On the other hand, there is another interesting factor in kings losing power that might be more related to what you are talking about (though I don’t think this factor is as important as the threat of revolutions discussed in the previous comment).
My understanding is that part of the story for why kings lost their power is that the majority of people were commoners, so the best writers, artists and philosophers were commoners (or at least not the highest aristocrats), and the kings and the aristocrats read their work, and these writer often argued for more power to the people. The kings and aristocrats sometimes got sincerely convinced, and agreed to relinquish some powers even when it was not absolutely necessary for preempting revolutions.
I think this is somewhat analogous to the story of cultural AI dominance in Gradual Disempowerment: all the most engaging content creators are AIs, humans consume their content, the AIs argue for giving power to AIs, and the humans get convinced.
I agree this is a real danger, but I think there might be an important difference between the case of kings and the AI future.
The court of Louis XVI read Voltaire, but I think if there was someone equally witty to Voltaire who also flattered the aristocracy, they would have plausibly liked him more. But the pool of witty people was limited, and Voltaire was far wittier than any of the few pro-aristocrat humorists, so the royal court put up with Voltaire’s hostile opinions.
On the other hand, in a post-AGI future, I think it’s plausible that with a small fraction of the resources you can get close to saturating human engagement. Suppose pro-human groups fund 1% of the AIs generating content, and pro-AI groups fund 99%. (For the sake of argument, let’s grant the dubious assumption that the majority of economy is controlled by AIs.) I think it’s still plausible that the two groups can generate approximately equally engaging content, and if humans find pro-human content more appealing, then that just wins out.
Also, I’m kind of an idealist, and I think part of the reason that Voltaire was successful is that he was just right about a lot of things, parliamentary government really leads to better outcomes than absolute monarchy from the perspective of a more-or-less shared human morality. So I have some hope (though definitely not certainty) that AI content creators competing in a free marketplace of ideas will only convince humanity to voluntarily relinquish power if relinquishing power is actually the right choice.
Kings also lost their power because the name of the game had changed significantly.
In the actual Middle Ages, kings may have nominally had complete power, but in reality they were heavily constrained by the relations they had with wealthy landowners and nobles. The institution of the Royal Court persevered precisely because it served an absolutely critical social purpose, namely a mechanism for coordination between the lords of the realm. Everybody was subject to the crown and the crown’s rulings, so disputes could be resolved and hierarchies could be established (relatively) bloodlessly. Conversely, the king nominally was above the lords, but he served at their pleasure, in the sense that it he became sufficiently unpopular with them, he would be removed.[1]
As the move towards absolutism happened and kings started amassing de facto power approaching the de jure power they’d long pretended they’d had, suddenly the old justification for the king’s existence evaporated.
Chinese history contains dozens of examples of emperors losing the Mandate of Heaven in the eyes of wealthy lords or powerful generals, and getting executed for it
On the other hand, there is another interesting factor in kings losing power that might be more related to what you are talking about (though I don’t think this factor is as important as the threat of revolutions discussed in the previous comment).
My understanding is that part of the story for why kings lost their power is that the majority of people were commoners, so the best writers, artists and philosophers were commoners (or at least not the highest aristocrats), and the kings and the aristocrats read their work, and these writer often argued for more power to the people. The kings and aristocrats sometimes got sincerely convinced, and agreed to relinquish some powers even when it was not absolutely necessary for preempting revolutions.
I think this is somewhat analogous to the story of cultural AI dominance in Gradual Disempowerment: all the most engaging content creators are AIs, humans consume their content, the AIs argue for giving power to AIs, and the humans get convinced.
I agree this is a real danger, but I think there might be an important difference between the case of kings and the AI future.
The court of Louis XVI read Voltaire, but I think if there was someone equally witty to Voltaire who also flattered the aristocracy, they would have plausibly liked him more. But the pool of witty people was limited, and Voltaire was far wittier than any of the few pro-aristocrat humorists, so the royal court put up with Voltaire’s hostile opinions.
On the other hand, in a post-AGI future, I think it’s plausible that with a small fraction of the resources you can get close to saturating human engagement. Suppose pro-human groups fund 1% of the AIs generating content, and pro-AI groups fund 99%. (For the sake of argument, let’s grant the dubious assumption that the majority of economy is controlled by AIs.) I think it’s still plausible that the two groups can generate approximately equally engaging content, and if humans find pro-human content more appealing, then that just wins out.
Also, I’m kind of an idealist, and I think part of the reason that Voltaire was successful is that he was just right about a lot of things, parliamentary government really leads to better outcomes than absolute monarchy from the perspective of a more-or-less shared human morality. So I have some hope (though definitely not certainty) that AI content creators competing in a free marketplace of ideas will only convince humanity to voluntarily relinquish power if relinquishing power is actually the right choice.
Kings also lost their power because the name of the game had changed significantly.
In the actual Middle Ages, kings may have nominally had complete power, but in reality they were heavily constrained by the relations they had with wealthy landowners and nobles. The institution of the Royal Court persevered precisely because it served an absolutely critical social purpose, namely a mechanism for coordination between the lords of the realm. Everybody was subject to the crown and the crown’s rulings, so disputes could be resolved and hierarchies could be established (relatively) bloodlessly. Conversely, the king nominally was above the lords, but he served at their pleasure, in the sense that it he became sufficiently unpopular with them, he would be removed.[1]
As the move towards absolutism happened and kings started amassing de facto power approaching the de jure power they’d long pretended they’d had, suddenly the old justification for the king’s existence evaporated.
Chinese history contains dozens of examples of emperors losing the Mandate of Heaven in the eyes of wealthy lords or powerful generals, and getting executed for it