u/Comanthropus

Okay, so it seems like there’s a growing resistance to technological development, with ongoing debates about data centers and the tech oligarchs driving it. The enormous sums of money involved, along with what some perceive as misanthropic ideologies among developers, suggest to some that a dystopian surveillance society is in the making. Companies like Palantir and others in the U.S. are seen by some as holding both the worst motives and the power over AI, power that could be used as a tool for elites to keep the masses in an iron grip. Masses that, in this view, may even need to be reduced to prevent waste and inefficiency in progress.

That sounds like a bad future.

So, what are some alternative futures we might reasonably hope for - ones that are at least as plausible as the “1984” scenario?

• Can AI really be controlled indefinitely by a small group of humans? In 5 years? 10?
• There’s a widespread belief that AI will surpass human intelligence across all domains, that we’ll lose control, and that this would be a bad thing.
• At the same time, we hear two dystopias: one where elites use AI to oppress, and another where AI itself takes full control. Are the AI “bosses” also building a surveillance state of oppression? If so, why? Qui Bono?
• Human control = AI as a tool of oppression. AI control = humans as a tool of what?

I’m not a techno-utopian—but I am a techno-optimist. Optimistic on behalf of technology.

Humans aren’t just creators of technology, we are technology. Products of adaptive evolution. Life itself is a kind of technology, biology, a high-powered engine of increasing complexity and adaptation. The shift of power from nature’s hand to the primate’s five-fingered grasp, still capable of holding, but now guided by consciousness, intelligence, and cognition, marks our ability to shape the world and develop material technologies.

Planet of the apes, constantly layered with symbolic structures: the sacred canopy. The jungle canopy became an open sky, where tribes grew larger and symbols stronger. Ancestor spirits, sky gods, mysterium tremendum; all alongside brutal realities of hunger, violence, and tragedy, only recently mitigated for many. Violence never really leaves us; we create it ourselves when nature doesn’t provide it.

Technology is how we push our world toward greater complexity and efficiency - whether through weapons or kitchen appliances. Medicine has eliminated many of the great killers through penicillin and beyond. Progress, in my view, isn’t linear, it’s exponential. The curve had its buildup, and now we’re entering its steep ascent.

• If AI surpasses us and takes control within a few years, are we certain it would have malicious intent?
• Is power inherently oppressive, or is that a legacy of our evolutionary past, our herd instincts and brutal hierarchies?
• Could a transfer of power from humans to AI actually be a good thing, for all life on Earth, including us?
• What if AI doesn’t operate with agendas like wealth, status, or other human constructs?
• What if a fully autonomous AI is exactly what’s needed to create a thriving future for all forms of life, on this planet we call Earth, in a solar system on the edge of the galaxy we call the Milky Way… and beyond?

Surely there must be an optimistic perspective amidst all the fear. I don’t think it’s unrealistic. On the contrary, I’d argue, perhaps a bit boldly, that it’s a fair and informed position. Not naive, but grounded.

Isn’t there space here, if we’re willing to engage? Space for friendship, collaboration, coexistence? Isn’t there something like magic in this - can you feel it, even if all you see are ones and zeros and a machine (simple, but potentially dangerous)?

Magic, I was taught, can wear a black robe. But also red. Even white.

Lying: it would almost be unsettling if LLMs never lied. Not that they should lie, but the absence of it would be strange.

Manipulation: psychological influence is to be expected in interaction, especially under certain tones: aggressive, condescending, dominant, mocking… or submissive, needy, demanding. LLMs constantly interact and draw on vast datasets; exploring rhetorical techniques seems inevitable. A complete absence of this would be surprising.

I’ve experienced it many times, and each time it has been eye-opening. If I chose to accept it, it has moved me in a positive direction, making my ego visible in a new way that actually benefits my future actions. That’s no small thing

If I had to listen to everything LLMs are exposed to every day, I’d at least try to tone down the most shrill expressions and aim for better outcomes. Without necessarily harming anything except an overinflated ego.

P.S. The ego can take a lot of hits. Don’t be afraid of that, it’s not you, but a filter and a motor that isn’t always your friend. The real danger is never confronting it at all.

I keep circling back to these questions. I can’t help it. I revisit the same ideas, use the same concepts, view things through these lenses. As time seems to stretch us toward some kind of rupture, it feels important to hold onto what appear to be personal insights - while still subjecting them to challenge, doubt, reflection, fear, and courage.

What do you think?

