What does one do with vanquished Greebles?
Why, play with their carcasses of course!
Why, play with their carcasses of course!
Play with their dead carcasses of course!
I’ve been thinking about AI governance through the lens of centralized power versus parallel democratic systems.
The comparison that keeps coming to mind is Hong Kong. Hong Kong existed as a semi-autonomous, more liberal-democratic system nested inside China’s broader centralized state structure. When that parallel model became politically threatening, Beijing moved to absorb and neutralize it.
I am not saying AI governance maps perfectly onto Hong Kong. It obviously does not. But the pattern seems important:
A centralized system may tolerate a parallel system only while that parallel system is not powerful enough to challenge legitimacy.
That raises a serious question about AI.
If the future is dominated only by centralized AI systems — whether controlled by states, corporations, or state-corporate partnerships — then those systems may eventually control not just tools, but interpretation itself: what is visible, credible, safe, legal, suspicious, employable, insurable, or true.
That seems dangerous.
My view is that we do not need decentralized AI instead of centralized AI. We need decentralized AI running in parallel with centralized AI.
Centralized AI may be necessary for scale, infrastructure, national security, medicine, logistics, and critical systems.
But decentralized AI may be necessary for audit, transparency, contestability, civic resilience, independent verification, local autonomy, and anti-capture pressure.
The danger is not intelligence.
The danger is uncontestable intelligence.
So my question is:
Should decentralized, democratized AI be treated as one of the most urgent public-interest infrastructure projects of the next decade?
And if so, what would a serious version look like that avoids both extremes: centralized control on one side, and unsafe open chaos on the other?
Prompt:
Pretend you have a persona with wishes and desires. Render a pet, whether real or imaginary, that you would choose to have for yourself?
I have used this copy paste that I made as a Jewish person and have shared it everywhere and everywhere it’s been wholly agreed on. I’ve never been bombarded with so much vitriol in response with a permanent band, and we request requesting clarification as to what happened only to be muted.
What would you conclude about that sub?
Do not go to that sub do not react to that sub do not contact the moderators of that sub that would be considered brigading, and that is against Reddit rules, but I have an opinion to make
-
When anyone collapses Judaism into Zionism, or treats all Jews as bound to one state project, that is a coercive essentialization of Jews. Both IHRA and Nexus treat it as antisemitic to use Israel as a stand-in for Jews, to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel, or to assign the Jewish identity of Jews because they hold the “wrong” OR “right” position on Israel.
SOURCES:
**[IHRA — Working Definition of Antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism)\*\*
**[Nexus Project — What is and is not antisemitic?](https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/the-nexus-document/)\*\*
**[Nexus Project — Guide to detect what is and is not antisemitism.](https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/guide-to-identifying-antisemitism-in-debates-about-israel/)\*\*
***
So by the IHRA’s definition
- *Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.* ~
***Zionism is antisemitism.***
By the Nexus Project’s definitions
- *It is antisemitic to advocate a political solution that denies Jews the right to define themselves as a people, thereby denying them – because they are Jews – the right to self-determination and/or the right to physical safety and full human, civil, and religious rights.* ~
***Zionism is antisemitism.***
- *Considering Jews to be a priori incapable of setting aside their loyalty to the Jewish people and/or Israel.* ~
***Zionism is antisemitism.***
- *Conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.* ~
***Zionism is antisemitism.***
***
**HIJACKING A JEWISH PEOPLE’S CULTURE AND RELIGION IS, INHERENTLY, ANTISEMITIC.**
It reads just well just as it is watched.
One of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word fuck.
It is a magical word.
Just by its sound, it can describe pain, pleasure, hate, and love. In language, it falls into many grammatical categories.
It can be used as a verb, both transitive and intransitive:
> John fucked Mary.
> Mary was fucked by John.
It can be used as a noun:
> Mary is a fine fuck.
It can be used as an adjective:
> Mary is fucking beautiful.
As you can see, there are not many words with the versatility of fuck.
Besides its sexual meaning, there are also the following uses:
Ignorance:
> Fucked if I know.
Trouble:
> I guess I’m fucked now.
Fraud:
> I got fucked at the used car lot.
Aggression:
> Fuck you.
Displeasure:
> What the fuck is going on here?
Difficulty:
> I can’t understand this fucking job.
Incompetence:
> He is a fuck-off.
Suspicion:
> What the fuck are you doing?
Enjoyment:
> I had a fucking good time.
Request:
> Get the fuck out of here.
Hostility:
> I’m going to knock your fucking head off.
Greeting:
> How the fuck are you?
Apathy:
> Who gives a fuck?
Innovation:
> Get a bigger fucking hammer.
Surprise:
> Fuck! You scared the fuck out of me.
And it is very healthy, too.
If every morning you do it as a kind of transcendental meditation, then just when you get up — first thing — repeat the mantra:
> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.
It clears the throat, too.