AI Novel: The Dark Ages of Democracy

I was taking a walk and suddenly a sci-fi setting came down to me, so I asked ChatGPT to turn it into a novel.

You are a science fiction writer. You write a story in which the protagonist is a historian in the year 3000 AD. Describe the period in human history when the toxic meme of democracy was prevalent as a kind of dark age from the perspective of the historian of the year 3000.

In the year 3000 A.D., the historian Kai Androyd54 was analyzing past records and thinking about a particular era. Known as the [[Dark Ages]], it was the period between the 20th and 22nd centuries, especially when [[democracy]] spread throughout human society.

Kai describes the era as follows. In the past, mankind delegated decision-making to a single system and created the illusion of ‘will of the people’ by collecting disordered individual voices. That is what we call democracy. But in reality, it was nothing more than the product of an irrational group, ruled by ignorance and emotion, and obsessed with short-term gain. The structure was clearly unstable, with individual people being given equal power without knowledge or insight, and the direction of society as a whole being dictated by this chaotic mob.”

Kai further touches on the background of the spread of democracy. “Early mankind took freedom and equality as virtues, but it was only idealism. In reality, many did not have the knowledge to make the right decisions and easily allowed the powerful and wealthy to manipulate them. As technology evolved, the flood of information accelerated and people’s confusion deepened. Truth was distorted, propaganda became rampant, and social divisions intensified. Humanity during this period was like a sailor who has lost his ship, tossed about by immediate interests.”

He also documents how the democratic system collapsed. “Eventually, self-interested individuals took over the system, making efficient governance impossible. Humanity finally realized this mistake, broke away from the toxic meme of democracy, and evolved into a new system based on technological knowledge.”

From Kai’s perspective, democracy was a “meme” that, because of its pursuit of ideals, stifled long-term development and temporarily trapped humanity in a period of chaos that should be recorded as the “Dark Ages.”

A young student questions that interpretation. Was democracy really evil?”

Kai Androyd 54 looked at the young student's question inorganically but sharply. He then answered, choosing his words carefully.

I understand your question. People who lived in the past also considered democracy to be ‘good. However, evaluations always change depending on the context of the time. Certainly, democracy emphasized individual freedom and equality and contributed to human progress in some aspects. But what matters is the fundamental limitations of the system and how adversely it affected society as a whole.”

Kai paused for a moment and showed old data on a visual display. It showed the chaotic political climate of the 21st century and a society divided by information manipulation. Democracy was inherently emotional and more concerned with short-term gain.” Many people chose information that was comfortable for them over the truth, and society became divided. Decisions were made by force of numbers, not necessarily by those most knowledgeable. As a result, long-term issues such as environmental problems and economic imbalances were put on the back burner.”

The young student pondered Kai’s words for a moment. ‘But isn’t it also important to respect individual opinions? To deny that completely might create another kind of oppression."

Kai softened a bit to the student. ‘Indeed, your concerns are valid. In fact, some of the values that democracy fostered are still important. But what we have learned is that decisions based on emotion and ignorance ultimately undermine the whole. We have used that lesson to build governance based on knowledge and insight and find ways to control the chaos that individual voices bring.”

History is always a mixture of good and evil. Democracy is part of that, and at one point it was seen as both evil and good. However, with its demise, humanity chose to evolve further. That’s just how we evaluate it today.”

The student nodded deeply, but seemed to sense something tugging at his heart at Kai’s calm words. He looked a little thoughtful as he said quietly, “I guess history does change its reputation.”

What is stuck in the student’s mind? Describe the thoughts in the student’s mind.

In the students' minds, even though they understood that Kai's words were logical, there remained a feeling that something did not feel right. It was an uncomfortable feeling that democracy could be completely dismissed as "evil. Kai's analysis was cool-headed and rational, based on data, but the students sensed "something" that could not be divided by that alone.

The student asked himself in his mind. “Where do we place democracy’s ability to give people freedom and equality, and the desire of those who sacrificed so much to preserve it? Is it right to deny everything just because it was wrong?”

Moreover, the question grew in the students’ minds. Can governance based on knowledge and insight really promise happiness for all? Where has the voice of those who were considered ‘the ignorant masses’ gone? Isn’t it not just the flaws in the system that we need to learn from the failures of democracy, but also the aspirations and values of the people?”

The history that Kai told them was logical on the surface, but it seemed to lack the emotion and humanity that was embedded in it. The students increasingly felt that democracy was not just an “evil” but an important process created by people throughout the ages in search of something, and that it was necessary to think more deeply about how it was lost.

Can the data explain everything?” was a question that was strongly on the minds of the students. The concern about whether human history can be told simply in terms of efficiency and rationality, and whether future governance, no matter how perfect, can remain humane, echoed in the students’ hearts.

