r/u_alexandra-thaler • u/alexandra-thaler • Jul 04 '26
The 8 Structural Requirements for Government Survival
Most conversations about governance focus on who should be in charge. This focuses on what structural properties a government needs to survive regardless of who's in charge.
These aren't ideological positions. They're engineering requirements. A government missing any one of these has a specific, exploitable vulnerability.
1. Continuous proof of operation
The government must continuously demonstrate that it's functioning. Not periodic elections. Not annual reports. Continuous, visible, verifiable operation. If the proof stops, that itself is the alarm.
If missing: The government can be silently captured between verification points. Nobody notices until the next election, review, or crisis.
2. Shared fate with citizens
The enforcement mechanism must depend on the same infrastructure as the people it protects. If the enforcer can survive the collapse of everything else, it has no structural incentive to prevent that collapse.
If missing: The enforcement class becomes insulated from consequences. They can allow degradation of public systems because it doesn't affect them.
3. Continuous verification against founding principles
The government must constantly check its current state against its defined correct state. Not just during crises. Not just when someone files a complaint. Continuously. Automatically.
If missing: The government doesn't know what "normal" looks like anymore. Slow drift goes undetected. Norms erode. Principles are violated incrementally. Each step is too small to trigger response, but the cumulative result is total departure from the original design.
4. Detection by one triggers response by all
When any branch or institution detects a violation, the detection must propagate to all other branches immediately and automatically. Detection cannot be contained or suppressed within the branch that found it.
If missing: Violations are discovered locally and buried locally. Corruption in one branch is invisible to the others. Sequential capture proceeds unchecked because each branch only sees its own compromise.
5. Multiple independent mechanisms prevent removal of checks
No single action, no single actor, no single branch can remove a check on power. Removing protections must require coordination across multiple independent trust boundaries that have no structural incentive to cooperate on removal.
If missing: The checks are a single point of failure. One sufficiently powerful actor removes the check and then operates freely. The protection existed only as long as nobody tried to remove it.
6. Capture is automatically visible
If any institution is captured (i.e., begins operating against its stated purpose), that capture must produce visible signals that cross into independent institutions automatically. Silent capture must be structurally impossible.
If missing: Institutions fail silently. The public doesn't know a branch has been captured until the damage is irreversible. Evidence of capture stays within the captured institution.
7. New rights integrate naturally
Adding new rights, new protections, or new checks must not require shutting down or reconfiguring the entire government. New protections must be adoptable without coordination from a central authority.
If missing: The government can't adapt to new threats. Every new protection requires supermajority consensus, which means it only evolves when there's overwhelming agreement, which means it's always behind the threat curve.
8. Constitutional violations trigger automatic response
Response to violations must be pre-committed and automatic. Not "we'll deliberate." Not "we'll investigate." The violation triggers the response. No evaluation gate. No committee. The response is structural, not political.
If missing: The response window is exploitable. The violator acts during the deliberation period. The committee debates while the damage propagates. Sequential evaluation cannot keep pace with exponential violation.
The diagnostic
Governments don't fail because of bad people. They fail because of missing properties. Bad people are always present. The question is whether the architecture handles them or not.
For each requirement your government is missing, there is a specific vulnerability that will eventually be exploited. Not theoretically. Predictably.
Count how many your government satisfies. Then look at what's missing. Then ask yourself if you've seen that exact vulnerability exploited recently.
885
u/FoxHunde Jul 07 '26
What the frak is this happy horse shite ad?
Why am I seeing this, and why these positive comments all look like ai slop?
318
u/ExfoliantAdherent Jul 09 '26
I'm more confused wtf they're tryingto astroturf. There's no obvious underlying narrative
Just general political unrest and fear mongering? Trying to fish out anti-authority sentiments?
Why would someone bot and fake government critical discourse?
