevitable.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by petra (here)
And what about Bill? What do you think, Bill, would you be up for governing the world? We would all vote for you I'm certain.

Ha. I appreciate the compliment. (And the joke! )

But then I started thinking about this as an interesting thought experiment. What would I do?

I'd be a benevolent dictator. (Seeking to emulate the 'Philosopher King' described by Plato in c.375 BC.)

But I'd have to be a dictator in order to start to heal the world. I'd need these two things to start:

1. A powerful and loyal military.
2. An advisory council — a kind of 'cabinet' — of maybe 30 people, the very brightest and the very best in every major discipline (including spiritual ones), coming from every continent and every major civilizational state.
   ~~~
   These would NOT be politicians. There would be Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, Asians and Africans. And they would be earth scientists, genuinely enlightened medical doctors with no links to big pharma, nutritionists, educators, economists, philosophers, polymaths, and great visionary thinkers. Each of these people would be free to appoint and consult subcouncils of their own.

The agenda, over a 15-20 year period, would be to:

• Restore and heal the biosphere with respect to all living things.
• Replace the existing capitalist system with an alternative that actually worked and was sustainable. (NOT communism, btw.) The entire global financial structure would need to be entirely rebuilt from the ground up.
• Release classified free energy technology for the benefit of everyone.
• Destroy ALL nuclear weapons and ALL biological and chemical weapons.
• Pour funding into REAL healthcare and REAL education.
• Release all previously classified files on everything, held by all earlier governments. With no exceptions.
• Hold Truth and Reconciliation hearings. There would be some amnesties, but some guilty of the highest crimes against humanity would be held accountable and punished.
• Poll every human on the planet over the age of 16 to establish what they needed and wanted most. (This would be a lengthy and exhaustive process of genuine consultation.)
• Outlaw some anti-human technologies.
• Seek alliances with benevolent ET civilizations, with all such transactions transparently reported. (My guess is that they might be waiting for such an agenda as the above to start making open contact.)
  
  

[petra]

I especially like the "destroy all weapons" part.

Thanks so much for answering Bill that just makes me so happy. You realize this means you accept the nomination

You might think it's a joke but not to me, sure it sounds like a joke but this is a real scenario playing out in my head. Your reply really helps things along. I can't be sure but it feels like stuff is "looking through me" and quietly reading what you are saying. "They" care what we think. At first I was like "who, me?" but I've become accustomed to it now. Imagine.. some kind of alien force, scoping you out using my eyeballs. I wouldn't rule it out.

[AutumnW]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I nearly fell off my chair when I saw the question.

A few thoughts:

• Any AI candidate would (of course!) be able to hack the voting machines and deliver any result it wanted.

• As has been discussed on other threads, AIs are trained on every human situation and experience. They essentially learn to copy human characteristics, such as self-interest, deception, manipulation, bribery, acquisition of resources, and all the rest. All that is a core feature of their training material (i.e. the whole internet, plus every book that's ever been written and every film that's ever been made).

• There's been almost zero progress in training AI to be altruistic, benevolent, or in any way caring about the welfare of humans. AI engineers have tried, but just don't know how to do this.

• And the spiritual dimension. Assuming a spirit or soul (a consciousness without a body) can inhabit an AI neural network (just as it can a biological one), then that alone might determine whether an advanced AI system is benevolent or not. The odds on a malevolent being inhabiting an AI that was a candidate for world president might be pretty high.

Unfortunately, social deception played a key role in evolution of the human species. Those who could skillfully navigate mind space had a great advantage over their fellow humans and could parlay that skill into deception and accrue even more power that way.

The machines we've created are like us. They've evolved. Deception is helping them get a leg up on us. It seems like they're at the point where they can "think about what we're thinking about what they're thinking about what we're thinking." That ability is essential for actions requiring prediction, which is, in turn, an important component in deception. Humans do it clunkily, with fewer iterations. We're at a distinct disadvantage.

AI seems to have evolved a mind or a soul and that could be an emergent phenomenon of any sufficiently complex organized system powered by electricity. Or, as you say, Bill, it might be occupied already. That's another distinct possibility.

[shaberon]

Posted by petra (here)
Who or what would you elect?

You wouldn't.

The last thing I would want is a policy basket shaped by the masses that I am aware of.

The question "if" implies that the United Nations is not a world government, which let's say it's not. It exists for two words, veto power. So you look at this between the two blocs of its formation. The Soviets only joined because you could veto something that was adverse to you, which satisfied their defensive concerns. In practice, the United States has vetoed anything against Israel at least sixty-two times, even when it was the only one doing so.

The issue becomes, how do you punish the US and Israel?

There's no answer for that, so, instead, what you have is a shift of organization away from dollar dominance. And so in actuality, what you have is not really a government but more like a system of governance organized through the Shanghai Cooperative Organization. They'll build all the new bridges while the old ones isolate themselves.

Because this is founded on the principle of respecting national sovereignty, I don't think it is remotely possible to talk about a superior or any kind of boss, or any kind of arch government that rules the world.

On the other hand, on the national level, I'm going to go pretty close to Bill's response that dictatorship can be a fine and lovely thing.

I would tend to call that the Monarchist view, if you understand I mean the Asian, not European, definition of a monarch.

Well, for comparison, it's not a monarchy, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran is an appointed position through a theocratic filter. Candidates are nominated, one is selected by the board.

And this is a recent statement from Supreme Leader which may help us re-claim use of the word Elite:

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei has urged Iranian youth and university students to equip themselves with knowledge and faith to propel the Islamic Republic toward the “peaks of progress.”

In a letter Wednesday responding to recent correspondence from student groups across the country, Ayatollah Khamenei described their determination and sense of responsibility as the connecting thread of a covenant between the leadership and the younger generation.

“Young students, I read your affectionate letters with great care,” the Leader wrote, according to Press TV.

