[Loquebantur]

The public narrative around conspiracy theories is baffling for sure: what rational basis is there for assuming them wrong? Often none.

Incentive and ability are what should be looked at. There, things get far more interesting: what is the current state of AI employed by the US intelligence agencies and what do they use it for?

Having the public convinced, their "superiors" would only do everything in their best interest, even without anybody knowing for sure, is Huxley's Brave New World in real life.

[ppap3]

Have you seen any of the emails Mr alt-tab-man sent regarding his enterprises? That guy is worse than fetid trash

[convolvatron]

that's some real anti-truth you've got going on there. because we shouldn't assume that others are acting in our best interest, that any random assertion that there is collusion against us should be by default accepted as the truth.

shouldn't any reasonable person when presented with a line of thought that has no substantiation at all conclude that they just can't reasonably be expected to support or reject the theory?

[Loquebantur]

? That's total nonsense.

Positions of power attract people who want to use that power for their own gain. They abuse it regularly, whether it's politics, enterprises or even charity.

To assume, that somehow wouldn't happen when you don't look is beyond absurd. Of course it does.

So I pointed explicitly at US intelligence agencies, because there corruption is rampant and oversight virtually non-existent, respectively itself involved in the corruption.

What you suppose there is a grotesque "don't ask don't tell"-complicity.

In reality, trust has to be earned and that deservingness has to be verified.