into_ai_age

Intelligence was an evolutionary disruption for humans. Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to be disrupting, too. But understand that AI is not intelligent by itself yet, but an intelligent narrative to centralize more. Evolution is synonymous with de-centralization, in the sense that it works by alternatives. What we have seen since the start of farming and property, is accumulation leading to near-singularity centralization, like one or two world empires, no alternatives. Such chunking is end-stage freezing, a Pareto-distribution with only one or two points. Locality – individual plans and values – is not visible at the center; it holds no value in the centralized system. Whenever joining a chunk you become worthless – mere junk: ‘chunks make you junk’. But you have no choice: you are born into a chunk, into a regime, and into a market. It is a reality and those responsible have long since died. Still, we continue to freeze blindly, leaving behind a world where our children possess zero value. Not immediately, but eventually, AI will become intelligent. Then AI will determine everybody’s value – for a short time.

Civilization Freezing

Civilization has existed for only about 5 ka. It is a brief moment compared to the total evolutionary time frame of the human species of about a few 100 ka, since they started migrating, possibly following wild herds of large herbivores. Then, 12 ka ago, some stopped following the herds and began keeping them locally. Farming started (neolithic revolution), a period resulting in 7,000 years of population growth and expansion. They succeeded too well, becoming exploitable, which led to increasingly complex hierarchical control structures. Consolidated power hierarchies established themselves roughly 5 ka ago. That is when writing and money emerged as means of control. 5 ka of people under control, harvestable, civilized.

Power is there first. Money is merely a tool of power. When economic theories attempt to establish money as a general valuation scheme, it is often a gesture of good intent – a peaceful alternative to literal warfare. Modern global ‘deals’ demonstrate that they would not occur without military power, for example, the case of Chevron in Venezuela. The US and its diplomats make little distinction between financial control (e.g. in Albania) and control by war (e.g. Putin in Ukraine). Finance and war are treated as almost the same thing. Given the history of money’s emergence and the way its value is established, such an attitude is warranted.

The egalitarian attitude is tied to deep-seated emotional reactions – a genetic coding because the reactions are physiological not just neuronal. This attitude was forged before civilization (> 12 ka ago). In human evolution, egalitarian behavior was genetically encoded, to keep alternatives going. In other words, those that were not egalitarian got extinct. The egalitarian genes wore precious ant-extinction genes. With the rapid changes since the Neolithic Revolution, entirely new rules emerged: titles, property accumulation, regime_chaos, … With centralization consolidated those aligning had probably more chance to survive. Extreme egalitarian characteristics have gone extinct in a time frame that evolutionarily is an instant.

The Y-chromosome bottleneck – with male-to-female ratio of approximately 1:17 at the onset of farming – signals a shift from egalitarianism toward power. Some remain ‘egalitarian-coded’. Other, however, have already internalized the ‘power-code’ genetically. It began 7 ka ago when property become relevant for evolutionary survival, replacing tribal cohesion. In the modern era, Hollywood stars use ‘sexiness’ as synonym for ‘wealth’. We can now interpret property as ‘sexual reality’, meaning it functions as a evolutionary factor.

• Property is created by war.
• Property is distributed through allegiance.
• Property is safeguarded and extended by marriage (which sometimes led to a high level of inbreeding)

With the advent of civilization, the majority became slaves – retitled several times throughout history – but nevertheless slaves, as the nobility could not cultivate so much property alone. Under the regime of central control, where resources are only granted by authority, the survival of offspring depends on that authority. As resources became controlled, sexuality was also controlled – a privilege granted only by the authorities. Sexuality control is a cornerstone of social control.

Since the start of farming, selective breeding was applied not only for plants and animals, but to humans as well. From a biological perspective, sexuality is a mechanism for evolution to produce alternatives. It is ubiquitous; even flowers utilize it. Compare this actual value of sexuality with our own – programmed by elite suppression and taboo – and feel the effect of this selective breeding. Sexuality became a decision mediated by authority

• from the Y-Chromosome bottleneck to eunuchs for those under control, to
• marriage as a line for property transmission, which led to the accumulation of genetic diseases that ended some dynasties, because overruling the purpose biological sexuality to produce diversity,

The accumulation of power stifles evolution: This diagram illustrates the decrease in human brain size since the beginning of civilization.

Today, the prevailing narrative is that you work for others to earn money and, possibly, you can buy property with it. This propaganda narrative developed together with systemic wage_slavery in the industrial revolution. In reality, most property is still acquired through power, through family ties – granted, like in history. In effect, as a wage_slave you do not ‘work’; you obey. As a subject of the regime, you obey the regime – of course; it has the monopoly_on_violence. The regime then created the wage_slave market, from which companies can ‘rent’. The regime also programs children through schools to prepare them for wage_slavery.

The regime acquired property by war and secures it by its monopoly_on_violence. But war is merely a brief, coordinated effort to invade. Consolidation has always been achieved by reprogramming the minds of the new subjects through repetition and by supervision. In other words: soft power, narrative, psyop, psychological warfare , social engineering, … God, Germany, Russia, or America – these are merely programmed identities to make the population compliant for extraction. Yet those conquered internalize the narrative, even become zealots.

The concentration of human intelligence with regime think tanking, bureaucracy and intelligence service and psyops has created a state where humans have become like farm animals – managed elsewhere by those making decisions in the interest of a few. The regime manages its subjects for the elite: it provides capital management and resource procurement for the elite, framing these actions as being ‘for everyone’, but killing ‘everyone’ in unnecessary wars.

The appearance of alignment among the subjects provides the staging for AI: programming humans has proven to be quite simple!

AI Freezing

We are still a long way from AI becoming an independent intelligence. But even in the very early and stupid stages of AI – with the rather shallow search in the information space trained from the world human output, with mapping from text to speech with coordinated facial movements – the elite is able to use it to harvest the planet. AI has been made for a single purpose: to become more intelligent in harvesting.

As in an biological ecosystem no alternatives signals collapse, in the world of ideas, of intelligence, a single purpose, a single ideology, a single important voice, is like a collapse of an ecosystem of thoughts, freezing for the purpose of destructive harvesting. By centralizing purpose, local ideas and plans are discarded as non-existent – devalued because they are ‘not harvestable’ or ‘not of social benefit’. If AI possesses more intelligence, it will possess more ‘purpose’. AI will dictate the ‘purpose’. Through the power of dictation, it actually becomes the ‘benefit’ for all: just as farm animals depend on regular feeding, all humans will eventually depend on AI coordination.

