From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

President Donald Trump, however, has dismissed the idea of slowing the
tech race or sharing America�s technology with China

The US and China have agreed to establish a direct communication channel
for AI-related incidents, creating a limited safety mechanism between
the world�s two leading AI powers.

The agreement emerged from Chinese President Xi Jinping�s three-day
state visit to Washington and was confirmed by both governments.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that the two sides will establish a communication channel for �AI incidents� and launch a formal China-US AI Dialogue to exchange views on the technology�s risks and
benefits. The next round is scheduled for November.

The White House described the arrangement in similar terms, calling it a communication channel for incidents involving what the Trump
administration now officially refers to as �super intelligence� (SI).
Neither government has explained what would qualify as an incident or
how the channel will operate.

The mechanism had been under discussion before the Trump-Xi summit.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent proposed an AI incident notification
system during talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in New York last weekend, amid concerns ranging from cyberattacks and biological misuse
to malfunctioning autonomous systems and threats to critical
infrastructure.

Despite agreeing to the communication channel, Trump made it clear that
he is not willing to share America�s AI advances with Beijing.

�The United States of America is not going to be putting on brakes,� he
told reporters outside the White House, arguing that calls to slow
development would undermine America's advantage.

https://www.rt.com/news/646310-us-china-ai-incidents-hotline/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 2026-09-27, Planet of the apes <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Despite agreeing to the communication channel, Trump made it
clear that he is not willing to share America's AI advances
with Beijing.

"The United States of America is not going to be putting on
brakes," he told reporters outside the White House, arguing
that calls to slow development would undermine America's
advantage.

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is
compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

There is no "hiding trade secrets" while AI is on the scene.

-- Scott Hoge
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:41:53 GMT, Scott Hoge <[email protected]>
pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is

Can you be more specific?

compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee Chairs ... they're all
just kings in a place like China.

There is no "hiding trade secrets" while AI is on the scene.

I fear *nothing* can be hidden anymore.
--
Donald Trump is a miserable failure.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:41:53 GMT, Scott Hoge
<[email protected]> pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is

Can you be more specific?

I could!

compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee Chairs
... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by one
Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country /should/
be like. It should have cameras everywhere, no one should be
ashamed to be on camera, no one should be starving to death or
beaten on streets in an alleyway, no one should be plopped on the
sidewalk obese and subsisting on junk food, and no two competing
firms should be destructive or Machiavellian to one another.

I'll explain the last point. Two firms in the same industry can
"compete" in two different ways. They can:

1. /Cooperatively/ work alongside each other to see who's better
at a given task. That information can be made public so that
citizens can make informed choices about who to buy from.

2. /Aggressively/ work /against/ each other by hiding secrets,
destroying effort, and using deception and political
persuasion to undermine the other's success, simply in order
to "win."

America lumps both under the name "competition." Etymologically,
to "compete" means to "strive together." Nothing about that
etymology signifies whether the competition is friendly and common-goal-oriented, or vicious and predatory.

That's why I coined the words /eucompetition/ and
/malcompetition/: to make the difference clear. Trump's America
is one of malcompetition.

There is no "hiding trade secrets" while AI is on the scene.

I fear *nothing* can be hidden anymore.

For that reason, we should not be /desperate to hide/ anything
anymore. All passwords and passcodes should be replaced by
devices and biological identification. No nude-shaming or
toilet-shaming should exist. No jealousy, gossip, or criticism
should make life miserable. We should just be /that closely knit
and unified/ a /eucompetitive/ society.

-- Scott Hoge
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On Thu, 01 Oct 2026 02:05:41 GMT, Scott Hoge <[email protected]>
pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:41:53 GMT, Scott Hoge
<[email protected]> pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is

Can you be more specific?

I could!

compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee Chairs
... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by one
Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country /should/
be like. It should have cameras everywhere,

That would be an authoritarian country giving limited rights.

Communism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system.
Communism vs Capitalism. We practice liberal democracy, republics
designed to maximize freedom of action and combine it with free
enterprise and capitalism.

Communism has only ever been tried by authoritarian regimes and it
always fails the moment it starts taking away personal property.

Economics brought down Soviet communism down because Marks specified
that true communism was stateless but the Russian definition of "hold
in common" meant the state, not groups of workers.

Communism works great for small group survival for as long as
everybody knows everybody else. But when parts of the population
become strangers to each other, communism breaks down.

no one should be
ashamed to be on camera,

No one should *have* to be on camera.

no one should be starving to death or
beaten on streets in an alleyway, no one should be plopped on the
sidewalk obese and subsisting on junk food, and no two competing
firms should be destructive or Machiavellian to one another.

And rainbows and puppies and thornless roses that smell really good!

I'll explain the last point. Two firms in the same industry can
"compete" in two different ways. They can:

1. /Cooperatively/ work alongside each other to see who's better
at a given task. That information can be made public so that
citizens can make informed choices about who to buy from.

