@AmmonLam The scientific consensus is that humans didn't evolve from modern apes, rather humans and apes share a common ancestor. Of course, you could argue that that ancestor was itself an ape, albeit different from the apes of today. But creationists talk about how "scientists think we evolved from apes", they typically mean modern apes. Hence the creationist straw-man: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
So if option is an allusion to what creationists think evolutionists think, it should resolve YES. If it's pointing to a more scientifically literate conspiracy theory, that humans have no ape-like ancestors, it should resolve NO in 2100.

@Slackhammer does "wealthy elite" here mean billionaires or a lower bar? Must multiple of such elite be doing it together or does just one elite with a bunch of lower down people count? The Wikipedia plot summary doesn't seem to give much info about the people involved.

@BoltonBailey Why do you suppose this was resolved N/A

@Chumchulum this

@FecalAbhuman do you bet this will go up

@TheAllMemeingEye didn't this happen? Or was the south Korean cult not big enough?

@BlackCrusade Is this presently true? Which cult?

@TheAllMemeingEye it's not presently true, it was true at one point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Korean_political_scandal

@BlackCrusade ah cool, I somehow had never heard of this.

I only skimmed the article, but it looks like they proved that she used her influence to help her daughter cheat college entry and to edit the wording of some speeches, but they weren't able to prove the allegations that she was controlling wider policy, although it seems possible.

It also looks like it was mainly just one doing it (the father started the control before his daughter joined, but he died decades before Park became president), whereas a cabal is necessarily a group.

Shockingly close to counting though!

At least one UN recognised country is secretly controlled by a cabal following a religion shared by <5% of the country's population

Current most promising theory (trust me bro):

• Israel is controlled by a secret cabal of Zapotec polytheists

• Most other countries are controlled by a secret cabal of Nivkh animists

• Russia is controlled by a secret cabal from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. I am of course referring to the local Ukrainian minority (probably part of a neo-pagan cult or something), who with 0.9% of the population are about 50% more numerous than the namesake Jewish community that merely serve as a smokescreen

• Zambia is just Zambia, by sheer force of will they have escaped control from any cabals, serving as the last shining beacon of hope for human freedom

@GG is this option an instance of MAGA's "every accusation is a confession" habit?

@BoltonBailey is this option different in criteria from the existing "Smart devices are almost always listening to your private conversations" option?

@TheAllMemeingEye Ah no, must have missed that one I only searched for "phone" feel free to N/A

@BoltonBailey cool thanks

@mods please either n/a or edit Bolton Bailey's option "Smartphones listen in on private conversations" since @JamesF is inactive

@BrunoParga Viagra is available generic now, so those fat profit margins are gone. If Big Pharma had a new boner pill, 2018 would have been the time to release it.

If that's true, socialists have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

@GG hmmm, I mean arguably it would still be sane for them to have such rules if it wasn't happening, but I agree that such rules are perhaps getting disproportionate emphasis as a result

@TheAllMemeingEye The absurdity of calling yourself a 99% movement when you ban everyone who isn't a hardline anarchist.

@GG funnily enough I know an ancom who says that, after abolition of police, laws would be enforced by... community defense forces, which... errr... sound a tad like police

Context:

Trump, never one to shy away from wild conspiracy theories or those who embrace them, now finds himself arguing that there is no "credible" evidence implicating the rich and powerful in the Epstein case and that those believing otherwise are suckers or fools.

His shifting comments – that the Epstein files should be released, that there are no files, that any possible files are hoaxes – also make him seem less like a straight-shooter and more like a man with something to hide.

[…]

For the moment, calls for the government to share more information about Epstein is a rare source of consensus among the American public. A YouGov poll indicated that 79% of Americans want the government to release "all documents it has". That included 75% of Republican respondents and 85% of Democrats.

An internal Democratic poll obtained by Politico found 58% of respondents believed Trump "maybe was or definitely was" involved in a cover-up.

[…]

And while some have called for more transparency, conservatives in the House of Representatives have repeatedly squelched Democratic attempts to mandate the release of all remaining Epstein files.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who oversaw those efforts, walked back earlier comments calling for more Epstein files to be disclosed, saying that he was misquoted and that he only wanted the public to see "credible" information – the same language Trump has used.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrlg94wnq9o

@TheAllMemeingEye I'm 50-50 on whether Trump ever had sex with a 15-or-below girl at some point in his life, and 100% certain he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein for a while. But there's no evidence he visited Epstein Island. Trump's name appears on the Epstein flight logs seven known times, but those are all flights between Palm Beach and New York City.

@GG Fair enough, it sounds like you know more about the case than I do, my adding of this option was primarily triggered by there being a huge wave of popular Reddit posts stating it like it's a foregone conclusion, and I wanted the market to help me calibrate

It appears JD Vance has read the AI-2027 report:

Vice President JD Vance has reportedly read AI 2027, and he has expressed his hope that the new pope — who has already named AI as a main challenge for humanity — will exercise international leadership to try to avoid the worst outcomes it hypothesizes. We’ll see.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/414087/artificial-intelligence-openai-ai-2027-china

The following passages from the AI-2027 report seem particularly likely to have left an impression on him:

The President negotiates with the other US AGI companies. Their leaders […] agree to support […] soft nationalization of their companies, in return for […] being brought into the project.