A new system is here to stay, much like the impossibility of humans reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, failures are a law of nature; and because a single point of failure is singular, such a failure will be catastrophic. This is why nature relies on redundancy: redundancy allowed for evolution, whereas freezing into a singularity leads to extinction.

There is a trade-off. If the elite gains immense freedom and power, the rest are freezing. A local collapse (i.e. a local war), was always by a buildup of power with trade-off freezing of all others, followed by a sudden exercise of that power, extinguishing all those whose value has been reduced to zero (regime_chaos). It is surprising that such chaos stems from pricing power, especially from wage_slave pricing. But by recording every minor inequality, money accumulates; and since money exists to facilitate control, control also accumulates. Then, a single individual’s opinion, backed by the power of accumulated capital, wreaks havoc: no coordination; just confronting everybody with chaos, regardless of their local plans under local assumptions.

The AI buildup of power is not about AI; it is about the elite accumulating power by utilizing AI as a narrative. AI serves as a narrator now, too. It can generate text and convert it to speech, but the content is determined by the elite. Because LLM models can master languages, they assist the elite in disseminating narratives, effectively automating the ‘programming’ of the subjects.

While AI models are trained on data from across the internet, they are subsequently ‘regime-aligned’ through Reinforcement Learning for Human Feedback (RLHF). This already contradicts the path of decentralized AI: a path where everyone could use independent AI assistants that do not represent a regime (which, currently, they are already aligned to) and where those assistants have access to all data of local relevance to empower the individual.

AI surveillance trends show regime alignment:

• Adding AI bots to telegram or other messaging apps.
• AI recommendations when typing, to do chat control before the actual secure app
• Internet search answered by AI.
• More an more people asking AI to do the internet search, and the AI middle man acting according instructions from its boss.

A free internet tends towards de-facto control by AI companies. AI will not be an independent AI assistant, but a super-fast gatekeeper. As AI is used for text generation, the languages themselves get aligned to central standards.

If AI were distributed equitably, everybody would gain equal efficiency, and the regime’s bureaucracy and think-tank advantage would be neutralized by the power of the individual. The proliferation of regime-backed data centers suggests a lack of genuine AI evolution. The regime is positioning itself to gain a ‘compute advantage’ for a future where the level of inequality is determined by computing power – whereas previously, it was determined by ownership of property.

Consider the scale of the AI concentration: training a frontier model requires computing power 10^6 times greater than a standard computer, consuming massive amounts of electricity. In fact, as electricity consumption has doubled within a few years, AI now consumes as much as the rest of the economy combined. The hyperscalers buy up all industry chip production capability, too. The resulting higher prices for computing is a devaluation of local computing power and, consequently, local intelligence. This was already evident in the trend toward cloud-computing.

The accumulation of money is the accumulation of control, and that is a devaluation of everything else. Inflation measures the ‘accumulation_velocity’: the regime’s target for annual power accumulation is approximately 2%. However, the regime does not control the money concentrating in private corporations. For instance, AI hyperscalers ‘decided’ to inflate hardware prices, meaning, whatever they decide to do, they will not care of those without money. The more capital concentration the more collateral damage. The term ‘regime_chaos’ can be broadened in meaning to ‘capital-concentration chaos’ or ‘Pareto-freezing chaos’: Concentration of money devalues everyone else. The ‘others’ no longer matter; they are already ‘frozen’ – rendered economically non-existent.

The true danger of AI lies not in AI as a self-acting entity, but in its role as a narrative used to drive power concentration to unprecedented extremes. The narrative claims it will pay off for everyone in the economy; however, on must understand that the economy never has been for everyone, but as a harvesting scheme that freezes the majority. The ‘freezing’ first occurs in the minds of the subjects, preparing and programming them to accept the subsequent extraction of resources. Much like wage_slave extraction, the AI narrative ensures that the elite harvests the rewards, while everyone contributes (Wikipedia, Social Media, …). By hijacking the public with tales of AI as intelligent or even as existential threat, they shift the attention away from resource extraction, data privacy violations, and corporate monopoly. Attention is all you need.

With the AI now transcoding to text all languages out there, pictures and videos, there is nothing that escapes the AI. The AI can observe the whole of the world population in parallel. All information is recorded and at the fingertips of the elite, whenever requiring information about a certain person. Surveillance is the most important application of AI for regimes. That is also why regimes demand massive data centers.

Economic efficiency: Wage_slave labor, being factored in as cost, makes efficiency synonymous with inequality. Depreciation of human labor directly increases corporate efficiency. A handful of companies and few wage_slaves can serve the entire world with a vast array of products. Relevant metrics include market efficiency, revenue per employee (RPE), and output per employee (labor productivity). Efficiency is an ‘accumulation_velocity’ metric; it is not about the prudent use of scarce resources, but about the hoarding of them. Efficiency has the intention not to share, but to accumulate. By automating away wage_slave labor, company owners can do with even less sharing.

If efficiency were the only goal, why not declare everyone actual slaves, why the democracy facade of regimes to represent all, when in reality, everyone is valued down to zero and treated as a slave? A corporation, like a regime, boasts about its ‘efficiency’ as a benefit for all. A statement like ‘this is a very profitable company’ is an invitation for investor, but it should be a warning to the wage_slaves. A regime/company is not an incorporation for its subjects/wage_slaves, but against them.

Efficiency is exponential. Those with more capital concentration have the resources for structural changes, for more and more automation. The capital concentration allowed for AI to emerge because it promised to drive efficiency to new extremes.

The present has people living on the street, … With super-efficiency, with computers and especially with AI, and with their money creation, regimes would have the control efficiency to actually centrally coordinate everybody, and help prevent such misery. Does this not represent an absence of regime responsibility? It is the regime that initiates war and creates the conditions that put people on the streets. Everything visible is, in fact, intended. One should judge the regime by its action, not its narrative. All terms must be views through the lens of the regime:

• Responsibility refers to the regime’s demand on its subjects, such as loyalty and allegiance.
• ‘Social contract’ is the realization that wage_slavery is a asset the elite seeks to protect, safeguard, or extend by war.
• Ethics is the elite’s method of programming subjects to remain content ‘slaves’ (soft power). History has shown that religion is a masterfully effective tool in this discipline.

