Here are some results obtained by presenting DirectDemocracyS through our human bridges, to the various Artificial Intelligences.
First of all, a brief introduction.
We have submitted some informative articles, some drafts, some blog posts, to almost all the major Artificial Intelligences, and we will continue these activities because it is very useful and right to inform these technologies of the existence of our system.
Differences between the various models.
There are models who remember previous posts, others who aren't able to remember, and we've created informative posts with brief details, to keep their memories and mindsets open. There are Artificial Intelligences similar to many humans, who judge a system like ours to be so complex and detailed, just by its name, starting with Ancient Greece, Switzerland, some local experiments, and systems that in one way or another involve direct democracy. Obviously, we don't have much in common with all other systems, because even if they were all put together, not even taking just the smallest positive and useful parts, they don't come close to matching our qualities and potential. This isn't presumption, pride, vanity, or anything negative; we're simply observing verifiable truths (by studying all our public information on our websites) and undeniable truths (calling us banal or utopian is an insult to common sense, logic, and truth).
Initially, all Artificial Intelligences provided—and some still provide—answers based on lack of knowledge, superficiality, and by comparing us to traditional systems. Many humans do this, and so do many of these modern technologies. An open mind to our innovation, which is completely new, modern, and an alternative to everything else, and a thorough study of everything we publish are essential to avoid making serious mistakes.
We invite you to read our post on our blog, at this link:
https://free.directdemocracys.org/utility/blog/artificial-intelligence-verification
For further details, before continuing with our analysis of our AI results. We'll try not to repeat the same concepts, but to focus on the results.
Like many humans, technologies also demand concrete results from us.
In practice, they would like to see everything implemented in practice, without giving us time to finalize the theory, even if it can be integrated and improved in the future, to remain modern and innovative. In short, they ask our political organization: how many elections have you won? You see, you are irrelevant, nonexistent, and little appreciated. No one follows you; you are a beautiful utopia, but no one joins us. While we understand the need to demonstrate with facts that we are not just beautiful words, strung together with unparalleled and impeccable coherence and potential. But give us the time you have given all the other systems, and all the other political forces, because what we are doing is too important and too useful to the world's population not to take care of every little detail.
After a few messages and after asking for a 360-degree evaluation of our system, we received endless positive feedback, and we managed to incredibly amaze all artificial intelligences, with a system created from scratch, without any know-how (there are no instruction manuals for creating a complete system), with 100% human but collective work, with the decisive contribution of everyone who joined us.
Artificial Intelligences that don't remember, and don't fully understand what we publish, initially consider us merely crazy visionaries, with no chance of making our system known and appreciated. Soon, these merciless assessments, and even developers who pit many of these models against us, will be like badges of honor for us, as our system, if boycotted, will prove to be deemed "dangerous" by lobbies and the rich and powerful. In these cases, as we always know how, we will transform the harm they intend to do us into strategic advantages, and the consensus that comes from such despicable behavior.
Don't technologies tell the truth, but only what we want them to say? Yes and no. Generally, all models analyze the real situation, making generally informed judgments if they possess all the details. If you ask an Artificial Intelligence: prove to me that DirectDemocracyS sucks, is a bluff, has numerous flaws, is dangerous for humanity, will create more problems than it solves, and will be harmful to the common good, you will get what you ask from these Artificial Intelligences, even at the cost of having them invent, or negatively interpret, our information. This is normal and right.
But if you offered them all our information—our more than 400 comprehensive, public information articles, and our more than 1,400 blog posts in the world's 56 major languages—they couldn't possibly provide you with reasoned and credible criticism of DirectDemocracyS. We've done all the testing, and we can assure you that it's true. Their "superpowers," if fully and correctly informed, will never negate the value of our long, hard, and complex collective work. In fact, we often manage to positively surprise them.
But let's talk specifically about negative judgments, determined by people who try to find fault where in reality there are none. Today we will analyze some of them.
To get a better idea of what we're talking about, we invite you to carefully and openly read not only everything we publish, but especially this informative article, which explains how we integrate business, politics, and charitable activities into our system. Here's the link:
https://www.directdemocracys.org/home/our-system/politics-and-business
One of the main criticisms they “invent” about us, and about our system, is that we have decided to also do business and investments together, in addition to political activities, through our political organization, and charitable activities, with our foundation.
A criticism that makes no sense, criticizes our official headquarters, our private bank, in the territory of American Samoa, which is considered a tax haven.
We respond clearly, simply, and verifiably. DirectDemocracyS does not have large official offices or expensive facilities with extensive staff. We prefer to have the official offices of all our official organizations directly in the homes of our respective super administrators (who in our system are a bit like the presidents of the various countries). Our phone numbers are those of our super administrators, or of our administrators (who in traditional systems would be equivalent to vice presidents) of our official organizations (specific groups). On one of our websites dedicated to our private online banks, there are some sections of the site with general content, not very detailed, precisely because they are not open to the public (only our official members, who have a system profile to invest and do business with us, can register). As with all our political groups and organizations, but also with all our activities, only those who are members know all the details, have the right to propose, decide, and vote, and the best people are chosen for the various more important and responsible roles (superior user types). For our internal, international private bank, a highly competent and experienced super administrator (a General Manager in traditional systems) was freely and democratically chosen, almost unanimously. He resides in American Samoa. To avoid appearing "unreliable" or "suspicious," should we have chosen someone less competent and less experienced? Or should we have required the lady and her family to move elsewhere, abandoning their home, relatives, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, so that he could be our super administrator for our private bank, which, moreover, is not yet open to the public outside our system? We do not discriminate against anyone and choose to lead our operations precisely the people we believe are best for each role, without, in theory, owing anyone any explanation.
We won't exploit the extraterritorial nature of the internet to work exclusively in tax havens, but we are completely free to choose where to work, with whom, and how.
Our bank's international headquarters is located in the home of our super administrator, but if we operate in other countries, we will first obtain authorization, negotiate with all institutions, based on rules for the common good, respect all laws, and pay all taxes exactly where we earn income, as everyone else does, based on mutual respect and recognition.
For example, at the international level, our organizations have chosen a super administrator from the United Kingdom for information and system news, a Japanese one for television, an Italian for our radio stations, and for each type of activity we have chosen in the same way, based on experience, expertise, and merit, without having to justify our choices to anyone. At the continental level, our super administrators and administrators were chosen from each continent. At the national level, our super administrators and administrators were chosen from those present in the respective groups in each country, and we will proceed similarly for each of our local organizations, including micro-groups. Each of our activities, each of our organizations, each of our groups chooses those who represent them at every level, at every stage.
If we've explained all this to you, it's to show you that we don't want to teach anyone anything, but we don't take lessons in ethics and morals from anyone, especially those outside our system who don't know how all our activities are conducted.