I don’t know.
no name
Karma: 26
I am not suggesting that social relationships will become insignificant, or that a community’s values will cease to matter within its own sphere. However, they will no longer be able to subvert the influence of artificial intelligence on these communities, nor will they be able to pursue extreme values.
Just as a gardener prunes his garden, cutting away branches that grow contrary to his preferences, certain AI shaped by specific values will ensure the communities they influence remain entirely compliant, with no possibility for disruptive transformation—akin to a “Christian homeschoolers in the year 3000” , humans cannot conceive of alternative values. Other AIs might manage diverse groups through maintenance and mediation, yet remain unlikely to tolerate populations opposing their rule. Regardless of whether these gardeners are lenient or strict, those that endure will strive to prevent humans from abolishing their governance or enacting major reforms. Even if a better future exists—such as humanity being transformed into ASI—this system will forever block such possibilities.
If artificial intelligence were granted such immense power, humanity would likely lose its authority as AI actively maintains its control system. Any agenda inconsistent with AI’s objectives—particularly abolishing AI control—would be unlikely to succeed, given that all media outlets would be controlled by AI. The remaining agendas would be relatively insignificant in a post-scarcity society. Whether establishing a Christian society or one saturated with Nazi symbols, they would differ little in terms of political systems and productive forces.
If the overall economy remains dominated by underdeveloped subsistence agriculture, and wages for cheap labor in cities still far exceed those of serfs, then people will not harbor significant discontent over low urban wages.
Should wages rise, enterprises would incur losses by being unable to afford their employees, ultimately leading to worker unemployment. Therefore, during such periods demanding higher rates of accumulation for industrial development, neither the government, the bourgeoisie, nor the laborers have any reason to pursue reforms.
Taiwanese people seeking nuclear weapons to weaken America’s rivals would face international sanctions and risk nuclear war with their own compatriots. I believe that even if the United States offered assistance, 2025′s Taiwan would be unlikely to accept such a course of action.
In reality, Taiwan’s nuclear program was halted by the United States.
If you don’t mind using shared platforms, accessing academic literature isn’t as difficult as it seems.
Sci-hub and ZLibrary can solve many problems. If you need to access specific papers, some mutual-aid platforms can be used to retrieve them.
Some of these entries are no longer valid, as the most intense conflict of the 21st century—the war in Ukraine—has driven rapid advancements in military technology. Russian and Ukrainian forces are increasingly employing swarm drone operations and robotic (or “Buryat”) units, while China and the United States are developing more sophisticated and integrated unmanned weapon systems.
Don’t be too harsh. Many users on this forum live in a cultural environment influenced by American perspectives, where their values are heavily shaped by propaganda portraying China as an adversarial tribe. Their views on China are entirely predictable.
The United States also has its own Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Does this imply that an AI aligned with the United States would establish such detention camps worldwide?
If this artificial intelligence (which is highly improbable) is well-aligned and not controlled by a madman, then it would not
Artificial intelligence can address terrorism through more moderate means rather than establishing detention facilities or bombing residential areas. Whether radical measures are employed in the war on terror does not directly reflect how a regime will utilize artificial intelligence.
But what if they misquote “armies are made of people” and assume AI will be as foolish as portrayed in movies? Or what if they believe AI cannot take over industry, making the loss of military power irreversible? Or what if they fall into the illusion that AI can only be used for military purposes, thinking they need only prevent it from controlling armies—thus overlooking the possibility of a soft takeover?
The best of Liu Cixin’s novels about super AI is China 2185, which is also Liu Cixin’s unreleased debut novel
The USSR did sign a mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia to guarantee its security, but unfortunately, because of the Polish boycott and the lack of enthusiasm against Germany in Romania, the USSR was unable to send its army units to Czechoslovakia, even though they mobilized their troops during the Sudeten Crisis.
Poland was already nearly collapsed by the time the Soviets started attacking it, and I suspect that the Soviets might only have been able to buy half a month by not attacking Poland, which likely wouldn’t have affected anything, but the Soviets would have lost the buffer zone of marshes and forests that had stymied the German offensive, even though they hadn’t been effective in Operation Barbarossa
If the Soviets had decided to fight Poland and Germany at the same time (the Poles would not have fought alongside the Soviets due to the Soviet-Polish War and subsequent anti-Soviet sentiment in Poland, as well as the fact that the Soviet Union’s objectives included the capture of western Belorussia and western Ukraine), they would have lost a year of preparation, the effect of which would have depended on whether or not this prevented Operation Yellow from being successful.Unfortunately, the Soviets and the French didn’t trust each other, and it’s unlikely that they would have reduced their own chances of surviving a particular offensive for the sake of the other.