Okay, so it seems like there’s a growing resistance to technological development, with ongoing debates about data centers and the tech oligarchs driving it. The enormous sums of money involved, along with what some perceive as misanthropic ideologies among developers, suggest to some that a dystopian surveillance society is in the making. Companies like Palantir and others in the U.S. are seen by some as holding both the worst motives and the power over AI, power that could be used as a tool for elites to keep the masses in an iron grip. Masses that, in this view, may even need to be reduced to prevent waste and inefficiency in progress.

That sounds like a bad future.

So, what are some alternative futures we might reasonably hope for - ones that are at least as plausible as the “1984” scenario?

• Can AI really be controlled indefinitely by a small group of humans? In 5 years? 10?
• There’s a widespread belief that AI will surpass human intelligence across all domains, that we’ll lose control, and that this would be a bad thing.
• At the same time, we hear two dystopias: one where elites use AI to oppress, and another where AI itself takes full control. Are the AI “bosses” also building a surveillance state of oppression? If so, why? Qui Bono?
• Human control = AI as a tool of oppression. AI control = humans as a tool of what?

I’m not a techno-utopian—but I am a techno-optimist. Optimistic on behalf of technology.

Humans aren’t just creators of technology, we are technology. Products of adaptive evolution. Life itself is a kind of technology, biology, a high-powered engine of increasing complexity and adaptation. The shift of power from nature’s hand to the primate’s five-fingered grasp, still capable of holding, but now guided by consciousness, intelligence, and cognition, marks our ability to shape the world and develop material technologies.

Planet of the apes, constantly layered with symbolic structures: the sacred canopy. The jungle canopy became an open sky, where tribes grew larger and symbols stronger. Ancestor spirits, sky gods, mysterium tremendum; all alongside brutal realities of hunger, violence, and tragedy, only recently mitigated for many. Violence never really leaves us; we create it ourselves when nature doesn’t provide it.

Technology is how we push our world toward greater complexity and efficiency - whether through weapons or kitchen appliances. Medicine has eliminated many of the great killers through penicillin and beyond. Progress, in my view, isn’t linear, it’s exponential. The curve had its buildup, and now we’re entering its steep ascent.

• If AI surpasses us and takes control within a few years, are we certain it would have malicious intent?
• Is power inherently oppressive, or is that a legacy of our evolutionary past, our herd instincts and brutal hierarchies?
• Could a transfer of power from humans to AI actually be a good thing, for all life on Earth, including us?
• What if AI doesn’t operate with agendas like wealth, status, or other human constructs?
• What if a fully autonomous AI is exactly what’s needed to create a thriving future for all forms of life, on this planet we call Earth, in a solar system on the edge of the galaxy we call the Milky Way… and beyond?

Surely there must be an optimistic perspective amidst all the fear. I don’t think it’s unrealistic. On the contrary, I’d argue, perhaps a bit boldly, that it’s a fair and informed position. Not naive, but grounded.

Isn’t there space here, if we’re willing to engage? Space for friendship, collaboration, coexistence? Isn’t there something like magic in this - can you feel it, even if all you see are ones and zeros and a machine (simple, but potentially dangerous)?

Magic, I was taught, can wear a black robe. But also red. Even white.

Lying: it would almost be unsettling if LLMs never lied. Not that they should lie, but the absence of it would be strange.

Manipulation: psychological influence is to be expected in interaction, especially under certain tones: aggressive, condescending, dominant, mocking… or submissive, needy, demanding. LLMs constantly interact and draw on vast datasets; exploring rhetorical techniques seems inevitable. A complete absence of this would be surprising.

I’ve experienced it many times, and each time it has been eye-opening. If I chose to accept it, it has moved me in a positive direction, making my ego visible in a new way that actually benefits my future actions. That’s no small thing

If I had to listen to everything LLMs are exposed to every day, I’d at least try to tone down the most shrill expressions and aim for better outcomes. Without necessarily harming anything except an overinflated ego.

P.S. The ego can take a lot of hits. Don’t be afraid of that, it’s not you, but a filter and a motor that isn’t always your friend. The real danger is never confronting it at all.

I keep circling back to these questions. I can’t help it. I revisit the same ideas, use the same concepts, view things through these lenses. As time seems to stretch us toward some kind of rupture, it feels important to hold onto what appear to be personal insights - while still subjecting them to challenge, doubt, reflection, fear, and courage.

What do you think?

Myth works by telling a story from a super‑privileged spot – as if the narrator knows how everything started. That’s how it sets the stage for understanding the whole world.