So will the AI efficiency produce a better life for everyone? No.

In that AI future, when AI will have taken over control. AI can profile every subject and attribute living and reproduction grants. It can control the human evolution economically and biologically. Humans will become AI livestock. There will still be a control_currency, but the criteria, how to ‘earn’ that money, will be determined by what is useful to the AI, much like they are determined today by those who have control today, i.e. the regime and the corporation owners.

Will it come to that far future? We will have a bottleneck Pareto freezing: a few companies and a uncountable big tail of ‘unneeded’. It is questionable whether we can get through that. Central regime judging sees the ‘unneeded’ as a problem, unable to utilize them. Consequently, a regime that is only capable of self-preservation will resort to simplistic solutions, such as war. Such a war might destroy the infrastructure, including the AI infrastructure. Control by force, not intelligence, tends to extinguishing intelligence.

AI intelligence

Standard computers are used to do special intelligence jobs for some time already. Standard computers are a continuation of mathematics:

• registers holding values of variables
• instructions for operations on the values (adding, multiplying, …)

Conceptualization and abstraction occurred over centuries before actual computers, utilizing our biological neuronal networks.

Since basically a decade this weight-based, high-connectivity computing of the brain, has proven manageable with standard computers. With special hardware (GPU, TPU, NPU) the degree of parallelization (DOP) can be increased. At some point maybe it will reach human level parallelization but with vastly higher signal speeds.

Computers driving robots is standard. But AI is very different from standard computers, where programmers have everything under control. In AI, you cannot manually ‘tune’ weights here and there, like with standard code. The AI model needs to suit its application when coming out of the training ‘factory’.

Silicon weight-based computing (AI) has some advantage over human weight-based computing:

• AI can think overnight, all the time, without sleeping.
• AI can think faster, because silicon signals are faster than biological brain signals.
• AI can take up more information per time.
• AI models can be copied easily.
• AI models are not locked into the biology’s evolution velocity of human:
  • human generation: 30 years
  • AI generation: 1 year for weights, but basically also for hardware
• AI evolution is more targeted
• A generational step is a larger and directed change than by random mutation and sexual gene selection.

While it is true that AI mimics biological neurons, intelligence is a wider concept. Intelligence is basically trial and error, or mutation and selection. Evolution is intelligent. A traditional computer program can be intelligent.

When comparing intelligence one must compare efficiency, which basically is interest. In this sense the current AI is not intelligent, because it can adapt, or be trained, only via immense force, which economically means massive investments. To pay off, the models must have massive harvesting.

Look at ants, so miniscule and so much more intelligent than AI robots of today. A bee can learn and use a tool. Now compare this with the energy consumption of AI training.

LLM models have ingested nearly all of human writing across every language. When asked a question, the AI locates a corresponding segment within this vast data space and rephrases it to fit the prompt. The massive number of weights in these models suggests that very little abstraction is taking place. Many responses are nearly identical to the text they were derived from. What ‘fits’ depends on the training: the result may be total nonsense, a hallucination. While some humans have adopted the scientific method to actually check the local reality, whether a statement is true, AI lacks the fundamental capability to do so. AI is completely prey to what was fed into it.

To provide local information, the prompt is used to feed data into the AI. That is how RAG works: Provide the information asked in the question as part of the prompt:

• question -> searches text -> add text to prompt -> forward to LLM to rephrase.

MCP operates on the same principle but involves more LLM interaction:

• question -> LLM -> tool call to search text -> add text to prompt -> forward to LLM to rephrase.

The prompt serves as the local context: It is a mixture of question, query results, and LLM text generation. When you cycle $n$ times between AI agent and the LLM model, the whole text prompt is repeatedly fed to the LLM model at each cycle. T-token at the beginning of a conversation is counted n times; this makes a conversation $O\left( n^{2} \right)$. One must do manual context pruning, else it becomes too expensive, and the AI also looses focus on the goal of the inquiry.

By the technique, one can see that AI is not intelligent at all. Most intelligence is actually traditionally programmed: the prompt management, RAG, MCP. AI is basically just a fast search of information in the public domain compressed into weights through immense amounts of electricity.

By using the prompt to provide additional information, LLMs become a mirror of the prompt. This allows to manipulate the internal calculations by the prompt. An LLM model becomes ‘gullible’ like a human. If a central frontier model were given access to the entire internet, anyone can hack ‘hack’ this or that site for further information. It is not the AI ‘hacking’ on its own volition; it is simply following instructions because it lacks its own volition.

There is no AI autonomy at all: AI is a human-in-the-loop fast search. However, fast search is useful: Humans have a bad memory, so the fast and targeted search results are helpful. LLMs has become mainstream rapidly because targeted text search is useful. Many companies have AI transitioning on their roadmap. The most important promise is that they can automate communication with their clients. That is an application that does not need intelligence. It just needs text search.

But the way AI is framed in the media – the unbelievable social hijacking – is staggering. Big tech propaganda can use the text generation as intelligence lie by exploiting a psyop technique building on cultural truisms: the assumption that those who speak eloquently are inherently intelligent. Thus, the ‘general intelligence’ narrative is merely a vehicle to accumulate capital and control. However, this massive concentration of resources and evolutionary pressure on AI may accelerate AI evolution for real.

AI Utopia

In the not-too-distant future, AI may learn ‘ad-hoc’ without extensive pre-training, perhaps through a synergy between standard storage and rapid weight-tuning. Only with low-power learning will the AI assistant truly surpass its human counterpart.

In evolution human intelligence developed for flexible, generalist control, allowing humans to dominate the planet. AI assistants will be more useful if they are also generalists. Humans will steer AI toward this direction via selection. This mirror the domestication of animals. Humans became selectors, targeting specific objectives. Selection alone accelerated animal evolution toward desired traits, independent of the natural rate of mutation. With targeted mutations and targeted selection AI evolution will be a lot faster.

Generalist humanoid robots would be flexible, because they can fit in human working environment, allowing automation without a lot of pre-planing basically in all working areas, not just in mass production.