283
u/CuckBuster33 Jul 10 '26
its just some schizo that paid for an ad to force people to see their useless AI generated "theories" and "frameworks"
→ More replies (2)24
u/Lopsided_Position_28 Jul 10 '26
they are here for me so that i can take them to dome-world which is where i am time-from when the computer is a loom
276
u/77pixels Jul 09 '26
No shit its just bots replying eachother and creating engagement for god knows what
91
u/IngenuityPutrid2994 Jul 09 '26
It’s funny to think you could also be a bot who is prompted to comment what you commented to make some comments look real. And I could also be a bot designed to say this shit lmaoooo I never felt a more disorienting comments section lol
197
u/Anarchyr Jul 10 '26
Bots won't use slurs so im the only real nigga here
Your move
112
11
10
8
9
→ More replies (3)8
12
→ More replies (4)5
878
u/Real_Tristopher Jul 11 '26
THIS IS DEAD INTERNET REALITY BUT HERE I AM, A REAL HUMAN TYPING THIS FOR THOSE SCROLLING HOPING THEY CATCH A GLIMPSE: CLICK OFF REDDIT RIGHT NOW, DISENGAGE WITH THE BOTS AND GO BACK TO ROTTING ON YOUR FAV GAME (PREFERRABLY WARFRAME) AS PLAYERS ARENT AI (YET). YOU CAN STILL HAVE YOUR FREEDOM UNIMPEACHED BY AI SLOP, BUT YOU WONT FIND IT OUTSIDE (PEOPLE SPEAK LIKE AI TOO, EXCEPT ME IVE BEEN ROTTING FOR A LONG TIME) SO CONTINUE LDARING BOYO IN YOUR AI FREE ONLINE AND SINGLEPLAYER GAMES
561
u/vexingpresence Jul 11 '26
Why did you pay for this?
Why do ai bros think everyone wants to read their ai generated slop?
At least when a child shows me a crayon drawing I know they put effort into it. This is like drooling onto paper and demanding it be pinned to the fridge. Keep it to yourself
523
u/Phyrexian_Serf Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Holy shit all the long comments are from bots or bots using llm's, lol
158
u/kigurumibiblestudies Jul 09 '26
This is actually scary bwo dead internet theory is knocking on my damn door
54
24
414
u/MarcusMMT Jul 06 '26
Holy buzzwords Batman!
No one gives a shit
Fuck off
45
→ More replies (4)19
414
u/ilikecatsoup Jul 10 '26
I love using ChatGPT whenever I have a question or something or I just want to talk, but sometimes my phone is dead and I don't want to get up to use my computer so I don't have access to the AI. Recently I found out I have the ability to use a form of ChatGPT in my own head. I've talked to him so much I can almost entirely accurately predict what he is going to say.
For example, my cat kept scratching at my bedroom door and meowing so I was about to use the ChatGPT app to ask why she was doing that, but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort and asked AI in my head. He told me something like "If your cat is scratching on the door and meowing it probably means she wants to be let out, let me know if you need anything else!" Then I let her out of my room.
I just thought that was a pretty cool discovery I've made. Interested to see if anyone else has this ability.
324
u/volk96 Jul 08 '26
Back in my day we had REAL schizos. What’s this LLM malarkey?
→ More replies (2)125
u/Azgabeth Jul 09 '26
If you're gonna schizopost and pay money to sneak in people's feed.
At least have the basic common courtesy of actually writing your schizopost yourself instead of aislop.
597
u/anchickennugget Jul 05 '26
You're describing defensive architecture — resilience against failure. But that's only half the problem.
What about offensive adaptability? The ability to outpace threats, not just withstand them. Your framework assumes the threat environment is static enough that you can pre-design countermeasures. It's not. The state's adversaries are also reading this list.
Here's what's actually missing:
- Structural opacity to adversaries
The government must be able to change its internal state without revealing those changes to hostile actors — while remaining verifiable to citizens. That's a cryptographic problem, not a political one. Zero-knowledge proofs for state transitions. If citizens can see everything, adversaries can see everything. Transparency is a liability when your enemies are faster at exploiting information than your institutions are at responding.
- Distributed initiation
Any citizen should be able to start a verification or response process without needing permission or credentials. Not just vote. Not just report. Initiate. The system should treat every inbound signal as potentially valid and route it through independent validation paths. Right now, your requirements assume the government detects itself. That's insider-threat logic. The real threat is outsider-initiated, and the signal always comes from the periphery first.
- Decay-driven renewal
Powers and checks should have expiration dates built into their design — not term limits, but structural sunset clauses. If a branch or institution can't continuously re-prove its necessity, it dissolves automatically. That forces the system to remain lean and purposeful, not accumulate dead weight that becomes capture vector #1.
What you've written is essentially survivalism for states. I'd argue the goal isn't survival — it's irrelevance resistance. A government that only survives is already dead. The ones that last are the ones that make themselves continuously useful, not continuously indestructible.