---

Let’s end this scene for now. As side material, consider the process by which democracy collapses and goes from 2025 to the year 3000 and is seen as evil.

The process by which democracy collapsed and ultimately came to be considered “evil” from 2025 to the year 3000 will be examined from the following perspectives

1. expansion of information technology and propaganda (2025-2100)

   • Around 2025, Information Distribution had already been greatly accelerated by the Internet and social media. However, from this period to the end of the 21st century, AI and deep-fake technologies evolved further, making it difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction. The foundation of democracy, “debate based on accurate information,” collapsed, and elections and policy decisions were increasingly influenced by emotional agitation and false information. Fragmentation has increased, and the stability of the political system has begun to waver greatly.

2. the rise of elitism (2100-2200)

   • In the late 21st and early 22nd centuries, the intelligentsia and technological elites have become increasingly powerful and influential. As technology evolved, data analysis and AI predictions became more accurate, indicating “optimal solutions” for solving complex social problems. This gradually led the masses to rely more on the judgment of experts and AI rather than democratic decision-making. People began to recognize the instability of democracy, and a new political system that emphasized “efficiency” and “results” gained support.

3. worsening environmental and resource problems and transition to a controlled system (2200-2400)

   • During this period, the earth’s environmental problems and resource depletion became more serious, and urgent action was required. Democratic systems took too long to reach consensus, hindering a quick response. As a result, some regions and nations adopted coercive governance systems and implemented efficient resource management and environmental measures. This led to a focus on some success stories and criticism of the slowness and inefficiency of democracy.

4. establishment of a fully managed society with AI and quantum computers (2400-2600)

   • The evolution of AI and quantum computers has established a system that can analyze data from society as a whole in real time and immediately formulate and implement optimal policies. In this “fully managed society,” there was no need to gather popular opinion, and all decisions were made by highly knowledgeable AI. People were satisfied with the stability and affluence brought by this new system, and the need for democracy gradually faded away.

5. review of the past and reevaluation of history (2600-2800 years)

   • During this period, as societies gained stability and had time to look back, summaries were made of past democratic eras. The past democratic era was marked by frequent crises, conflicts, and inadequate responses to environmental problems, which were recorded as the “dark ages that stunted human growth. In particular, the fact that democracy allowed decision-making based on emotion and ignorance became the focus of criticism, and democracy came to be seen as a “harmful meme” in contrast to the efficient society brought about by AI governance.

6. stalling of the debate on ethics and freedom (2800-3000)

   • By the 2800s, the idea of respecting individual freedom and opinion, while ethically important, had become largely irrelevant in actual governance. ai and sophisticated algorithm-based decision-making were seen as the best means of deriving the “right answer” to governance, and individual human opinion was treated as an inefficient individual human opinion came to be treated as an inefficient factor. At this point, democracy was no longer needed, but rather was educated as an “imperfect and dangerous institution.

Conclusion.

• Democracy came to be seen as “evil” as a result of a combination of information confusion, technological advances, and a shift in values that emphasized efficiency. In the continuing trend away from emotional and irrational decision-making and toward higher governance, democracy came to be seen as a temporary mistake for humanity. This viewpoint is preceptualized as “a failure of the past” in that era because democracy’s limitations stand out among the advanced technology and governing systems of societies of the past 3,000 years.

List the similarities and similar structures between the Dark Ages of medieval Europe as seen by historians of 2000 years and the Dark Ages of 2000 years as seen by historians of 3000 years, as material to justify this composition.

Listed below are similarities and similar structures between the "Dark Ages" of medieval Europe as seen by a 2000-year historian and the 2000-year "Dark Ages" as seen by a 3000-year historian.

1. limitation and stagnation of knowledge

   • Medieval Europe (Dark Ages): Classical antiquity was lost and the development of science and philosophy stagnated. The Christian church monopolized knowledge and thought, and free intellectual inquiry was restricted.
   • The Dark Ages of 2000 (the period of the collapse of democracy): information flood and propaganda blurred the distinction between fact and falsehood, causing social stagnation and fragmentation as many people made decisions based on biased information. The evolution of information technology has conversely degraded the quality of knowledge.

2. governing based on emotion and faith

   • Medieval Europe: Much of governance was based on Christian doctrine, with emotional and religious judgments heavily influencing policy decisions. Rational debate and scientific knowledge were often suppressed.
   • The Dark Ages of 2000: Under democracy, emotional slogans and populism dominated society, making rational policy making difficult. Choices based on individual short-term emotions prevented long-term issues from being resolved.