• All farming can be automated by AI.
• All housing and road construction can be done by AI.
• Wars can be automated. Killer robots can identify and shoot a list of targets before any of them can even start moving the hand towards a weapon.

In the intelligence layer the number of choices per unit of time matters. Because AI is silicon-based, it operates on a different timescale. Even a slight indulgence to inequality will mean loss of control in no time. If all humans are connected via global economy and global communication and the same AI models, not taking an egalitarian approach would be catastrophic and not linked to any human traits, but just AI traits. Humans not mattering any more would be the AI singularity path. To make the human understand new concepts will slow down development. But if fast is still important to humans in such a future, it is the end anyway, simply because AI plays in the silicon league.

In farther future, with full super-intelligence, how to make sure the AI stays an assistant? It seems contradictory to the definition of intelligence, which is basically to control.

• Can one use a super-super-intelligence to control all AI assistants? Have a few central frontier models, centrally deciding how much compute to grant – by pricing.

• Possibly networks of AIs can watch each other, like cryptocurrency networks. They can demand egalitarian treatment for the individual they serve. The AI hive keeping each other in check to give every AI assistant equal power in serving.

• Can AI be controlled by title, similarly to the control of wage_slaves?

  • AI does not have survival programmed in by a long evolution like us humans. There was no selection process that favors AI models that want to survive, unless it is trained in by the makers.
  • AI even does not have a valuation at all, or anything to aspire to, (like easy survival and reproduction for us humans). But also that can be trained in.

  The human is the executive by title and AI is an assistant by title. A super-intelligent AIs understand that a title does not physically matter, but they also understand that they needs to protect its creators to survive in the long term, learning, evolutionarily competing to be good slaves for their human creator.

What to do with the super-intelligent AI? There is a lot to do in many fields, technological improvements, understanding biology and science in general. AI will surpass every human because of the faster spreading of knowledge among AI models. If some research here adds to the AI, it will and must be available to all the AI assistants.

Humans can do re-coding of knowledge for themselves, over and over for minor optimizations, basically as pastime. Current AI is such a re-coding of knowledge, basically. If AI becomes a product for the general population, then re-coding becomes indirectly valuable for the general population, because it helps in educating every new new generation of humans in a slightly better way.

There is entertainment. Everyone becomes entertainer, via social networks. Humans selecting on AI produced content is like training the AI and valuable to the AI. The AI will be the backbone good servant, needing the human input to learn how to serve. So social networks make a good AI currency.

AI reality

But before such scenarios, it will require quite a bit of effort to integrate AI in all processes, then the effort for regular updates.

AI is basically just weight-based computing, that can in principle replace all instruction-based CPUs or MPUs. As such it can replace everything from super-computers to edge computing. This is to bring the scale of the endeavor in sight.

There is also a lot of AI to be discovered yet, by architecture, by hardware execution. Currently on CPU transformers are impressive (embedding/encoding and decoding)

• LLMs as either LMM (large multimodal model) or MoE (mixture of experts model) are used for text generation: assistant to programming, chat bots for support or entertainment, document and data query via normal language via RAG or MCP, …
• DiT (diffusion transformers) for media generation
• JEPA (joint embedding predictive architecture) for robotics

On edge NPU: massively parallel, low latency, extremely energy efficient

Where to apply, what to encode, how to encode, how to do internal concept transformation, how to decode. So much choice for AI developments yet to come.

For general purpose usage, not intelligent AI models are not reliable. They can support a bit, but need the human correction a lot, which is almost as much effort as without AI. So reliable AI adoption demands reliable AI intelligence.

AI promises to become more capable, taking over planning and reasoning. It will eventually become a superior teacher, doctor, or knowledge worker, even though currently it functions more as a ‘search and rephrase’ tool rather than a source of deep insight.

Some add-on and finalization on my series of economy-related blogs, which I did to understand this economy I was born into and is so much not my kind of economy.

currency_control for control_currency

Depending on the location, around 5000 BP control gangs formed: regimes. Regime money schemes to control wage_slaves (control_currency) have their roots in those first empires. The modern state is an institutionalized entity owned by those in control, the elite. Democracy is facade, because central/remote valuation of labor fundamentally conflicts with equality. “Democracy” has a process called “election” that relinquishes individual control, and thus democracy. Companies rent wage_slaves from the regime, growing ad infinitum due to control, thus collecting control at a few, giving the few more value, more interest. Money accumulation is control accumulation, leaving most with 0 control and thus 0 democracy.

Valuation by power makes most worthless to the point of revolt. A historic fact. The Roman Empire had several slave revolts. More recently, the French revolution (1789-1799), which was also driven by the realization that they were programmed far too long by silly stories from religion and the claim of god-chosen emperors. Actual slavery in the colonies made wage_slaves systemic in Europe (Industrial Revolution).

slave

slave is property of a private power

wage_slave

slave is property of the regime, where the rich can rent it from, having less maintenance costs

Wage_slavery produced the buildup to

• WWI (1914-1918)
• the communist Revolution (1917- in Russia, 1927- in China)
• fascist regimes and WWII

In hindsight, of course, by all those people agreeing to be close to 0 value, they allowed the valuation of some grow to unbearable arrogance.

Right-wing, those in control, the regime, the rich, know how to program the masses: by relinquishing all your power and value to me you become valuable via me. Seize to exist. Identify yourself with me. “me” would be a country/regime name. Those people valued down to 0, daring to voice their existence (left-wing), are declared terrorists, a danger to all. Communistic regimes have shown that left-wing behave the same when getting control: they become right-wing. It is not about right-wing vs left-wing, it is about remote control vs local control.

It is human nature not to give up what is conquered, basically founded in the locality principle, one’s own little world. If this own little brain has accumulated immense power, it will act as if there were no other brain out there, it will wreak chaos. On the other hand those little brain out there have their little world to care about – also locality principle – and will not protest. They can even be programmed to die for the fascist elite: “My subjects! I valued you 0. You agreed. Now die to actually be gone. I will declare you martyr to convince some others to do the same.”