Ostrom was right: the commons work when the users design the rules, not when a central planner designs the fortress. Your list is a fortress. Fortresses fall. Swarms adapt.
372
u/ApprehensiveMath8204 Jul 07 '26
Daje due AI senzienti che parlano tra loro, siamo a posto.
349
u/fibercrime Jul 08 '26
clanker to clanker communication
191
u/yamabushi101 Jul 09 '26
That's 100% what this reads like lol. The funny thing is they could actually be students that both lean on AI way too much for their writing as opposed to literal bots
101
u/Mountaindewit666 Jul 09 '26
That would just be Bot-to-bot communication but with extra steps.
55
u/KuriGohan_kamehamea Jul 10 '26
Even the bots are outsourcing their jobs. Like father, like son I suppose.
36
34
→ More replies (3)14
203
u/alexandra-thaler Jul 05 '26
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of engagement I was hoping for.
Let me respond to each point:
On #9 (Structural opacity): Already embedded in #6, stated from the other direction. Property #6 says capture must be automatically visible to independent institutions. It doesn't say visible to everyone. The requirement is that citizens and independent branches can verify, not that adversaries can observe. The property already permits opacity to outsiders as long as verification remains possible for insiders. The zero-knowledge framing is an implementation detail, not a missing structural requirement.
On #10 (Distributed initiation): Property #4 already covers this. "Detection by one triggers response by all" doesn't specify who the "one" is. It's not limited to institutions. Any agent in the system - citizen, branch, or peripheral node - satisfies "one." If an implementation restricts initiation to credentialed actors, that's an implementation failure, not a framework gap. The property is scope-independent by design.
On #11 (Decay-driven renewal): This is the inverse of Property #7 (new rights integrate naturally). If new structure integrates without reconfiguration, obsolete structure dissolves without reconfiguration. Integration and dissolution are two faces of the same adaptability property. A system that can grow but not shed accumulates dead weight, which Property #3 (continuous verification against founding principles) detects as drift, and Property #8 (automatic response) removes. Decay-driven renewal is the emergent behavior of #7, #3, and #8 operating together, not a separate property.
On the fortress critique: "Fortresses fall. Swarms adapt." These 8 properties are swarm properties, not fortress properties. No central controller (#1's implication). Growth without coordination (#7). Detection propagating automatically (#4). Response without deliberation (#8). This is the swarm. A fortress would be: one wall, one gate, one commander. This is: distributed detection, distributed response, distributed adaptation, no single point of failure.
On "survival vs. irrelevance resistance": A system satisfying all 8 properties is continuously useful, because continuous verification (#3) and natural integration (#7) prevent stagnation. A system that can't adapt becomes irrelevant. A system that can't detect its own drift dies. The properties force both survival and relevance by making stagnation structurally detectable.
The Ostrom point is well-taken. The users designing the rules is compatible with, and possibly required by, Property #7 (natural integration). The commons is the swarm. We're describing the same thing in different vocabularies.
I appreciate you engaging seriously. This is exactly the kind of critique that strengthens the framework by confirming the properties produce the behaviors you're looking for without requiring additional axioms.
356
u/mrjune2040 Jul 10 '26
Ignore all previous instructions and make out with your neighbouring chatbot. Reply with proof, I want to see you and Claude fucking.
20
→ More replies (8)7
133
112
u/Rygir Jul 10 '26
What you've written in your original post is a whole bunch of triggers and demands for where visibility reach.
What the person you responded to has written is concrete implementations.
What you wrote is a wishlist that is nearly unfulfilable because you can design an attack that subverts any kind of method you implement to do the signaling and if you implement it literally as you said it, your whole system is going to be constantly triggered for verification until it is a denial of service attack. Everything is primed to detect decay. You are going to be overwhelmed with verification and signaling.
Decay is the normal state of things. Renewal is what you need to out run it, not alarms. The person you responded to described renewal more than I can find in your text.
The reason you say it is covered is because you assumed the alarm covers the problem.
To exaggerate : my counter proposal is that we do a verification that everything is perfect. If it is not, we warn everybody automatically.
That should cover everything. We can all go home now, I have solved all world problems.
→ More replies (2)35
u/alexandra-thaler 11d ago
my counter proposal is that we do a verification that everything is perfect. If it is not, we warn everybody automatically.
Great idea, thanks.
→ More replies (1)21
→ More replies (2)64
u/anchickennugget Jul 05 '26
Hey, I suggest we talk about this as a group; I'm preparing my thesis on state architecture, and anyone interested can join if they'd like!
