by trod1234 | 2025-08-23 06:11:35+00:00
The premise starts with Claude Shannon's well established work, and the demonstrated ability of GenAI to costlessly saturate communications channels.

What about Shannon's work do you find absolutely nuts? Keeping in mind, to overturn established science you need extraordinary proof for refutation, do you have any?

The inducement of delusion and hallucination of the mind, as well as the limits of human perception, are equally well documented and established under psychology like behavioral modification therapy, behavioral engineering, NCI, torture, hypnosis, and the like.

The economics are also well established that absent a market distribution of labor, corruption occurs regardless leading to positive feedback loops, and runaway money-printing is known to drive and distorts price floors with clear profit cutoffs that determine behavior (closing shop when its no longer possible to make a profit).

Under such adverse circumstances, its not unheard of that the imposed stress causes people to degrade in thought to an almost automaton level, incapable of reacting to their environment correctly, which naturally occurs and is aligned with many of the same things we see under fascism, and the nature of numerous underlying positive feedback systems is they easily run away out of control until conditions are met for catastrophic collapse.

Cascading failures, where everything slips through your hands because the incentives drive the outcome chaotically is expected in such environments.

Your statement amounts to survivorship bias, it hasn't happened yet so it can't ever happen; which is fallacy and easily refuted.

At a bare minimum there are many historical examples of societies that suddenly vanished in the historic record (i.e. suddenly died out). While we can't know the exact circumstances after-the-fact we can know it is a regular possibility.

Given that refutation, because it has happened. Approaching failures that result in no control, it would be appropriate to perform due-dilligence at a point of control where you can affect change, which is necessary to change course, and failure to do that favors extinction.

If you just take a wait and see approach, and you have all your eggs in one single basket, who survives when you are wrong and that hubris spirals consequences out of your control?

The vast majority of people have forgotten the inherent cruelty of natural law, and what it initially took to break past the Malthusian trap. It was the work of a larger part of our population sharing and communicating knowledge.

Distributed communication of useful information is largely what made this possible, and it elevated everyone with access to it. A coordinated effort of solving many problems in unity; and this isn't, or more appropriately can't happen anymore.

Communication won't be available when communication is jammed, and nothing can pass the noise floor due to channel capacity exhaustion. That necessarily means everyone falls to their base cognitive levels, which previously have been augmented through an intelligent minority that has been shrinking.

What chances would you give cavemen in averting a planet killer Impactor? How about without our communications systems, and the built-up expertise (on the shoulder's of giants), what chance would you give modern man to do the same? Equal odds?

Hubris not tempered by reality is a very dangerous thing.

Society didn't used to be so brittle. There were redundancies to pick up slack, but these are gone now. Its been made that way in recent history through complicit insiders seeking profit, power, and control above all else.