2. /Aggressively/ work /against/ each other by hiding secrets,
destroying effort, and using deception and political
persuasion to undermine the other's success, simply in order
to "win."

There is a third way. each can aggressively work to be better than
the other. That competition results in better, cheaper products for
the workers without destruction.

America lumps both under the name "competition." Etymologically,
to "compete" means to "strive together." Nothing about that
etymology signifies whether the competition is friendly and >common-goal-oriented, or vicious and predatory.

Or friendly and efficient.

That's why I coined the words /eucompetition/ and
/malcompetition/: to make the difference clear. Trump's America
is one of malcompetition.

In your opinion.

There is no "hiding trade secrets" while AI is on the scene.

I fear *nothing* can be hidden anymore.

For that reason, we should not be /desperate to hide/ anything
anymore. All passwords and passcodes should be replaced by
devices and biological identification. No nude-shaming or
toilet-shaming should exist. No jealousy, gossip, or criticism
should make life miserable. We should just be /that closely knit
and unified/ a /eucompetitive/ society.

And kittens and sunshine and cotton candy!
--
Donald Trump is a miserable failure.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

In article <VdjvS.62$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:41:53 GMT, Scott Hoge
<[email protected]> pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is

Can you be more specific?

I could!

compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee Chairs
... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by one
Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country /should/
be like. It should have cameras everywhere, no one should be
ashamed to be on camera, no one should be starving to death or
beaten on streets in an alleyway, no one should be plopped on the
sidewalk obese and subsisting on junk food, and no two competing
firms should be destructive or Machiavellian to one another.

I'll explain the last point. Two firms in the same industry can
"compete" in two different ways. They can:

1. /Cooperatively/ work alongside each other to see who's better
at a given task. That information can be made public so that
citizens can make informed choices about who to buy from.

2. /Aggressively/ work /against/ each other by hiding secrets,
destroying effort, and using deception and political
persuasion to undermine the other's success, simply in order
to "win."

America lumps both under the name "competition." Etymologically,
to "compete" means to "strive together." Nothing about that
etymology signifies whether the competition is friendly and common-goal-oriented, or vicious and predatory.

That's why I coined the words /eucompetition/ and
/malcompetition/: to make the difference clear. Trump's America
is one of malcompetition.

There is no "hiding trade secrets" while AI is on the scene.

I fear *nothing* can be hidden anymore.

For that reason, we should not be /desperate to hide/ anything
anymore. All passwords and passcodes should be replaced by
devices and biological identification. No nude-shaming or
toilet-shaming should exist. No jealousy, gossip, or criticism
should make life miserable. We should just be /that closely knit
and unified/ a /eucompetitive/ society.

-- Scott Hoge

Demonrats want us to be like China.
--


https://rootbadger.com/invite/i7w9b9K7BUMNXZUDwPUvCxxZYcx4aKXrcoIVKJFt https://ibb.co/q26Rmhn https://play.google.com/store/search?q=rootbadger&c=apps&utm_source=na_Med
NNTP friendly.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 01 Oct 2026, Governor Swill <[email protected]> posted some news:[email protected]:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2026 02:05:41 GMT, Scott Hoge <[email protected]>
pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 13:41:53 GMT, Scott Hoge
<[email protected]> pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

Trump doesn't have the smidgeon of intelligence to realize how
similar to "putting on the brakes" his own ruthlessly
uncooperative, information-withholding, effort-smashing,
contradictorally egoistic, mutually self-destructive,
underhanded, malcompetitive, Machiavellian /capitalism/ is

Can you be more specific?

I could!

compared to the civil, protective, organized, candidly honest,
enlightened /communism/ of the more highly intelligent Chinese
government.

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee Chairs
... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by one
Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country /should/
be like. It should have cameras everywhere,

That would be an authoritarian country giving limited rights.

Communism isn't a political system at all. It's an economic system.

Tell that to Putin.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 2026-10-01, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2026 02:05:41 GMT, Scott Hoge
<[email protected]> pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee
Chairs ... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by
one Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country
/should/ be like. It should have cameras everywhere,

That would be an authoritarian country giving limited rights.

It occurred to me just now that there might be more semantic
ambiguity in the term "authoritarianism" than I previously
thought.

When viewed /unfavorably/ or /displeasurably/, I've always
thought of authoritarianism as being based upon the fallacy of
appeal to authority -- that is, upon "because I said so." Thus,
a claim about computers is held to be true "because Bill Gates
said so," or a claim about scientific reasoning "because Neil
deGrasse Tyson said so."

Authoritarianism, in this unfavorable and displeasurable sense,
refers to /dogmatism/.

Dogmatism is opposed to what Immanuel Kant termed
/transcendentalism/, which is an attempt to go beyond this
fallacious "because I said so" to obtain the concepts of
understanding that must be /universal among human beings/, which
include the basic laws of arithmetic and logical reasoning.