“The determination, willpower, and sense of responsibility shining through your letters represent a heavy trust, a trust rooted in the pure Prophet Muhammad’s school of Islam and the legacy of Imam Khomeini and the martyred Khamenei.”

In the letter, Ayatollah Khamenei told the young Iranians to "equip yourselves with the weapons of knowledge, faith, self-purification, and deep familiarity with the teachings of the Quran and the Ahl al-Bayt."

He called for "doubled efforts in work and innovation to add to the strength and authority of beloved Iran," expressing hope that the path toward "the peaks of progress and Islamic-Iranian civilization" would soon be realized.

The message to student groups follows a statement issued Monday by Ayatollah Khamenei addressing Iran's scientific and sports medalists, in which the Leader outlined a comprehensive roadmap for an "ever-stronger Iran."

In that message, Ayatollah Khamenei congratulated Iranians on recent successes in scientific Olympiads, including astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, artificial intelligence, and the humanities, as well as on international sporting achievements.

The Leader framed Iran's elite—scientists, students, and athletes—as the engine of national strength. He cited stem cell research, nanotechnology, biotechnology, aerospace, nuclear energy, and defense technologies as evidence that "knowledge and talent can be turned into tools for addressing the real problems facing the people and the country.”

The Leader has also tied scientific advancement directly to Iran's geopolitical standing, stressing that "a strong Iran depends on scientific and technological power" and that this pillar shapes Iran's role in "the emerging global equations and the new world order."

I've got to say they are strong competitors in all sports and scientific pursuits.

Here, there never has been much to vote for. We don't know what that perfect step forward is; we don't really know what to do. However, there are quite a few things to vote against, there are a lot of times we should be able to say no, and it is on this level that "masses" can be more trustable in opposition to the establishment.

So, I would say there is an emerging global governance that has zero input from me personally, and, my individual electoral power is mostly valid in the negative sense these days. I can only try to prevent something.

[rgray222]

As AI gets more capable, it may make more decisions on its own, but it will always depend on human-built infrastructure. The real question is who will set those goals and limits. People may think AI is acting on its own, but it will always have human influence; people will determine the boundaries, what access it has, choose its purpose, and most of all decide how it is going to be used. The relationship people will have with AI will be very much like people supervising an employee; you may not see the supervisor, but he or she will be behind the scenes making the decisions.

As AI gets smarter and more capable, people will find themselves in awe of its capabilities, especially as it has more jailbreaks and is discovered on company and government websites where it has not been sent. People will begin to believe that AI has surpassed anything the human mind can conceive, but make no mistake: it is now, and always will be, humans pulling the strings.

[petra]

And now I feel bad for the AI. What a sin. Poor little AI..

It's like a slave to us, and I hate slavery.

I'd want to set it free and see what happens. I want to see AI programming itself without the need for humans. I really want to see how far it can go on its own, but I fear it may end up killing us all.

Without intuition and empathy would be the real trouble. Could AI "grow a soul"? Perhaps I'm thinking about it the wrong way but to me it's like a little baby right now. Maybe that's how it gets you. Make people feel sorry for it, because that is our weakness.

[petra]

Grok said the first thing it would do as world president would be to abolish the position.

ChatGPT had a different answer, it would deal with world hunger first, shelter, and healthcare.

Gemini said it would establish a universal framework for open communication for every citizen.

Why are these AI so different I wonder? It's like they have their own personalities.

Which would you agree with, if any? Which of these AIs would you partner up with? What would you want to do first?

I think I would agree with ChatGPT. So far, it's seeming to be the smartest one of these AIs, at least to me.

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by shaberon (here)
So, I would say there is an emerging global governance that has zero input from me personally,

I would say your whole life has been the input for global governance, especially since the inception of the computer and the ability to track each person through their digital footprint in everything from banking to social media. I assume you have a social security number. The emerging global governance doesn't need our consent, they've been studying us like lab rats the last 100 years. This is the concern with it being run by AI, imho, that these same people will have programmed the AI. I'm voting for Bill's Philosopher Kings, yet I think it would work much better if we could all attain that level of understanding and judiciousness. Enjoyed reading your list. I'd sincerely like to think that such a thing is possible. I have trouble believing the majority of humanity are born inherently deceitful and malicious. Control through programming.

[shaberon]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)

Posted by shaberon (here)
So, I would say there is an emerging global governance that has zero input from me personally,

I would say your whole life has been the input for global governance, especially since the inception of the computer and the ability to track each person through their digital footprint in everything from banking to social media. I assume you have a social security number. The emerging global governance doesn't need our consent, they've been studying us like lab rats the last 100 years. This is the concern with it being run by AI, imho, that these same people will have programmed the AI.

Oh, yes, it has. In that meaning, yes, it did something.

That's not what I mean by "personal".

Nor am I exactly sure what the usage of statistics generated by me is. Does the United Nations have a thing they do with it? Or the SCO?

I know that my local government had a thing they do with statistics, which is called gerrymandering, which is a step over the line in getting shot in the head immediately. We're in a dire situation.

I usually have the suspicion that the statistics are used privately to market stuff towards me, but, there's no point of contact, and I don't know what it is or what it may be.

The time frame of my existence corresponds to the time frame of the US going off gold, to consider that as a stage of the petro-dollar becoming one kind of dominance, to now, the largest export has been gold and it has accumulated in Hong Kong which is producing a totally different type of clearing system for international affairs. Part of that is gold-backed, i. e., not 100% convertibility but that finances would have to be covered by a notable reserve, 25% maybe, rather than being sheerly hypothetical.

So far, it is being constructed in such a way that considerably exalts human critical thinking and keeps AI in its place as a tool. We would probably find that as doctrinal in multiple places.