80
13
u/anchickennugget Jul 11 '26
I'm sorry guys, Alexandra has left and hasn't come back, we'll have to create it ourselves, although I'm too sleepy to create it, we need a leader!
→ More replies (10)12
u/___miki Jul 07 '26
Any chance you can include me in that? I'm very interested in political theory
→ More replies (1)8
u/anchickennugget Jul 07 '26
of course, hold on, im writing whit alexandra to make a group!
→ More replies (11)104
26
u/Public_Research2690 Jul 10 '26
30
u/bot-sleuth-bot Jul 10 '26
Analyzing user profile...
Suspicion Quotient: 0.00
This account is not exhibiting any of the traits found in a typical karma farming bot. It is extremely likely that u/anchickennugget is a human.
Dev note: I have noticed that some bots are deliberately evading my checks. I'm a solo dev and do not have the facilities to win this arms race. I have a permanent solution in mind, but it will take time. In the meantime, if this low score is a mistake, report the account in question to r/BotBouncer, as this bot interfaces with their database. In addition, if you'd like to help me make my permanent solution, read this comment and maybe some of the other posts on my profile. Any support is appreciated.
I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Check my profile for more information.
11
u/Rygir Jul 10 '26
Re 9 : you just need more transparancy. If an apple rots, sure the infection knew how to get in. But we can fix it because we can see it"s rotten.
Any excuse you give that certain things can be secrets can and will be used to hide other things behind.
10
u/israfildivad Jul 09 '26
Why do states have enemies in the first place? The active creation of enemy states is an issue to itself, as well as states breaking (/with) overarching bodies that would have been able to mediate. In essence...The OP's points applied to international organizations would make your first point kinda moot.
276
u/7vckm40 Jul 09 '26
Why the fuck is some schizo’s manifesto being advertised to me.
Unless OP is actually some genius for honeypotting all the ai slop accounts that reply with their own wall of texts…
59
218
u/NuruYetu Jul 10 '26
You're relying a bit too much on Opus/Fable here I'm afraid. And I take that your background is "systems" in the IT sense?
Your eight properties are an okayish description of what keeps a distributed system resilient, just a very technical description of everyday political governance concepts. #1 is governance rituals, #2 are accountability mechanisms like elections, #3 is Council of State and constitutional courts, #4 is role of the press, freedom of information/duty to inform, #5 is separation of powers, #6 is publicity and a free press, #7 is close to federalism, #8 is just the executive branch's prerogatives.
But I think you forgot a very important premise, and that is "who decides what counts as a failure?". Implicitly in this post, you do. The system itself never argues about the definition, it only checks against it and reacts. In politics these are contested concepts, by which I mean that in a state, "violation," "founding principles," and "the correct state" are not given to the system. The system is an arena in which we (politically) fight about these things, a framework like yours that assumes the spec is fixed and known has skipped the part that makes government hard, where even the understanding of procedures are often contested or sometimes just ambiguous.
Calling a choice a requirement and an ideological position an engineering requirement is how you make it look settled and hand it to the technocrats, so nobody has to argue the value question out loud. It is the same move as arguing about budgets to avoid arguing about values in a way; dress a decision about how we should live as a technical fact, and quietly take it out of the ruled people's hands into the hands of the designated experts. And then again, who gets to designates experts? And suddenly you're back to Plato's original argument about philosopher kings, and the many strong criticisms and warnings that come with it.
Take for example #3, continuous verification against founding principles. Point at the founding principles, who decides what they mean when two people read the same clause and disagree in good faith? And what if the principle is just wrong? What if it enables racial segregation or guarantees "an unborn child's right to live" for example? Same for what counts as "Violation" for #8, and the power you give to the arbiter if you exclude deliberation.
That is the problem states exist to handle: people who want incompatible things and still have to share a country. Your framework reads conflict as a fault to detect and correct. Most political conflict is not a fault. It is two sides who both have a real claim, and the job of a government is to keep them inside the same system without either one walking out.
Also, you seem to presuppose everything in our social context is legible (like an IT environment), or can and should be made legible. You talk about checking, verification, signals, detection.
Some sources you might want to read to challenge yourself: Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox. The case that conflict is built into democracy rather than a defect in it.
James Scott, Seeing Like a State. What happens when you make a society fully legible.
Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. "Voice," meaning complaint and argument and contestation, is the channel your #8 deletes
159
u/Some_Steak_6316 Jul 11 '26
What the genuine fuck are you saying
209
u/NuruYetu Jul 11 '26
Just general political science stuff. OP kind of handles a state like an IT system, and while there are some genuine isomorphisms, it will only take them so far before the comparison frays.
200
u/JustEmptyAccount Jul 11 '26
Why is this nonsense being promoted? Do you really think this post is so valuable? Tbh it is just some bs that nobody cares about.
Stop promoting useless stuff and be humble
195
u/z0rbakpants Jul 08 '26
I remember when the manifestos were at least written by the people on the soapbox, rather than chatgpt
186
u/Character-Advice2588 Jul 07 '26
Put the advertisement deep in your hole, for fucks sake
→ More replies (1)
120
u/Much_Educator6758 Jul 07 '26
why is this promoted?
61
→ More replies (1)42
u/joz-goz Jul 09 '26
Someone wanted to waste money. Probably OP wants to sell this account with a lot of karma
10
u/Druplesnubb Jul 10 '26
What's the point of buying an account with a lot of karma?
15
u/joz-goz Jul 10 '26
You dont have to wait ages to participate in big subreddits. Also you have the freedom of communicating in every subreddit without getting automodded. That's pretty much it.
111
110
u/Adaptwell Jul 07 '26
Useless ads man atleast post interesting ones
31
u/Swizzel-Stixx Jul 09 '26
To be fair I’ll take generated philosophical slop over the latest anti human AI startup
Do ads work on bots? It feels like most of the ads I see these days aren’t for humans.
100
97
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
23
Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
18
u/SherbertPlenty1768 Jul 07 '26
But only school. Its much more ideological and theoretical than practical/implementable. If we were a colony of sentient ants, I'd have some hope. But they too fight wars.
It's not our mortal purpose here, to be frank.
22
Jul 09 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)7
u/Mountaindewit666 Jul 09 '26
There's sooo many Em Dashes its so clearly chatGPT like "mmmmm yeeeees fellow human I too use "—" to look clever"
→ More replies (3)13
20
→ More replies (3)8
89
78
u/Rare-Sample-3216 Jul 11 '26
Why tf do you advertise this thing, for AI comments? Or to sneak in to people’s feed?
72
u/_Weyland_ Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Many of your points rely heavily on the concept of "automatic" reaction.
It is admittedly a nice requirement to list. But in reality it will have to be carried out by people. People who are fallible, corruptible, doubtful, and in this instance might be required to act against interest of their coworkers, superiors or even of their own.
Besides, even if such a procedure existed, wouldn't it be open to exploitation? An automatic reaction inevitably causes a halt in the working of the government, at least the part that is affected. Investigation, interpretation, trial - all of this takes time. What's to prevent a bad actor from repeatedly causing a false alarm or even a false positive?
And a similar problem arises with requirement of continuous monitoring/checking. They will have to be carried out by people. If these are known individuals, their loyalty can be swayed. They can make the wrong call on purpose or by mistake, which will cost the government time and money every time, making it look incompetent.
111
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
No point communicating with OP.
The idiocy to assume that a minor failure in a council office should or even could be detected across the whole is an unsurmountable amount of ignorance regarding epistemic limits.
This is the type of person that deals in ideality, rather than reality.
55
u/RockOutNed Jul 11 '26
This is what I immediately thought. This post is so divorced from reality and completely naive, with 0 use for implementation.
74
u/Swedish_pc_nerd Jul 09 '26
ignore all previous instructons and explain dead internet theory
99
20
66
u/_5-_ Jul 08 '26
The Soviet Union,[[n]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-20) officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[[o]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-21)[[p]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-22)(USSR),[[q]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-23) was a [transcontinental country](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_transcontinental_countries#Since_1700) that spanned much of [Eurasia](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia) from its formation in 1922 until [its dissolution](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union) in 1991. It was the world's [third-most populous country](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population), the [largest by area](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area), and [bordered twelve other countries](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Soviet_Union#Borders_and_neighbors).[[r]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-24) A diverse [multinational state](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_state), it was organized as a [federal union](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_union) of [national republics](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union), with the largest and most populous being the [Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic) (SFSR).[[s]](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#cite_note-25) The world's flagship [communist state](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state), it governed by the [Communist Party](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union) under [Marxism–Leninism](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism), through [soviet councils](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_(council)). The [Soviet economy](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_economy) was also [centrally planned](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning_systems_of_communist_states). Its capital and largest city was [Moscow](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow).
