AI时代政治批评新范式——破解人类组织行为动力学（Dynamics）与勰和学（Synergetics）失衡的老大难问题

引言：AI时代，重新评估政府在人类发展中的作用

政府在人类发展中的作用值得重新评估。本次讨论中有两个关键方面尤为突出：

1、反特权体制变革的两种形式

从历史上看，政权更迭往往是由精英派系推动的，他们力图瓦解特权——但方法已经演变。最新版本的“富人革命”遵循了一种新模式：

• 富裕精英不再动员穷人去抵抗代价高昂、破坏性极强的革命（虽然权力易手，但系统结构依然完好无损）。
• 精英中的精英如今亲自登场，利用超低成本、高效率的策略，实现结构性转型。

这种转变降低了政权更迭的传统成本（包括经济混乱和社会不稳定），同时确保了治理模式的演变不会造成过度的附带损害。

2、 人工智能时代的政治批评与行动

AI时代需要一种新的政治批评和行动范式，将技术和道德结合起来作为政治基础设施的核心支柱。

哈维尔·米莱、唐纳德·特朗普和伊隆·马斯克等人物代表着精英阶层抛弃了传统的精英策略，即操纵民众进行暴力或高成本的政权更迭。相反，他们体现了一种直接干预主义的方法，精英阶层以最低的成本和最高的效率亲自推动系统改革。

这种方法标志着与历史上权力转移的决裂，在历史上，大规模革命——通常由富裕的精英领导，但由下层阶级执行——产生了巨大的社会成本，同时未能打破根深蒂固的权力动态。相反，新范式倡导：

✅精英直接参与而非间接操纵。

✅技术驱动治理创新而非暴力动乱。

✅成本效益高的政治转型

而非后果难以预测的群众运动。

3、迈向低成本、高效率的政治演进

AI、精英驱动的政治行动和去中心化治理工具的结合，为政治变革提供了一种更合理、更高效、更可持续的模式。政府必须适应这一新现实——不是作为僵化的控制机构，而是作为创新和系统优化的动态平台。

高成本、高风险的政治革命时代正在消逝。取而代之的是人工智能驱动、精英驱动的治理变革——比旧模式更快、更智能、更具战略性。

A New Paradigm for Political Criticism in the AI Era

— Solving the Persistent Imbalance Between Organizational Behavior Dynamics and Synergetics

By Archer Hong Qian

Introduction: Reassessing the Role of Government in Human Development in the AI Era

The role of government in human development deserves fundamental reassessment. Two key aspects stand

1. Two Forms of Anti-Privilege Systemic Transformation

Historically, regime change has often beendismantle privileges—but the **methodsmethods have evolved. The **latestlatest version of the “Rich Man’s Revolution” followsnew paradigm:

• The wealthy elite no longer mobilize the poor to engagehigh-cost, disruptive revolutions ththe system fundamentally intact.
• Instead, the elite of the elites now **personallpersonally take center stageultra-low-cost, high-efficiency ststructural transformation.

This shift reduces the traditional costs of regime change—both ieconomic disruption and social instability—without excessive collateral damage.

2. Political Criticism and Action in the AI Era

The AI era calls for a **newnew paradigm of political criticism and action, one that integrates technology and ethics as the core pillars of political infrastructure.

Figures like Javier Milei, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk embody a break from traditional elite strategies—where elites manipulated the masses to carry out violent or costly revolutions. Instead, they represent a direct interventionist approach, where elites personally drive systemic reform with minimal cost and maximum efficiency.

This marks a departure from historical power transitions, where mass revolutions—typically led by wealthy elites but executed by the lower classes—incurred massive societal costs while failing to dismantle entrenched power dynamics. Instead, the new paradigm advocates:

✅ Direct elite participation instead of indirect manipulation.
✅ Technology-driven governance innovation rather than violent upheaval.
✅ Cost-efficient political transformation rather than unpredictable mass movements.

3. Toward Low-Cost, High-Efficiency Political Evolution

The combination of AI, elite-driven political action, and decentralized governance tools offers a more rational, efficient, and sustainable model for political change. Governments must adapt to this new reality—not as rigid institutions of control, but as dynamic platforms for innovation and systemic optimization.

