I didn’t make any inaccurate comparisons. The whole deterministic LLM argument was just the straw man you were making. I’m merely pointing out your dishonesty here, if you choose to perceive it as a personal attack that’s on you.

I guess using personal attacks like a child is all you can do when you don’t have any actual point to make.

It’s the logical end point of a particular philosophy of the internet where cyberspace is treated as a frontier with minimal oversight. History offers a pretty clear pattern here with any ungoverned commons eventually getting overrun by bad actors. These spam bots and trolls are a result of the selection pressures that are inherent in such environments.

The libertarian cyber-utopian dream assumed that perfect freedom would lead to perfect discourse. What it ignored was that anonymity doesn’t just liberate the noble dissident. It also liberates grift, the propaganda, and every other form of toxicity. What you get in the end is a marketplace of attention grabbing performances and adversarial manipulation. And that problem is now supercharged by scale and automation. The chaos of 4chan or the bot filled replies on reddit are the inevitable ecosystem that grows in the nutrient rich petri dish of total laissez-faire.

We can now directly contrast western approach with the Chinese model that the West has vilified and refused to engage with seriously. While the Dark Forest theory predicts a frantic retreat to private bunkers, China built an accountable town square from the outset. They created a system where the economic and legal incentives align towards maintaining order. The result is a network where the primary social spaces are far less susceptible to the botpocalypse and the existential distrust the article describes.

I’m sure people will immediately scream about censorship and control, and that’s a valid debate. But viewed purely through the lens of the problem outlined in the article which is the degradation of public digital space into an uninhabitable Dark Forest, the Chinese approach is simply pragmatic urban planning. The West chose to build a digital world with no regulations, no building codes that’s run by corporate landlords. Now people are acting surprised that it’s filled with trash, scams, and bots. The only thing left to do is for everyone to hide in their own private clubs. China’s model suggests that perhaps you can have a functional public square if you establish basic rules of conduct. It’s not a perfect model, but it solved the core problem of the forest growing dark.

here https://archive.ph/6PDnY

Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.

I’m not assuming anything. Either you have not used these tools seriously, or you’re intentionally lying here. Your description of how these tools work and their capabilities is at odds with reality. It’s dangerous to make shit up when talking to people who are well versed in a subject.

Correct, my answer does not address obvious straw man points of scenarios that don’t exist in the real world.

🙄

Except USSR didn’t run out of energy.

Again, I’m explaining to you that society is a conscious and intentional construct that we make. USSR could have made changes in a similar way China did to move in a different direction. As your own chart shows, there was no shortage of energy as output rebounded. The problems were political and with the nature of the way the economy was structured.

I’m sure this will have no possible negative consequences for the burger reich.

Again, you’re discussing tools you haven’t actually used and you clearly have no clue how they work. If you had, then you would realize that agents can work against tests, which act as a contract they fill. I use these tools on daily basis and I have no idea what these surprises you’re talking about are. As a practitioner, I find these things plenty practical.

Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.

Having grown up in USSR, I know there was in fact a huge difference. The economy wasn’t structured around consumption, goods were built to last. People weren’t spending their time constantly shopping and consuming things. The idea that USSR was destined to collapse is also pure nonsense. There were plenty of different ways it could’ve developed. USSR certainly didn’t collapse because it was running out of energy.

Old enough to remember how people made these same arguments about writing in anything but assembly, using garbage collection, and so on. Technology moves on, and every time there’s a new way to do things people who invested time into doing things the old way end up being upset. You’re just doing moral panic here.

It’s also very clear that you haven’t used these tools yourself, and you’re just making up a straw man workflow that is divorced from reality.

Meanwhile, your bonus point has nothing to do with technology itself. You’re complaining about how capitalism works.

The point is that capitalist relations are absolutely the problem here. Social systems do not have to be built around consumption. You’re also talking about natural systems that evolve based on selection pressures as opposed to systems we design consciously.

First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.

indeed

China’s already doing this with nuclear, so there’s a good chance they might do this with data centers too. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinas-first-commercial-nuclear-district-heating-scheme-expands

That’s just saying that China is one of the most populous countries in the world that also happens to be a global manufacturing hub. China still uses fossil fuels, but I think it’s fair to call it an electrostate at this point.

• China’s carbon emissions have been in a structural decline since 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year
• Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023 https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
• China installed more solar in 2025 than rest of the world combined https://electrek.co/2025/09/02/h1-2025-china-installs-more-solar-than-rest-of-the-world-combined/
• China’s solar capacity surges; predicted to top 1 TW by 2026 https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-surges-expected-to-top-1-tw-by-2026
• China is also building out nuclear at a breakneck pace https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/30/china-is-building-nuclear-reactors-faster-than-any-other-country
• New energy vehicles account for 77.6% of China’s public transport system https://www.shine.cn/news/nation/2403089981/

Finally, it’s also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, which it’s already ahead of

• https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-energy-transition-in-5-charts/