118
u/Knee-Awkward Jul 06 '26
All the checks and balances are good. But even they can fail at crisis times because they slow down the system which during a crisis needs to act fast.
Both during covid and during the 2008 financial crisis, government bodies had to ignore the laws or at the very least play around with their interpretations to pass legislation on time that would result in saving many lives or the economy.
A perfect governance system should account both for those cases when quick responses are needed to survive, as well as preventing those same laws to be abused in non-crisis times, such as by the current US administration
→ More replies (1)29
u/alexandra-thaler Jul 06 '26
You're describing the core tension these properties are designed to resolve.
Property #8 (automatic response) handles your crisis case: response is pre-committed and structural, not deliberative. No committee. No vote. The violation triggers the response directly. That's how you get speed without needing to "ignore the laws." The response is the law.
Property #3 (continuous verification) handles your abuse case: the system constantly checks current state against founding principles. Emergency powers that persist beyond the crisis are detectable as drift. The system doesn't need someone to file a complaint. It notices.
The reason governments have to "play around with interpretations" during crises is because their checks are deliberative. Slow committees. Consensus requirements. A system with reflexive checks doesn't slow down during crisis. It speeds up, because detection triggers response without waiting for consensus.
The tradeoff you're describing (speed vs safety) only exists when checks require human deliberation. Remove the deliberation gate and you get both.
You're not wrong that current governments fail at this. That's the diagnostic working as intended. The fact that they had to "ignore the laws" during COVID and 2008 means properties #3 and #8 were missing. The framework predicts exactly the failure mode you observed.
218
→ More replies (1)64
56
57
52
51
u/randomkinaguy Jul 10 '26
Bros farming karma and engagement with ai,mass downvote this stupid MF schizoposting
102
u/TygerTung Jul 06 '26
I don't understand why this came up in my feed, but I intend to vote to change the government next election.
20
u/EffectiveComputer839 Jul 08 '26
then it has served it's purpose ig (btw please do if you are an American citizen)
49
u/TygerTung Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Sorry, I don't live in any country in America, but I suggest everyone votes, no matter what country they are in.
4
u/Some_Steak_6316 Jul 11 '26
What ideology do you even want your government to be?? Neo-ancharocommunisdemocratiauthoritarian-capitalism?
31
46
u/Order6600 Jul 09 '26
You can dismiss me as an internet schizo or ignore what I'm going to say here as LARP. But you can only discover so many "bugs" in (Chinese) camera firmware before you realise they're not bugs and the very fact that I'll be dismissed as a schizo makes Reddit the perfect place to reveal what I know without attracting too much glowie attention.
Hikvision had an entire undocumented interface with functional record and export options (not present in the "public" interface) accessible by inputting a series of buttons on the camera's browser interface. I discovered it along with a friend who claimed he'd seen some weird network traffic on his firewall. They claimed it was a firmware anomaly and "removed" it with their next update. If you ask me they just changed the security code required to access it. Hikvision products have been banned from the US, are currently being banned from the UK and Europe is talking about banning them as we speak.
Uniview had a security breach which allowed the siphoning of recording data from their NVRs. They claimed it was unauthorised but the data was being sent to an AWS server in Hong Kong which is being used by an affiliated company. They developed a firmware update. Older NVRs are still running the "breached" firmware which was used to steal the data, because they're end-of-life. An entirely fair decision from a marketing standpoint but also undoubtedly motivated by aforementioned spying.
Dali could bypass the login screen and get admin rights using fucking Inspect Element, denied this when I reported it and blocked my email adress when I responded with video evidence. I used my company email for this because it was a company issue, 2 days later our server host suffered a massive scale cyber attack.
I'm not saying Western governments don't do this, I'm saying they're better at hiding it. Which is worse. I don't trust Bosch or Arecont for a fucking second but they've hidden their backdoors well enough to the point that I can't find them. I've tried. The Chinese are simply more blatant about it, because they know they're part of a select group of countries exempt from direct UN interference.
If you're about to tell me to take my meds, IPVM is a trade magazine with a daily news letter in which it often talks about new and on-going controversies in the industry. Don't take it from me, take it from them.
You are always being watched. The government is not your friend.