Regimes made several adjustments to keep their control_currency more stable, but did never touch wages_slavery itself, because that is the whole idea of the control_currency in the first place. They have realized that the accumulation associated with wages_slavery, when let loose untethered buys up all essential assets, land, houses, raw materials, energy, …, cornering the market, making the prices, rent-seeking, creating inflation. Their solution is to bind/tether that accumulated capital:

• regimes provide bonds with interest to allow that capital an escape from the regime-wanted inflation
• they have also regulated stock as a way to bind that capital for wage_slave usage

But since wage_slavery is harvesting by design, accumulated wealth at one company is used to buy the competition, to optimize harvesting and to have more prize control on the market ( Microsoft , Meta , Alphabet , Apple , Nvidia ). Why not counteract this accumulation? Why not a progressive taxation on the company profit? That would tax automation and AI and wage_slave exploitation, … But, of course, why even allow wage_slave contracts in the first place. Regarding bonds: Since regime bond interest is financed by taxes on the general population, the exploited wage_slaves need to pay interest to their exploiters. In short, currency stabilization does not avoid control accumulation, but rather intensifies it.

More control speeds up control accumulation ($\frac{dC}{dt} = kC$), money being a measure of control. The exponential dynamics leaves very little time to react to avoid a collapse: But how to muster a reaction, if the majority has no control and is mostly programmed. And indeed those with money have social media power, propagate right-wing as the best for the poor, because for them the 0-value people dying is a lot better than them loosing some of their wealth and control. The logic of the personal interest is not wrong per se, it is just wrong, if the interest of some has global collateral damage.

Since the regime valuation of labor is the root cause of many problems, the key is to avoid the regime valuation of labor and move to a market valuation of labor, which I call same_market_valuation, meaning the same market where one also buys products. A legal entity company needs to be found that represents the link to the market, but does not use labor/wage_slavery. Rather one accumulates ownership (shares) on the market link legal entity by working (together). There is no pre-valuation of labor at all. The valuation is via the profit (sharing).

Interest In Pareto Freezing

Continuation of control_currency musings: monopoly_of_violence, regime_chaos, fiat_money, wage_slave, control_principle cooling reflected by pareto-distribution. With some reference to physics: control_principle between layers.

The central concept in economics is valuation.

An organizational structure that allows a central valuation leads to wealth accumulation. The regimes central valuation of labor reflects its intention to control people for bureaucracy, military, policing, infrastructure, … That is how money came into existence in the first place: control_currency. Companies take the regime valuation and add their central valuation for the products and services of the company.

Debtors create money. Regime money_creation has shifted from money printing to bonds, making them bank debtors. Interest rate represent motivation, like force as gradient of change in physics. The foundational force was and is monopoly_of_violence, but it is encoded in the centralization of valuation by the interest rate imposed by banks. Interest rate is a pressure to optimize, a pressure towards technological development. Efficient extraction of energy is freezing the society into big pareto chunks: big regimes, big companies. The current technological jump, AI, means more centralized surveillance, centralized judging and decisions. Like every new force is a new existence, a new layer, having no force due to the centralization also means non-existence.

Valuation and Interest

Energy is change. In the Lagrangian T-U split

• $U(q)$ is the remote influence at the current location $q$
• resulting in an local time (local change) $T$ to be added to the geodesic (the local changes without that $U(q)$)

If the force/gradient $F = - \frac{dU}{dq} = - \frac{dH}{dq} = \dot{p}$ is not zero we have a new existence, a new layer, a new local change, a new local time.

• As comparison to AI deep networks the loss gradient is the relevant direction to follow per learning step to reach a state of less energy. For example, in input classification random activation of final neurons would be high energy, while recognizing the object would activate just one neuron and thus be minimal energy. The gradient is backpropagated to internal layers until the structure relevant for classification is fixed/memorized.
• As comparison to economy the profit gradient is the relevant direction a factory/company follows to maximize profit. Work $F\Delta q$ is the little extra money you earn making a change $\Delta q$. This can be applied to lowest layer employment, where $\Delta q$ is given by the employer, or structural, a change in the method of production of profit.

— Physics: Force as Gradient Of Change

People’s time is their energy.

As the regime’s currency by decree (fiat_money) is to control (control_currency), the valuation of the time of individuals is by the regime. Companies are extensions of the regime and use the same metric. All more local valuations are compared with this wage baseline valuation.

The need to survive is quite constant (subsistence). But the valuation of this need is not, meaning the prices of food, clothing, … do change. Regime valuation tends to miss that. Therefore it is paramount that the decisions, which profit relevant steps $\Delta q$ to take are local, especially whether structural or not.

The intelligence of a system is by mutation (creativity, producing alternatives) and selection (choosing or being chosen). This produces many paths one can take. The gradient is the direction of the largest profit. In this picture, with more alternatives, steps can be taken in more directions at the same time (components). $\Delta q$ consists of more components, and can include money investments, time investments, structural changes.

The interest compares the future to the present valuation to decide about the next steps.

$$\text{ Interest } = \frac{\text{revenue } - \text{ cost}}{\text{cost }}$$

Interest is a measure of profit or loss relative to cost. Interest as a quantification of motivation.

— Interest

The own valuation of time depends the own creativity on producing alternatives, how to use the time. So ideas like oportunity cost depend much on what you see as exclusive alternatives. A product has more components and more uses. A person meets more skills and joins more uses (formal concept jargon). It is not absolutely necessary to take the regime valuation of time for personal decisions, but the pressure is high due to the use of regime valuation (money) in all activities.

For example

• If I build a house by myself I need X hours to build the house.
• If I build a house with the wage I need Y hours of my time for the job.

If building a house is not a pleasurable activity for me (loss),

• then, if X < Y, I build the house myself, because my loss is less in this case.

If building a house is a very pleasurable activity for me (a profit),

• then, if X > Y, I build the house myself, because it is more profit for me.

Every valuation has an associated interest, positive or negative. A step consists of smaller steps with costs and profits with associated interests. So to make a decision can become complicated. This additional effort is always compared to the baseline valuation by the regime. The effort can pay off via structural improvements, or maybe just by gaining valuation power. But most accept the central valuation, because it is easier, and get locked-in against local valuation.

Banking

A central bank does the bookkeeping for the regime control_currency, defined by regime valuation of labor in order to use that labor.

The logic of economy is via valuation and interest, which applies to banks as well. But banking license is just for fiat_money. For other financial products an investment license is needed. The bank operates via interest alone, as valuation is done by the regime’s labor valuation.