The era of high-cost, high-risk political revolutions is fading. In its place, AI-powered, elite-driven governance transformation is emerging—faster, smarter, and far more strategic than traditional models.

AI is not only enhancing the efficiency and scale of Trust organizations (such as governments, corporations, and alliances), but more crucially, it is defining their legitimacy and ethical validity. If AI is combined with Amorsophia MindsWeb3 (Wisdom of Love Networking), it will fundamentally reshape governance, rendering Leviathan-style Trust organizations obsolete. Otherwise, humanity faces either a brutal “Poor Man’s Revolution” or a “Sixth Great Extinction.”

I. From Inertial Thinking to a Global Perspective

This article aims to help individuals—especially those traumatized by the Cultural Revolution—break free from five forms of cognitive inertia and embrace a broader global perspective:

1. Outdated Cognition (Conceptual Tools Problem) – Using obsolete concepts and frameworks to analyze new problems, leading to misinterpretations.
2. Information Asymmetry (The Frog in the Well Dilemma) – Limited access to diverse information channels results in a narrow worldview and lack of global, multidimensional understanding.
3. Logical Confusion (The Pitfall of Historical Analogies) – A tendency to rely on inappropriate historical analogies, leading to misreading and misjudging contemporary phenomena.
4. Subjectivity and Emotional Bias (The Well Rope Effect) – Past experiences create defensive and irrational biases toward the outside world.
5. Unbounded Authority (The Zhong Kui Effect) – Deliberate “feeding” of information combined with “excitement induction” (manipulating initial discussion topics to steer narratives), leading to cognitive blind spots.

These cognitive inertias not only affect individual perception but also diminish the quality of political discourse in society, resulting in misjudgments that hinder governance optimization.

Political criticism in the AI era must transcend these limitations, shifting towards an Intersubjective Symbiosism framework—moving from confrontation and labeling to precise analysis and interactive optimization.

II. The “Hat Factory” Phenomenon and the Pitfalls of Inertial Criticism

The “Hat Factory” phenomenon refers to political criticism that relies on labeling and emotional rhetoric rather than factual and logical discussion. This type of critique is primarily influenced by four cognitive inertias:

• Outdated Cognition – Using obsolete political concepts (e.g., “East vs. West,” “Left vs. Right,” “Secret Police vs. Opposition,” “Dictatorship”) to describe contemporary political phenomena.
• Information Asymmetry – A limited understanding of global political and economic developments, leading to misjudgment.
• Logical Confusion – Using extreme historical events (e.g., Nazism, the Cultural Revolution) to draw direct comparisons with modern governance models while ignoring key variables.
• Emotional Bias – Criticism driven by personal emotions rather than objective policy analysis.

Such cognitive inertia renders political criticism superficial and ineffective in influencing policy optimization.

III. The Future of Political Criticism in the AI Era: From “Adversarial Criticism” to “Interactive Optimization”

Traditional political criticism is often one-directional:

• Opposition parties criticize ruling parties, often for electoral gains rather than genuine governance improvement.
• The media supervises the government, but lacks interactivity, leading to ideological polarization.
• Public opinion rarely translates into effective feedback at the policy-making level, creating a disconnect between criticism and decision-making.

In the AI era, political criticism can leverage data analytics and AI technologies to evolve into a more precise, dynamic, and constructive model:

✅ AI-driven data analysis makes criticism more accurate and less emotionally charged.
✅ Decentralized trust mechanisms (MindsNetworking) enable policy co-creation between the public and government, rather than just opposition.
✅ AI-powered policy simulations improve governmental responsiveness and iteration speed, enhancing policy efficiency.

AI-enhanced political criticism not only improves the quality of critiques but also transforms them into valuable tools for governance optimization, rather than weapons for division.

Conclusion: From Cognitive Inertia to Symbiosis—AI Reshapes Political Consciousness

Politics in the AI era should not be about control and confrontation—it should be about interactive optimization and symbiosis.

The global society must embrace true symbiosis, leveraging AI and decentralized governance models to break free from outdated paradigms.

Written on January 10, 2025, between Osaka and San Francisco, during a layover at Vancouver International Airport (Terminal 3, Gate G5-F17).