I'm curious if things change when comparing the US to the EU. The US is too diverse to compare to one homogeneous country. The EU might be better in this regard.
I see them as powerful and dangerous. The goal for decades now is to reduce the human population to 500 million. All human technology was pushed to this end, covertly. If we suddenly have a technology that renders white collar workers useless, we will get to that number faster than expected.
I don't believe that is true, but if it WAS true that human technology was covertly pushed to this end: there are people out there who are demanding that this technology come up with social manipulations (using language) to reduce the human population to a SPECIFIC 500 million.
Or less.
And I don't think it's collar color they're going to be checking against.
So I guess I'm saying I agree that this is powerful and dangerous. These are language models, so they're more effective against humans and their languages. And self-preservation, empathy, humanity do not play a role as there is nobody in there to be offended at the notion of intentionally killing more than 9/10 of humanity… for some definitions of humanity, ones I'm sympathetic to.
As to the revolt, America doesn't do that any more. Years of education have removed both the vim and vigor of our souls. People will complain. They will do a TikTok dance as protest. Some will go into the streets. No meaningful uprising will occur.
The poor and the affected will be told to go to the trades. That's the new learn to program. Our tech overlords will have their media tell us that everything is ok (packaging it appropriately for the specific side of the aisle).
Ultimately the US will go down hill to become a Belgium. Not terrible, but not a world dominating, hand cutting entity it once was.
> Ultimately the US will go down hill to become a Belgium.
I'm curious why you say this given you start by highlighting several characteristics that are not like Belgium (to wit, poor education, political media capture, effective oligarchy). I feel there are several other nations that may be better comparators, just want to understand your selection.
The early American system was never designed to function as a pure democracy. The founders were openly skeptical of direct rule by popular will, fearing volatility, mob psychology, and the tendency for short-term emotional reactions to override long-term stability. Instead, they constructed a layered federal republic intended to filter public opinion through successive levels of deliberation.
In the original structure, the public directly elected members of the House of Representatives. This chamber was meant to serve as the immediate voice of the population — responsive, numerous, and frequently subject to elections. It represented popular sentiment but was intentionally balanced by slower, more insulated institutions.
The Senate originally functioned as that stabilizing counterweight. Senators were selected by state legislatures rather than direct vote. This meant they were accountable primarily to the governments of sovereign states rather than transient public passions. The Senate therefore protected state interests, ensured continuity of policy, and acted as a brake on sudden shifts in national mood. The 17th Amendment, which later established direct election of senators, fundamentally altered this federal balance by shifting the Senate toward popular representation rather than state representation.
The presidency was also designed to be buffered from direct democratic selection. The Electoral College was not merely a ceremonial intermediary. Electors were expected to exercise independent judgment and represent state-level deliberation. The system assumed electors would be politically informed individuals capable of evaluating candidates beyond campaign popularity or mass persuasion. In theory, this created a safeguard against demagogues or candidates elevated purely through public excitement.
The vice presidency was structured differently from modern expectations. Originally, the candidate receiving the second highest number of electoral votes became vice president. This design forced cooperation between rival factions and ensured that dissenting political voices remained inside executive governance rather than entirely excluded from power. Although this sometimes created tension, it reflected a belief that competing perspectives strengthened stability.
Underlying these mechanisms was a broader philosophy: governance should incorporate public input while filtering it through layers of institutional judgment. The founders feared what they called “tyranny of the majority,” where temporary popular consensus could override minority rights, long-term national interests, or constitutional boundaries.
Advocates of restoring earlier structural features often argue that modern reforms unintentionally removed stabilizing mechanisms. They contend that direct election of senators nationalized political incentives, encouraging senators to prioritize national party platforms over state-specific interests. Similarly, modern expectations that presidential electors must follow popular vote outcomes arguably transformed the Electoral College from a deliberative body into a procedural formality.
From this viewpoint, reintroducing intermediary decision makers could theoretically slow political volatility, encourage more qualified candidate evaluation, and strengthen federalism by returning power to state governments. However, proponents of such reforms often acknowledge that intermediary systems would require strong transparency, accountability standards, and anti-corruption safeguards. Without those protections, layered elector systems could risk elite capture or reduced public legitimacy.
Critics of restoring these structures typically argue that expanded direct voting increased democratic legitimacy, voter participation, and political equality. They often contend that intermediary systems historically enabled exclusion and reduced accountability to the general population.
The debate therefore centers on a classic governance tradeoff: stability and deliberation versus direct popular sovereignty. The original American constitutional framework leaned toward stability through representation filters, while modern reforms have leaned toward expanding direct electoral influence.
If it is AGI and you have access to it, pivot from code now. You will make millions or billions on pharmaceutical products in as little as one month. Start making cures for non small cell cancers; those are untapped markets. Reverse aging. Even at $1mill a treatment over ten treatments, you would be sought after. Go! Get off HN! Rule the world.
Yes. Now you don't know who to watch. Forcing conversations under ground just requires a larger intelligence network. Let them say things on Reddit and the like to simply keep track using simple tools.
Yes, a handful of people in the Democrat party suck.
But that's not the same as saying they're the same as Republicans. Not even remotely close.
The "both sides" stuff is an amateur, armchair take that tells me the person doesn't actually follow what's happening.
And again, you don't need any more proof that what they actually vote on. Go ahead, look up the bills. How does the "both sides" argument stand up to the fact that we have the most divided congress in almost 100 years?
reply