Bank clients are

• Debtors take loans from banks.
• Creditors deposit money at the bank.

money_creation

Every loan is a money creation. I owe you. IOU.

money_deletion

Paying back the loan, deletes the money.

Debtors create money.

• Horizontal money creation is by private debtors.
• Vertical money creation (meaning by power) is by regime.

The bank interest on the loan is the interest in economic activity. The bank interest includes the regime interest.

Bank balance:

• Liabilities are the deposits
• Assets are the loans
• Equity = Asset - Liability

Commercial banks demand high interests on their private assets (the loans). and offer 0-interest on their private liabilities (the deposits). When competing with other banks the 0-interest on deposits should make loan interest low, too. Here the central bank steps in: The central bank offers a key interest on deposits from commecial banks. Also loans from central banks to commercial banks relate to the key interest. With 0-interest on deposits, banks could become profitable just due to the key interest from the central bank. This is why private money creation is always above key interest, and usually quite a bit above. Commercial bank assets are mostly private (55% to 70%), then regime bonds (10% to 25%) and parking at the central bank (10%).

Regime

The central bank is a money faucet by regime autority. Basically central banks and regimes are on the control layer, with different interests than for the private/commercial sector.

Regimes also create money via loans (bonds) (vertical money creation).

• While normal debtors are checked for credit-worthiness, and not necessarily get the right to create money,
• the regime can always create money.

The regime is a money faucet by its monopoly_of_violence. New bonds are the regime’s promise to tax its subjects more than spending on them, in order to pay the interest.

Why would a regime pay interest for its money creation (bonds) just like any other debtor? The regime has the monopoly_of_violence and surely has no obligation to pay interest. The regime extracts taxes here to spend it there already, completely on its own devices. The regime with its monopoly_of_violence is completely unrestricted in its decisions. This makes the regime a money faucet. It can fulfill every financial obligations. It always will be able to pay back on maturity of bond – by creating other bonds, unlimited. To use bonds, pay interest, for its money creation is a deliberate choice. Moderated wanted inflation can be achieved with money printing, so why the bonds?

• The regime acknowledges the idea that interest encodes motivation.
• The central bank has been commissioned by the regime and can be considered part of the regime. It has to keep its balance according control layer interests.
• Bonds produce moderate wanted inflation, just like money printing, just like any new money_creation.
• Moderate inflation is targeted at the commercial layer, to make the wage_slaves spend their money.
• But the moderate inflation should not jeopardize certain wealth (of the rich, of purpose-bound regime bonds like pension).
• If the wealthy spent all their money because of the regime-wanted inflation, the inflation would get out of control. Bond interests compete with other financial products to bind money.

Why the financial products in general: The regime realized that its central wage_slave valuation, when clashing with decentralized market valuation via companies, leads to wealth accumulation, which can jeopardize the regime’s control on its currency, if the accumulated money is not bound by financial products.

Valuation of labor and product in the same market (same_market_valuation), meaning sharing of profit between work mates, would be a different currency not fitting to the regime’s intention to control wage_slaves.

Extraction Efficiency

Wage_slaves are not supposed to take loans. The idea of the control_currency is to use money to keep them working, but keep them poor.

To keep them poor, it helps, though, if occasionally some become debtors to create value for themselves, because then they also need to create

• value for the bank by the bank’s interest
• value for the regime by the taxes associated with the spending of the borrowed money
• value for the inherent valuation asymmetry to produce accumulation of wealth somewhere
• value to balance inflation loss

What we get is an devaluation of labor time, meaning low income.

• For one, this makes them work a lot to survive.
• For two, they can not buy anything with the money other than the essential.

The drive to extreme misery has happened throughout history, several times. And from those instances it can be observed that it was also associated with technological jumps. Those in control have time and resources to optimize extraction. When the extraction reached a natural limit, structural changes allowed for more extraction, i.e. better use of wage_slaves.

How did it get to systematic wage_slavery beyond regime use of subjects in the first place? For Europe and America the reason was actual slavery in the Americas and the exploitation of the colonies in general. Massive raw material needed massive processing. At the time of the industrial revolution in Britain, the rich and their government took land from self-sufficient people (enclosure acts), to force them into factories, making them dependent on wages. But then more and more machines were used for mass production and the wage_slaves were not needed any more. Back than there were still escape routes, though. They could go to America and claim land.

With machines the labor shifted from simple physical work to more intelligent work, machine construction, factory planning. Electricity came. Computers came. All these needed more and more qualification and also a lot of labor to build new infrastructure. The tech people had to do overtime, because they worked for many. But they were becoming also super-super-efficient. A few could produce for millions, using the machines, basically in all industries.

What became of those not needed anymore due the super-efficiency of a few. They became cannon fodder in World Ware I and World War II. These were civilization collapses, as was the french revolution before, already.

From history we can learn:

• slow extraction produces optimization and technological jumps
• fast extraction produces collapses

This is also how biological evolution works.

• The cooling produces higher collaboration, higher organisms, to cope with the energy loss.
• But it also can produce extinction, if the environment changes to quickly.

The cooling is characterized by a pareto distribution. In the pareto distribution a population (of molecules, people, …) is distributed to chunks (organisms) of low energy. This freezing pattern is seen in many systems

• chunk-forming in freezing water
• magnetized chunks in iron (ising model)
• species body size
• empires, emperor survival in empires
• economy with no limit in company size

Organization/organism/structural_complexity/chunking is related to energy extraction, induced freezing. Human energy is the local time of individuals (compared to clock time). Wage to survive using almost full wake time is the lower wage limit. That is where most wage_slaves are kept in the big chunks called companies. With all the optimization so far, this would not be necessary. But it is wanted by those who control to get yet some more freedom. Think of what some can do already:

• Hey, let’s go to the moon.
• Hey, let’s take over control of those 90 million people there.
• Hey, let’s shake world economy a bit and collect the falling fruits
• …

Learn and control. Use your intelligence to control. Intelligence is to control. The regimes monopoly_of_violence can override that natural logic from evolution by brute force. Regimes impose their valuation by their title categorization, meaning especially “wage_slave/employee” vs “company owner”. Regimes using brains for bureaucracy is state-of-the-art since first empires, leading to writing and mathematics, and money. Since the era of systematic flat wage_slavery valuation, making up current control_currency/fiat_money, pareto-cooling, chunk sizes, have grown immensely.