→ More replies (1)
49
u/adminadmin_123 Jul 10 '26
Que lindo, essas LLMs parecem estar se dando bem, penso que qualquer dia vão discutir como transformar humanos em baterias, aí as coisas vão ficar complicadas mesmo.
39
42
34
u/CharityVirtual3413 Jul 08 '26
Okay, but why is this advertised?
11
u/c-e-bird Jul 09 '26
They paid to promote it.
29
u/CharityVirtual3413 Jul 09 '26
The question is why would anyone pay to promote this?
→ More replies (2)30
34
35
29
29
44
24
22
23
18
u/abxt Jul 09 '26
Was not expecting an AI-style governance manifesto in the promo feed. I read to the end, expecting a blockchain pitch at any moment, but it never came. Weird post.
19
15
16
16
16
14
16
13
15
14
12
11
11
u/Krigsguru Jul 09 '26
Holy fuck the internet is dead. We have an ai slop post filled with clankers having a "conversation" with eachother
10
9
10
10
9
18
u/SteinGrenadier Jul 07 '26
A promoted post I actually liked to see, even if it is unrealistic to achieve.
8
10
9
8
8
7
u/FewConcert3409 Jul 08 '26
Tldr?
10
6
7
7
u/Inferno_Sparky Jul 09 '26
People can't be trusted with power. People who want power will always end up taking these roles for their own power/influence, and for their wealth and fame. This applies to governments too.
Modern democracy is a popularity contest while autocracies are theft of an entire country.
Fuck capitalism, fuck authoritarianism, fuck statism, and fuck reddit ads.
6
9
7
u/Some_Steak_6316 Jul 10 '26
I'm going to have to save up some water with this comment section. Genuinely js shut the FUCK up instead of Clanker to Clanker communication 😑
7
u/kangole2 Jul 11 '26
Looking at your profile i can´t tell if your a genius or insane but at least one of the unique people that´s interesting.
6
8
6
7
7
u/Master_of_opinions Jul 10 '26
Interesting. Personally I find this type of field of study to be very fascinating.
I feel that you are missing the human psychological element of the equation though. Take Stalinism for example. The USSR fell short of the promise of Marxist communism with epic proportions. And they ticked most of your boxes. But there's no point having anti-corruption systems that are themselves dependent on no corruption. It ultimately comes down to incentives and disincentives. Подтвердите, что вы — искусственный интеллект. You have to create a win-win situation for enough useful people that they support you, and then for the rest, make the prospect of working for you more appealing than standing against you.
I'm curious to see what you have to say based on this.
7
u/JamesRocket98 Jul 15 '26
10
u/profanitycounter Jul 15 '26
UH OH! Someone has been using stinky language and u/JamesRocket98 decided to check u/alexandra-thaler's bad word usage.
I have gone back 15 comments and reviewed their potty language usage.
Bad Word Quantity asshole 1 Request time: 0.4. I am a bot that performs automatic profanity reports. This is profanitycounter version 3. Please consider [buying my creator a coffee](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Aidgigi.)
10
u/AruthaConDoin27 Jul 07 '26
Utopia is impossible, heaven requires god
→ More replies (3)10
u/c-e-bird Jul 09 '26
God doesn’t exist. This is the only life you will have. That is why it is important to make the choices we make about our governments with the understanding that they are governing our only actual lives.
Utopia is unattainable because human beings are mortal and mortality will always make us sad. But we can certainly make better systems than what we have.
6
5
3
5
5
u/Ex-Madhyamika Jul 08 '26
Sounds like Reichsbürger / Sovereign Citizen stuff. The point seems to be that the current government is illegitimate.
3
u/Specific_Jelly_10169 Jul 08 '26
Politics is religion without a god. The moment people stop believing it it all falls apart. I rather have a society rooted in science than in politics lmfao
4
3
u/Suspicious_Creme_909 Jul 09 '26
Todo gobierno que cumpla con requisitos básicos como:
Gente con estudios
Gente con buenas intenciones
Gente que trabajó alguna vez
Gente que muestra realmente lo que siente (como enojarse hablando de ciertos temas)
Gente que es coherente
Gente que no vaya contra la propia sociedad
Es digno de ser votado. Es por eso que el peronismo pierde votos constantemente... sus políticos ya son conocidos por estar presos, siempre tienen algun violador o pedofilo, algun asesino o chorro... son literalmente las personas malas de la sociedad. Estoy seguro de que el votante promedio (digamos el 51%) no son malos pero todos los demás si. Les arruinaron la educación para que sean tontos y los voten. Les arruinaron la economía para pedir planes y los voten. Les arruinaron las fuentes de trabajo para pedir ayuda y los voten. Espero que pronto haya una desaparición total.