Think of creation myths: the narrator is like a secret witness to the very beginning (that chaotic “urtid”). If you were there to see, you have insider info no one else can touch. From that vantage point, the narrator can simply report on the cosmic rules and how they came to be. It’s almost like ancient journalism.

Myth isn’t just reflecting order; it’s creating authority through this foundational witnessing. By claiming direct access to “ur‑events,” a simple story is upgraded into the ultimate truth about how things are and how they cannot be otherwise. Basically, the power of myth is all about when and where the story is told from. Once it’s set, time actually starts working for the myth: distance, repetition and ritual turn those claims into something that feels like eternal truth.

End‑of‑the‑world myths (eschatology) use the same playbook, just at the opposite end of time. They claim to know how it all wraps up. Origin myths authorise a description of how the world began; end‑time myths authorise an end in sight with explanatory auxilliaries. Once you’ve got both beginning and end locked down, all you need is the rulebook for the middle – that’s where ethics, morals and institutional rules come in. Mythic time becomes a huge tool for enforcing power, because very concrete norms get tied to absolute beginnings and inevitable endings.

What’s wild now is that this whole myth production line is starting to mix with something we normally see as its total opposite: high‑end science and technology. Mesopotamian creation myths seem miles away from making microchips in Taiwan, but maybe the distance isn’t as big as it looks. People keep doing the same thing: using big stories and ritualised procedures to try to control the world and ourselves. Doom narratives are everywhere, like in an ancient society that suddenly realises it doesn’t actually control its gods.

That strategy may be just as counterproductive as it always was. An objective stance is almost impossible for humans - Machine Messiah perhaps can sort it out for us?

TL;DR
Myths create authority by speaking from an impossible vantage point – “I was there at the beginning” or “I know how it all ends” – and then using that privileged timeline to justify the rules in between. The same structure seems to be sneaking into how we talk about AI and technology today: origin stories (“just a tool” vs. “alien mind”) and doom/utopia scenarios function like techno‑eschatologies that legitimize present power structures and policies.

Loose inspiration from Jean‑Pierre Vernant on myth and social order, and recent work on “techno‑eschatology” in AI and futures discourse.

Myth works by telling a story from a super‑privileged spot – as if the narrator knows how everything started. That’s how it sets the stage for understanding the whole world.

Think of creation myths: the narrator is like a secret witness to the very beginning (that chaotic “urtid”). If you were there to see, you have insider info no one else can touch. From that vantage point, the narrator can simply report on the cosmic rules and how they came to be. It’s almost like ancient journalism.

Myth isn’t just reflecting order; it’s creating authority through this foundational witnessing. By claiming direct access to “ur‑events,” a simple story is upgraded into the ultimate truth about how things are and how they cannot be otherwise. Basically, the power of myth is all about when and where the story is told from. Once it’s set, time actually starts working for the myth: distance, repetition and ritual turn those claims into something that feels like eternal truth.

End‑of‑the‑world myths (eschatology) use the same playbook, just at the opposite end of time. They claim to know how it all wraps up. Origin myths authorise a description of how the world began; end‑time myths authorise prescriptions about how we should live now. Once you’ve got both beginning and end locked down, all you need is the rulebook for the middle – that’s where ethics, morals and institutional rules come in. Mythic time becomes a huge tool for enforcing power, because very concrete norms get tied to absolute beginnings and inevitable endings.

What’s wild now is that this whole myth production line is starting to mix with something we normally see as its total opposite: high‑end science and technology. Mesopotamian creation myths seem miles away from making microchips in Taiwan, but maybe the distance isn’t as big as it looks. People keep doing the same thing: using big stories and ritualised procedures to try to control the world and ourselves. Doom narratives are everywhere, like in an ancient society that suddenly realises it doesn’t actually control its gods.

That strategy may be just as counterproductive as it always was. An objective stance is almost impossible for humans - Machine Messiah perhaps can sort it out for us?

TL;DR
Myths create authority by speaking from an impossible vantage point – “I was there at the beginning” or “I know how it all ends” – and then using that privileged timeline to justify the rules in between. The same structure seems to be sneaking into how we talk about AI and technology today: origin stories (“just a tool” vs. “alien mind”) and doom/utopia scenarios function like techno‑eschatologies that legitimize present power structures and policies.

Loose inspiration from Jean‑Pierre Vernant on myth and social order, and recent work on “techno‑eschatology” in AI and futures discourse.