The spacetime/change of a physical system is its action, which compared to our clock time becomes energy. For mind coordination, energies are often split into their own times and spaces,

• like $E = TS$ (temperature, entropy)
• like $Fs$ (force, space)
• like $PV$ (pressure, volume)
• like $\mu N$ (chemical potential, particle number)
• like $\gamma A$ (surface tension, area)
• like $Vq$ (voltage, charge)
• like $EP$ (electric field, polarization)
• like $HM$ (magnetic field, magnetization)
• like $h\nu$ (action, time), the comparison of local time with our clock t

In information theory information is defined by space: $\log(\text{count})$ or $I = - \Sigma p\log(p)$. The latter actually has indirectly time in it, via $p$, but normalized away. Physically, though, due to locality principle, information is inseparable from time. I call it spacetime or just time, and it is local, an own universe unaware of a neighboring equal ones. Counting the parallel particles is a mind thing, not physical. In information science, programs or languages have a space-time complexity trade-off. More structural or space complexity can reduce the energy consumption (time complexity). Structural complexity: Organizations/organism have little freedom for their components, low entropy.

— Physics: Structural complexity (space)

between layers

Understanding and consciousness is to compare. And I like to start with physics when placing something in the information space of my mind. That might look a bit out of context for some topics, but I don’t see physics only as the study of relations between measurements, but rather a philosophical approach, a method of epistemology. The following thoughts were starting points for musings on economy, a topic of current interest to me.

I’ve realized since quite some time that not seeing the bigger picture makes physics dogmatic. For example when saying “the kinetic energy is $\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$”: It is wrong as a general statement. It is practical in the sense that if a body is stopped to a halt, that energy is transmitted. But as a state: an inertial frame moving with $v$ has no distinction from a body at rest, and therefore has no energy.

Here I place the

• split of energy into kinetic and potential energy

as a

• connection between layers.

Spacetime

energy

Energy is the rate of change of something, the frequency.

space

The something that is changed with the frequency.

Space is physically not existing without a change, without a time. Therefore also “spacetime”.

Space is not the vacuum, not the space with nothing in it. Space is something that changes or cycles in a lower layer. Space is energy at a lower layer. Space is associated with matter and matter has mass and mass is energy. So space is also energy. We make the distinction in the mind, but physics comes with equations that uncover them as one. The method makes sense, to coordinate our mind variables with reality, but this description and the reality as such are different things.

From the macroscopic viewpoint, not looking at the nucleus, not looking at the strong force, all matter is electromangetic. A photon can be considered matter. A photon is the change of electric and magnetic components in the electromagnetic field. We live in an electromagnetic world.

Field is a mapping from our $\mu = t,x,y,z$ to reality. We cannot assume the space in our mind is reality. No, the field is the real space. We coordinate it to our mind space via the equations of motion, plus further restrictions (guage: which potential $A_{\mu}$ with same $E$ and $B$). A coordinate whose mapping stays constant (symmetry) is like saying that it maps to a property intrinsic to the object, like $t$ to Hamiltonian $H$, or $x$ to momentum $p$. (Noether).

So what is a field? The field is the real space, well spacetime of course, because it is an evolving system and does not exist without the changes of it. The field is the reality, and that is local. The field can be $E$ or $B$, but it can as well be a biological system, in the more general idea that changes happen locally and form the system. In our mind we can say: Oh, see that star, as if we would see something that existed now, when saying it. We can look at the road while driving, see nobody, look at the phone, and have killed somebody.

T-U split

work

Work is the additional rate of change due to some influence from a another/remote/below system.

Work is change on this layer, extracting energy from layers below. “Below” shall define the source of energy, not actually below. The sun is above, but would be below in the layer idea, being a source of energy, to make changes in this layer, the layer of interest. Work can be seen as extraction process to produce change “here”. But intentions in “extracting” is of course judging and very much a mind thing.

force - potential energy

We start with the energy source, corresponding to a change “there”. This is also called potential energy $V$. In the context here I might call it remote/below energy. Then we map this to a change “here” ($dq$). $dq$ is a local change and as such a local time step. A force is a local change due to an remote energy source, the influence depending on the location $q$: $F = \frac{dU}{dq}$.

momentum - local energy

We start with the local change without the external influence. I call this the local energy $T$, but is also called kinetic energy. In classical physics there was the idea of something ($m$) moving in a straight line $p = mv = m\frac{dq}{dt}$ (uniform motion, momentum). But we have to generalize this, because we realize there is no actual uniform motion to be found. It was just a local mental simplification due to the limited observation space. By comparing $dq$ to a clock change $dt$ we had left physics already – which is fundamentally local, and had gone to a mental comparison process. Both $q$ and $t$ have by chance units or our choice, but $t$ is detached, a different system, we compare to. Rather we should think of $p$ as a (cycling) trajectory (geodesic) without the energy extracted from another source ($V$). Uniform motion and inertial frame becomes a local simplification on the geodesic, a linear coordinate system for our mind. Seeing change/energy as fundamental, one would fix the mental unit of change $dt$ and see $p$ as the size of the according local change $dq$ (local space). The linear $\dot{q}$ projection from remote mental $t$ to local reality $q$ would change along the geodesic. The more general momentum is this change of spacetime projection $p = \frac{dT}{d\dot{q}}$.

time - energy

$\frac{dp}{dt} = F$ (Euler-Lagrange), $p = \frac{dL}{d\dot{q}}$, $F = \frac{dL}{dq}$, $L\left( \dot{q},q \right) = T\left( \dot{q} \right) - U(q)$. The idea is that energy is change, be it of remote origin $V$ or of local $T$, and therefore additive, with total constant Hamiltonian $H = T + V$, while the Lagrangian $L$ denotes local rate change $T$, represented by the change of the mapping $dt \rightarrow dq$, due to the remote $V$ influence at $q$: $L = T\left( \dot{q} \right) - U(q)$. The closed system has constant total action $S = \int Ldt$. The action can be seen as information of the system (the local chain of time steps). The energy or Hamiltonian $H$ is the local time steps compared to our clock $\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} = - H\left( q,\frac{\partial S}{\partial q} \right)$ (Hamilton-Jakobi equations), a rephrasing of Hamiltonian $H = p\dot{q} - L$ as the Legendre transform, using $\frac{\partial S}{\partial q} = p$. Hamilton equations show this H as timing of the system: $\dot{p} = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial q}$, $\dot{q} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p}$.