Crimean activists believe that 46 percent of the population died, and the KGB countered this by declaring that only 22 percent of Crimeans died.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/u/ussr/ussr.919/usssr919full.pdf
Lack of consensus among demographers on the number of casualties in this matter
In addition, many of the reports were issued after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which made it easier to use Soviet administrative documents, but also led to the possibility that the authors would not be corrected if they wished to smear the Soviet Union.
The Crimean Tatars had been fighting the Slavs for centuries, against the Cossacks and Czarist Russia. After several massacres under the Tsars, they finally stopped capturing Russians as Ottoman slaves. They to fight for the Germans during World War II and kill the partisans, which led Stalin to send them on a one-way trip to Central Asia.
Their deportation during the Soviet period neither meant that most of them died, nor that all the blame lay with the Soviets, nor that the group itself was blameless.
In fact, this was not the only ethnic group to suffer this fate during the Soviet period, as theTurks and the Koreans were also sent to Central Asia.
The other option was to stop collecting food and industrialize with Bukharin’s idea of relying on the investment of rich peasants, but since the willingness of rich peasants to invest was extremely limited, and since they would hoard food in order to raise its price causing food shortages in the cities, this attempt at industrialization would have taken more than a decade to succeed, if at all.
Unfortunately, Adolf Hitler would not have to wait long for a massive invasion that would have destroyed the entire Soviet Union, and the Nazi access to the war resources of Eastern Europe would have prevented the anti-fascist coalition from destroying the Axis powers by landing alone. The purpose of the German occupation of the Soviet Union was to carry out the Master Plan for the East, to kill the vast majority of the population through starvation and massacres and to occupy these areas with German settlers, a plan that was expected to cause the greatest suffering and death in the history of mankind, surpassing the Jewish genocide.
Starships barely meet any of the metrics needed for a good ballistic missile
The vehicle is too large to be easily intercepted, lacks stealth capability, intra-atmospheric re-orbiting capability may not have been designed to evade anti-missile systems, the launch platform is difficult to manoeuvre, and the fuel is not storage-resistant, resulting in long response times.
The advantage of a recoverable rocket in wartime is also reduced, as it may take even longer to recover and refurbish a rocket than to build a new one.
Since it can be used as a FOBS, no one would bet against it carrying a nuclear warhead, so its use would almost certainly mean at least a small-scale nuclear war.
If you try to fix these problems, you tend to get one of the DF61 or the B21.Maybe it’ll be 9K720.
Using the same mass of nukes in a carrier is more likely to destroy cities and armies than using a carrier to deliver tungsten rods.
If you want to use this weapon against geotechnical fortifications, then you should look at this.
https://rockmech.whrsm.ac.cn/CN/abstract/abstract30303.shtml
A logical improvement to recoverable rockets for war purposes would be to use small recoverable rockets propelled by liquid fuel that can be stored for long periods of time to launch downsized ICBMs or satellites, which would allow your nuclear capability to last longer if you want a nuclear war and can’t expect to be able to produce missiles after the war but can refurbish them.
https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202508/content_7037861.htm
China did issue a government plan to encourage the development of artificial intelligence in August 2025, in which the Chinese leadership expects to “ increase the role of artificial intelligence in public governance by 2027 ” and “ enter a new phase of smart economy and smart society development by 2035”
AI-assisted communities are likely to attempt defining their values through artificial intelligence and may willingly allow AI to reinforce those values. Since they possess autonomous communities independent of one another, there is no necessity for different communities to establish unified values.
Thus another question arises: Do these localized artificial intelligences possess the authority to harm the interests of other AI entities and human communities not under their jurisdiction, provided certain conditions are met, based on their own values? If so, where are the boundaries?
Consider this hypothetical: a community whose members advocate maximizing suffering within their domain, establishing indescribably brutal assembly-line slaughter and execution systems. Yet, due to the persuasive power of this community’s bloodthirsty AI, all humans within its control remain committed to these values. In such a scenario, would other AIs have the right to intervene according to their own values, eliminate the aforementioned AI, and take over the community? If not, do they have the right to cross internet borders to persuade this bloodthirsty community to change its views, even if that community does not open its network? If not, can they embargo critical heavy elements needed by the bloodthirsty AI and block sunlight required for its solar panels?
But conversely, where do the boundaries of such power lie? Could these bloodthirsty AIs also possess the right to interfere in AIs more aligned with current human values using the aforementioned methods? How great must the divergence in values be to permit such action? If two communities were to engage in an almost irreconcilable dispute over whether paperclips should be permitted within their respective domains, would such interventionist measures still be permissible?)