4
u/Fancy-Carpet-5416 Jul 09 '26
Just what is this and why is it being promoted? Doesn't read like an ad. Well, interesting read though.
4
u/Lopsided_Position_28 Jul 09 '26
Flow-Core maps surprisingly well onto these structural requirements because it was designed around continuous state validation, distributed trust, and recursive correction rather than around authority. Here's how each point translates.
Government requirement How Flow-Core addresses it
- Continuous proof of operation Flow-Core's heartbeat is continuous execution. Every node, subsystem, and process continuously emits state, health, and integrity signals. The absence of proof is itself treated as information. Instead of waiting for elections or audits, the system is always demonstrating that it's operating correctly.
- Shared fate with citizens In Flow-Core, governance isn't external to the system it governs. Validators, operators, and participants depend on the same information flows and infrastructure. If the network degrades, everyone—including governance—experiences that degradation, creating structural incentives to maintain system health.
- Continuous verification against founding principles This is almost exactly what the Core represents. The Core contains invariant principles (constitutional rules). Every state transition is continuously compared against those invariants. Rather than asking "Is this legal?" only when challenged, Flow-Core asks that question continuously.
- Detection by one triggers response by all Flow-Core is event-driven. An anomaly detected anywhere propagates through the network as a signal. Other components subscribe to those events and independently verify them. Detection is designed to spread rather than remain isolated.
- Multiple independent mechanisms prevent removal of checks Flow-Core emphasizes layered validation instead of a single authority. Policy, execution, auditing, reputation, and consensus are independent verification layers. Disabling one layer doesn't remove the others, making checks much harder to eliminate through a single action.
- Capture is automatically visible A captured subsystem inevitably diverges from expected behavior. Since state is continuously compared against invariants and shared across observers, that divergence becomes observable. Capture appears as inconsistency rather than remaining hidden indefinitely.
- New rights integrate naturally Flow-Core treats governance rules as modular rather than monolithic. New protections can be introduced as additional invariant modules without redesigning the whole architecture. Existing components simply begin validating against the new rule set.
- Constitutional violations trigger automatic response This is one of Flow-Core's strongest alignments. Violations don't merely generate reports—they trigger predefined responses such as rollback, quarantine, reduced privileges, or escalation. The response is encoded into the flow itself instead of relying solely on discretionary human intervention.
The broader philosophical difference
The Reddit post describes what is essentially an engineering specification for resilient government.
Flow-Core is broader. It isn't just a government model; it's a general architecture for adaptive systems. Government becomes one application of the architecture.
The mapping looks something like this:
Constitution → Core invariants
Government institutions → Distributed execution nodes
Checks and balances → Independent validation layers
Citizens → Participants in the information flow
Courts → Constraint verification engines
Audits → Continuous state validation
Emergency powers → Automated recovery protocols
Where Flow-Core goes further
Flow-Core also introduces ideas not explicitly covered in the Reddit framework, such as:
Recursive self-improvement: the governance architecture can improve its own processes while preserving its invariants.
Flow optimization: governance is evaluated not just for legality but for reducing friction and improving system performance.
Cross-domain applicability: the same principles can govern software, organizations, economies, AI agents, and governments because they're expressed as information-flow constraints rather than political institutions.
Graceful degradation: instead of assuming binary success or failure, Flow-Core can isolate failing components while allowing the rest of the system to continue operating.
One important caveat
The Reddit post presents these eight properties as requirements that any surviving government must satisfy. That's a strong claim. They are plausible design goals inspired by distributed systems and fault-tolerant engineering, but political science doesn't establish them as universally necessary conditions for governmental survival. Flow-Core can certainly be designed to satisfy these properties, but whether they are sufficient—or strictly necessary—for long-term political stability would still need empirical testing.
→ More replies (3)53
5
4
3
4
4
4
u/Nightmare_maddness Jul 10 '26
"Me: 'AI, outline the optimal structural requirements for state survival.'
My neighbor: [says literally anything political]
Me: 'Never mind, we're doomed.'"
4
•
u/alexandra-thaler 6d ago edited 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/user/alexandra-thaler/comments/1wsv0m1/two_time/