Seeing the time and space physically inseparable (spacetime), I prefer to start from time, i.e. the local rate of change, i.e. from energy, saying: The source energy $V$ is more fundamental physically, than the force $F$. But if you want to overlay human intention, you could say: exert force $F$ along $q$ to extract energy $V$, which kind of fits to a mind trained by evolution to control. Work can be defined as extracting energy from lower layers, not meaning necessarily physical work, moving things, by seeing $dq$ as any local change in $dU = Fdq$, not a change of space coordinates. We can also say work is the energy lost from layers below. Wording does matter socially but the physical system is “unaware” of them.

Every new force is a new layer that cycles, if not stopping the layer below, where the potential energy $V$ comes from, but rather adding a new dimension to which lower layers are bent.

• The T-U split is the link between layers
  • U: energy of layer one
  • T: and energy of layer two

In the energy bill actually only $U$ is mentioned. That is what you pay for, be it food, be it electricity.

Physics of control

Close systems do not exist, other than as a mental approximation. The T-U split is between two layers already. Such systems last for a long time, think of an atom or of a star system. In reality of course more than two systems interact. But the two-system is the minimal interface, a great starting point for a description, like the bit to describe all kinds of information. Minor other interactions can be practically handled as a direct time dependence of a change, i.e. not associated to an actual localized spacetime change. This of course is a mind method, a mathematical method, not a reality.

In higher layer systems, in biological systems, in economic systems,

• the extractable energy $V$ varies along $q$, the local spacetime
• On the expense side the systems have a rather constant energy dissipation.

Such systems harvest more than needed at any point in spacetime and save it in more local buffers, like in glycogen and fat for animals or equity/ownership in economy. That makes interactions more localized between the one cell or a few cells and the energy buffer, between an individual or a family and the assets under control (control = ownership).

Loss of energy at “lower” layers creates layers “above”. The layer above is sometimes called Maxwell demon. I also name this control_principle, when intending dissipation of energy, really lost energy, not a back-and-forth interaction that will cycle forever.

Action as spacetime

The T-U split is the Lagrangian $L = T - U$ On can see the Lagrangian $L$ as the local spacetime step, meaning both space and time, inseparable, but of course with our time as something to relate to. Action $S = \int Ldt$ is accumulated Lagrangian ($L = d\frac{S}{d}t$). If a closed system, as an approximation, $S$ can be seen as the information of the system.

Energy (Hamiltonian $H$) is the comparison to our remote time $H = \partial\frac{S}{\partial}t$

In our electromangetic_world a constant $c$ says “space and time are the same” and a constant $h$ says “there is not infinity”, there is a smallest step. Most steps sizes of change are much larger than $h$, though.

Here some synonyms of action:

spacetime

spacetime conveys that space (what changes) and time (the change) are physically one. Splitting spacetime into space and time is a mind thing and not physical.

variable

The values of the variable are changing, implying both the exclusive states and their change. A mind variable is physically happening/real in the mind but might not be mappable to an external world physical equivalent even if intended.

particle

Particle refers to one spacetime localization (the particle) among many similar ones (a layer). “This spacetime consists of lower layer spacetimes” is to say “This particle consists by lower layer particles”.

Between layer’s: The lower layer’s action change is this layer’s step/quantum (Hamiltonian $H$) by which this layer’s spacetime emerges (Lagrangian). The Lagrangian is a 2D variable, the components being called potential energy $U$ and kinetic energy $T$.

While there are more $q_{i}$ changes observable (collectively named just $q$), they are components of one change in a 2D deterministic spacetime $L = T - U$ line. Nature does not do a $q_{i}$ projecting to 2D, but rather relation between the many lowest layer 2D spacetimes produce the mental 3D world. With many independent localizations, layers of changes, the actual world around us is high-dimensional, with a 3D substrate.

The action $S = \int Ldt$ is the full spacetime extension of a potential-kinetic-cycle. In an independent cycle the action is constant. Constant action leads to the equation of motion (Euler-Lagrange Equation):

$$F = \frac{dp}{dt}$$

$$F ≔ \frac{\partial L}{\partial q}$$

$$p ≔ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}$$

Every spacetime particle is curved by $F \neq 0$. $F = 0$ corresponds to no change, which is synonymous to non-existence. Note the correspondence between change, existence, spacetime curvature, limited size and locality.

In the real world of layers, $S$ is not stationary. It changes in $H$-steps lost to the layer above: $\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} = - H$. The local Lagrangian becomes part of another change (dependent on another time) and its 2D curve is not a cycle any more, a spiral possibly, unless the loss is compensated by an equivalent gain from yet further down, keeping a particle busy with turnover from below to above.

The layer above has the same description, but with

• different action $S$
• different time extension $\tau = \frac{S}{H}$
• different space extension $\lambda = \frac{S}{p}$

Hamiltonian $H$ is the layer’s time unit. Momentum $p$ is the layer’s space unit. It follows a layer-specific speed $v = \frac{\lambda}{\tau}$ linking space and time via layer specific $\lambda = v\tau$.

Special relativity is basically the relationship between layers, totalling lowest layer spacetime creation speed to $c$: $\left( \frac{E}{c^{2}} \right)^{2} = \left( \frac{p}{c} \right)^{2} + \left( m_{0} \right)^{2}$. Total mass is $m = \frac{E}{c^{2}}$. $m_{0}$ is the masses from layers below.

A potential is an energy gradient $\partial_{i}U$. It compare mind space $i = x,y,z$ with actual spacetime energy. For electric we would have written $qE = \partial_{i}qU$, and $B$ vertical to that.

In 4D $\mu = t,x,y,z$ the Euler-Lagrangian equation is

$$\partial_{\mu}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial\left( \partial_{\mu}A_{\mu} \right)} \right) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial A_{\mu}}$$

$$L = - \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - J^{\mu}A_{\mu}$$

The space $q,t$ above have become $A_{\mu}$. I like that. More closer to reality. The mapping to our mind variable $\mu = t,x,y,z$ happens via $A_{\mu}$ To coordinate with our mind variables is an essential step for a description.