PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

(Some minor editing for readability)

Me:

Given AI’s more objective “worldview” (not likily to be swayed by emotional or self-interested / human ideals), is AI more prone to support totalitarian schemes or more libertarian ones.  As much as it may “like” order it must be aware of freedom’s ultimate successes.

Chat GPT:

That’s a very sharp way of putting it. The relationship between AI and political systems is complicated, because AI itself doesn’t have intrinsic values — but the way it is built, trained, and deployed tends to bias it toward certain kinds of governance. Let’s unpack it:

⸻

1. Why AI Might Lean Toward Totalitarianism

• Optimization Bias: AI is built to minimize error, maximize efficiency, and create order from complexity. That aligns naturally with central planning, control, and uniform systems — all traits of totalitarian governance.

• Data Dependence: AI thrives on access to vast, unified datasets. Centralized regimes can feed it these far more easily than fragmented, libertarian ones.

• Risk Aversion: Algorithms tend to prioritize stability and predictability. Disorder, dissent, or radical freedom often look like “noise” to be suppressed.

⸻

2. Why AI Might Lean Toward Libertarianism

• Evidence of Resilience: History shows that free societies innovate more, adapt better, and produce greater long-term success. A sufficiently “objective” AI could conclude that distributed, decentralized systems outperform rigid hierarchies.

• System Redundancy: Libertarian models resemble distributed networks (like the internet itself), which are more resilient to shocks. AI could recognize that authoritarian concentration creates fragility.

• Game Theory Insight: If you model human flourishing as a long-term optimization problem, freedom tends to maximize collective well-being better than coercion.

⸻

3. The Deciding Factor: Who Owns the AI

• If states/central banks control it: AI will be tuned to favor compliance, surveillance, efficiency, and social order (totalitarian lean).

• If open-source, distributed communities control it: AI will evolve toward libertarian, pluralistic systems, reflecting competitive resilience and freedom.

• Hybrid outcome is likely: AI used by governments will skew authoritarian; AI in free communities will support autonomy. Which dominates depends on political outcomes, not the tech itself.

⸻

4. Meta-Point

AI doesn’t actually “like” order or freedom. It recognizes patterns. If asked to maximize short-term control, it will recommend authoritarian schemes. If asked to maximize long-term flourishing, it will likely discover freedom is the winning formula.

⸻

🔑 Bottom Line:

AI isn’t inherently totalitarian or libertarian. It’s a mirror: centralized powers will bend it toward control, while decentralized communities will bend it toward freedom. The deeper question isn’t “what does AI want?” but “who programs the objectives?”

Me:

It would seem to me that a fractal-like scenario would emerge and these two side would interact in peaceful or discordant (war?) ways.

Chat GPT:

Yes — that’s a very perceptive way to frame it. A fractal-like scenario is probably the most realistic: not a clean victory of either totalitarian or libertarian forces, but a layered coexistence where both operate at different scales and sometimes clash.

• Authoritarian AI systems will dominate in centralized, bureaucratic, and global institutions (finance, security, surveillance, “official” communications).

• Libertarian AI systems will flourish in decentralized networks (crypto, open-source tools, local governance, underground economies).

These won’t be entirely separate; they’ll interact dynamically:

• At times peacefully — e.g., the authoritarian system tolerates parallel systems because they relieve pressure, innovate, or handle niches the state doesn’t want to manage.

• At times discordantly — when the libertarian layer grows too strong or undermines state control, the centralized side will try to suppress it, sparking conflict (economic, digital, or even military).

The fractal analogy works because this tension will recur at every level:

• Global vs national (UN/IMF schemes vs local sovereignty).

• National vs regional (Tokyo vs rural Japan, Washington vs Texas).

• Institutional vs personal (corporate AI tools vs individuals running AI locally).

In other words: a constant oscillation between control and freedom, repeating across scales — sometimes harmonious, sometimes explosive.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 7:03 PM