I am not a fan of Putin, but I do think it is a good idea to look on foreign global “adversaries” with a portion of good faith. The alternative is a seemingly unbounded argument for domestic AI acceleration-ism, which is often a leading rationale for frontier model providers to cut away the red tape that remains (Dario, for example, seems to love this kind of argument as it pertains to China).
In my opinion, it is a narrative with a certain kind of irony that undemocratic leadership is intrinsically and unequivocally a reflection of ‘evil’ preferences and not a protective policy implemented under bayesian priors—which have observed open elections getting tampered with, consistently, to favour the interests of global hegemons.
In Latin America it is a common belief that much of the local poverty is due to policy that effectively hamstrung their capacity for self-sufficiency due to resources being auctioned off for pennies on the dollar to US industrialists, as a direct consequence of foreign abuse of their democratic processes to install ‘elected’ shills. From within that framework, suggesting that democracies can and have existed in their own local vacuums is a fanciful notion that is peddled largely by societies with the means and track records to perform said tampering.
To be clear, I am not advocating for authoritarianism, but I am suggesting that it is not a ridiculous strategy to suggest that a nation state may be further maligned from the internal interests of its peoples from an instrumented preformative ‘democracy’ than to a leader who is compromised solely as a result of that strategy. With the alternative as something which could be otherwise qualified as risk to be lead by treason.
And, obviously, not all authoritarianism is implemented with this rationale. But it serves purpose for the claim that authoritarianism itself, is insufficient evidence for the strong claim to maligned leadership (‘evil’).
In other words, true evil is probably not Putin or Xi Jinping. But it does probably still exist across a sufficient combinations of sadistic preferences and solipsist dis concern. Which I think is in not yet proven preventable with the affordance of new data or reasoning faculties.
I am not a fan of Putin, but I do think it is a good idea to look on foreign global “adversaries” with a portion of good faith. The alternative is a seemingly unbounded argument for domestic AI acceleration-ism, which is often a leading rationale for frontier model providers to cut away the red tape that remains (Dario, for example, seems to love this kind of argument as it pertains to China).
In my opinion, it is a narrative with a certain kind of irony that undemocratic leadership is intrinsically and unequivocally a reflection of ‘evil’ preferences and not a protective policy implemented under bayesian priors—which have observed open elections getting tampered with, consistently, to favour the interests of global hegemons.
In Latin America it is a common belief that much of the local poverty is due to policy that effectively hamstrung their capacity for self-sufficiency due to resources being auctioned off for pennies on the dollar to US industrialists, as a direct consequence of foreign abuse of their democratic processes to install ‘elected’ shills. From within that framework, suggesting that democracies can and have existed in their own local vacuums is a fanciful notion that is peddled largely by societies with the means and track records to perform said tampering.
To be clear, I am not advocating for authoritarianism, but I am suggesting that it is not a ridiculous strategy to suggest that a nation state may be further maligned from the internal interests of its peoples from an instrumented preformative ‘democracy’ than to a leader who is compromised solely as a result of that strategy. With the alternative as something which could be otherwise qualified as risk to be lead by treason.
And, obviously, not all authoritarianism is implemented with this rationale. But it serves purpose for the claim that authoritarianism itself, is insufficient evidence for the strong claim to maligned leadership (‘evil’).
In other words, true evil is probably not Putin or Xi Jinping. But it does probably still exist across a sufficient combinations of sadistic preferences and solipsist dis concern. Which I think is in not yet proven preventable with the affordance of new data or reasoning faculties.