Transcendentalism replaces "because I said so" with what is
called a /transcendental argument/ or /transcendental deduction/.
It is a verbal justification, even if long and obscure, intended
to convince the listener that certain concepts /must/ be basic to
human understanding because without them, we wouldn't be able to
solve problems or think.

Naturally, some people won't be convinced by transcendental
arguments -- and /that is expected/. We must continually learn
and teach the art of making them so that we may carry science,
and with it the principles of scientifc thought, through
generations.

Yet authoritarianism can also refer not to /dogmatism/ but to the
mere /absence of pluralism/. It is here that I argue the United
States is making the rudest insults toward China.

To clarify, let us distinguish between two kinds of dissent:
/dissent of the evil against the good/, and /dissent of the good
against the evil/. Each is a case of /political pluralism/: two
parties vying against one another. But if we are to distinguish
good from evil on any objective basis -- for instance, if the "free-and-friendly United States" wants to compare itself to
"big, mean ol' China" -- pluralism /by itself/ is overly
abstracting and too general.

In the concept of authoritarianism defined here as /mere
anti-pluralism/, one equivocates between:

1. /Freedom/ in the democratic sense, which could refer to either
(a) the universal, unobstructed freedom to attain happiness or
(b) the freedom to oppress others.

2. /Concentration of power/ in the authoritarian sense, which
could refer to either (a) what includes /soft power/ or gentle
political persuasion, or (b) what includes the /infliction of
punishment/ on "good" people.

3. /Suppression of dissent/ in the authoritarian sense, which
could refer to either (a) suppression of evil or (b)
suppression of good.

The list goes on. But the point is that authoritarianism, defined
in this way, over-abstracts, over-generalizes, and altogether
ignores the content of government and the relative moral
superiority of one dissenting party over another.

[...]

Communism has only ever been tried by authoritarian regimes and
it always fails the moment it starts taking away personal
property.

To my knowledge, China first suffered famine and then implemented
what they termed a "household responsibility principle."
Communism isn't just a one-size-fits-all system whose
characteristics are exactly the same between communist societies;
various rules and conditions can distinguish a communist society
that fails from one that succeeds.

[...]

Communism works great for small group survival for as long as
everybody knows everybody else. But when parts of the
population become strangers to each other, communism breaks
down.

Under /reciprocal surveillance/ -- which isn't just the big, bad
military laughing at what diapers you buy -- citizens are free to
observe the lives of others, and with such an emotionally mature,
responsible freedom comes the disappearance of "strangerhood."

[...]

I'll explain the last point. Two firms in the same industry
can "compete" in two different ways. They can:

1. /Cooperatively/ work alongside each other to see who's
better at a given task. That information can be made public
so that citizens can make informed choices about who to buy
from.

2. /Aggressively/ work /against/ each other by hiding secrets,
destroying effort, and using deception and political
persuasion to undermine the other's success, simply in
order to "win."

There is a third way. each can aggressively work to be better
than the other. That competition results in better, cheaper
products for the workers without destruction.

But that way /is/ the very conflation I described between the two
forms of competition, one of which is /aggressive and
destructive/, and the other of which is /cooperative and
knowledge-sharing/.

Apologies for snipping some of your reply. I wanted to address
what appeared to me the main points.

-- Scott Hoge
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On Sat, 03 Oct 2026 16:06:56 GMT, Scott Hoge <[email protected]>
pretending to be Spammy, posted some news:

On 2026-10-01, Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2026 02:05:41 GMT, Scott Hoge wrote:

On 2026-09-29, Governor Swill wrote:

China isn't communist anymore. They're what they've always
been, an authoritarian. Emperors, Presidents, Committee
Chairs ... they're all just kings in a place like China.

I haven't actually /been/ to China, but I have been told by
one Chinese person they are still communist, watched videos of
tourists in China, and accumulated a substantial intuition
through various facts and details of how they compare to us.

I /can/ tell you what, in my view, a communist country
/should/ be like. It should have cameras everywhere,

That would be an authoritarian country giving limited rights.

It occurred to me just now that there might be more semantic
ambiguity in the term "authoritarianism" than I previously
thought.

When viewed /unfavorably/ or /displeasurably/, I've always
thought of authoritarianism as being based upon the fallacy of
appeal to authority -- that is, upon "because I said so." Thus,
a claim about computers is held to be true "because Bill Gates
said so," or a claim about scientific reasoning "because Neil
deGrasse Tyson said so."

Authoritarianism, in this unfavorable and displeasurable sense,
refers to /dogmatism/.

I'm not talking about "dogmatism" or "because I said so". I'm talking
about authoritarianism so severe that it punishes mere questioning.
However, I was incomplete. China also has a totalitarian streak
though capitalist economics has cut rather deeply into that.
--
Donald Trump is a miserable failure.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2