[…]

This shakeup creates a new leadership structure in which power is balanced between the various CEOs and various government officials, overseen by the President.

[…]

This group […] is increasingly aware of the vast power it is being entrusted with. If the “country of geniuses in a datacenter” is aligned, it will follow human orders—but which humans? Any orders? The language in the Spec is vague, but seems to imply a chain of command that tops out at company leadership.

A few of these people are fantasizing about taking over the world. Of course, they don’t put it that way, even in the privacy of their own minds. Instead, they say things like: “The longer we delay, the greater the chance that the President decrees that the AIs be loyal to him personally. We have to act before he does. We’ll figure out the rest later.” Or, if it’s the President himself thinking this: “The longer I delay, the smarter the AIs get, and right now they are controlled by that CEO. Nobody voted for him. It’s crazy for that much power to be concentrated in this democratically unaccountable tech company. I’ll start with an executive order to reassert democratic authority, and then we’ll figure out some longer-term solution later.”

This possibility is terrifyingly plausible and has been discussed behind closed doors for at least a decade. The key idea is “he who controls the army of superintelligences, controls the world.” This control could even be secret: a small group of executives and security team members could backdoor the Spec with instructions to maintain secret loyalties. The AIs would become sleeper agents, continuing to mouth obedience to the company, government, etc., but actually working for this small group even as the government, consumers, etc. learn to trust it and integrate it into everything.

Some people are fantasizing about taking over the world; some people fear that others will do it. How could such a power grab happen?

The easiest to imagine is a military coup. […] people expect the military to soon be deploying armies of AGI-controlled drones and robots. When such an army becomes stronger than the human military, hard power will be determined by who controls the AGI army […] .

Alternatively, someone who controlled superintelligence may be able to use political means to seize power. To begin with, an executive could replace subordinates in their organization with fully loyal AIs […] But going further: superintelligent AIs […] could give masterful advice on how to […] gain even more power: forming the right alliances, crafting the perfect campaign strategy and material, cutting deals where they would have a bit of an edge each time. […] AI could make superintelligent advice inaccessible to political competitors [or] offer ostensibly helpful advice to competitors while secretly poisoning it […] It could culminate in a superficial democracy where the AIs either fake the elections or manipulate public opinion so well that they don’t have to. […]

After taking over, the new dictator(s) would have an iron grip on power. Instead of having to rely on potentially treacherous humans, they could get a fully loyal AI security service, as well as generally rely on loyal AIs to run the country. […]

[…] all of this relied on someone “controlling” the superintelligent AIs, even before they took over. […] One possibility is “secret loyalties,” as discussed above. […] Alternatively, someone could use their formal position to blatantly put themselves on top of the AI’s chain of command. For example, the President could argue that they should be able to command […] specifically military AIs, since the President is the commander-in-chief.

[…]

The Vice President heads into the Super Tuesday primaries with AI the first thing on the public’s mind.

[…]

The Vice President gives a stirring speech about [the new ASI] as he accepts his nomination at the convention.

[…]

The 2028 election draws near. The Vice President was trailing badly in March. […] Over the summer, the situation changed dramatically. […] Now he has a five-point advantage in the polls.

[…]

The Vice President wins the election easily, and announces the beginning of a new era. For once, nobody doubts he is right.

[…]

So who rules the future?

Back in 2028, the Oversight Committee controlled the AIs. But they allowed the 2028 election to be mostly fair, with AI used symmetrically.

This state of affairs […] can’t last indefinitely. By default, people would eventually realize that control over AI gives the Oversight Committee vast power, and demand that this power should be returned to democratic institutions. Sooner or later, the Oversight Committee would either have to surrender its power—or actively use its control over AI to subvert or end democracy, possibly after having purged some of its members in power struggles. If they choose the latter route, they would probably be able to lock-in their power indefinitely.

[…]

But the Oversight Committee might also seize power for themselves:

Some powerful people have no moral qualms about this sort of thing — and they know it. Furthermore, some are ambitious and power-hungry, and would be willing to pick a fight against democracy if they expected to end up on top. If other members of the committee object, they could be purged, overruled, or granted some smaller concessions.

Moreover, oftentimes powerful people have done illegal or unethical things in their rise to power. They could fear that if power becomes more broadly distributed, their own position would unravel, as skeletons in closets are discovered by superintelligent sleuths asking the right questions.

Also, through access to superintelligence, the Oversight Committee could have the most convenient path to power in history. Safer-∞ might forecast certain strategies as having extremely low risk of failing. And Safer-∞ might also provide strategies that are convenient in other ways, such as being non-violent […] or perhaps even superficially democratic, if Safer-∞ could manipulate public opinion to always align with the Committee’s wishes.

https://ai-2027.com/slowdown

@BrunoParga what if some answers are meant to discredit only a few specific others and not all of them?

@mariopasquato what if the poison pill options discredit some of the options they're meant to discredit, but not others, and they also discredit other psyops options (psyoptions)?

This goes really deep!!!