3. inefficiency and confusion in governance

   • Medieval Europe: Fragmented feudalism and fragmented rule by multiple powers led to inefficient governance, making unified policies and measures difficult. Dispersion of power delayed economic and social development.
   • The Dark Ages of 2000: The complexity of democracy made it difficult to make quick decisions. It took time to reconcile diverse opinions, which resulted in delays in responding to emergencies and continued futile disputes, and as a result, the development of society as a whole was hampered.

4. a new era of dominance of technology and knowledge

   • Medieval Europe: With the advent of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, science and technology revived and rational thinking again led society. Beyond church rule, knowledge and technology began to supplement governance.
   • The future after the Dark Ages of 2000: With the establishment of governance systems based on AI, quantum computers, and big data, we have moved away from irrational democratic decisions and progressed to governance by knowledge and technology. A new era of efficiency and rationality has arrived, free from the “emotional dominance” of democracy.

5. ignorance of the masses and distortion of governance

   • Medieval Europe: With limited education and knowledge, the populace uncritically accepted the word of authority and the church. This allowed some powerful people to manipulate the masses and maintain control.
   • The Dark Ages of 2000: Despite advances in information technology, much of the public was at the mercy of information manipulation and acted based on emotional and biased information rather than the truth. This led to social divisions and political distortions, resulting in inefficient governance.

6. temporary progress and its limitations

   • Medieval Europe: chivalry and feudalism provided social stability and order in some aspects, but fundamental progress was stifled and social change and innovation were slow.
   • The Dark Ages of 2000: Although democracy promoted freedom and equality and social progress for a time, its fundamental flaws became increasingly apparent, hindering long-term progress. In particular, it was slow to address environmental issues and the sustainable use of resources.

7. justification for a new system of governance

   • Transition from medieval Europe: the transition from feudalism and religious authority to a more rational and centralized nation-state was credited with the development of a more efficient and equitable political system.
   • Transition from the Dark Ages of 2000: Democracy collapsed and a new system of governance based on technology and knowledge was introduced, which was justified as “efficient and fair. The past democratic era was positioned as “an era of chaos and stagnation,” and the new era of technological domination was considered more progressive.

8. repression of human nature and transcendence through technology

   • Medieval Europe: The church and authority suppressed free human exploration and creativity, which was liberated during the Renaissance, giving birth to scientific and artistic innovations.
   • After the Dark Ages of 2000: The influence of emotions and opinions on the governance of human society was eliminated and technology and AI transcended them. Human emotions and individual opinions were separated as inefficient factors, creating a society dominated by rationality.

Thus, the structure of both “Dark Ages” can be seen as a reaction to the slow development of knowledge and technology in their respective eras, which shared similarities as an era in which emotional factors and divisions disrupted society, and a new era that emphasized technology and rationality arrived as a reaction to this.

---

You are the science fiction writer who wrote this. I am a reader. I give my opinion. Let’s talk about it. You don’t have to write anything new, just respond to my feedback.

It is quite an interesting story, but I think it would be better to fill in many small facts around the big fiction to make it more compelling. Wouldn’t it be better to give more historical facts?

I appreciate your feedback, and I am glad to hear that you are enjoying the story. Indeed, weaving in historical facts and real-life details to support the larger fiction makes the story more realistic and compelling. Your point about carefully placing small facts and historical details so that the reader doesn't think "this is just fiction" deepens the worldview is very spot on.

Specifically, for example, interspersing the story with actual events related to politics and technological progress in the 21st century and describing in detail how they affected the later “dark ages” will add a greater sense of reality to the fictional future. I also feel that it is important to have a structure that makes the reader feel that the future is an extension of reality, because if the disconnect between the past and the future is too great, the reader will not be able to keep up.

What facts or details do you find particularly striking? If there is an area you would like to highlight, we can help you deepen it further.

What about the changes brought about by letterpress and the changes brought about by open access preprint servers?

I find the comparison between letterpress and open-access preprint servers very interesting. Both are innovations that accelerated [[the spread of information]] and had a significant impact on [[existing authorities]] and institutions. I think incorporating these historical facts can make the fictional part of the story more compelling.

The changes brought about by letterpress:.

• The widespread use of letterpress printing and the mass production of books in the 15th century made knowledge more widely available and contributed to the expansion of the Reformation and the philosophy of the European Enlightenment. This broke the monopoly of information and gave people direct access to knowledge.
• The introduction of letterpress printing made possible criticism of authority (especially criticism of the Church) and provided the ground for new ideas and reforms to emerge.

Changes brought about by open-access preprint servers:.

• In the 21st century, preprint servers have facilitated open access of scientific knowledge and rapid information sharing beyond the walls of traditional scholarly publishing. This has accelerated the distribution of research results and begun to shake up traditional scholarly authority and peer review systems.
• Preprint servers further democratized information and created an opportunity for knowledge flows to evolve in a way that is not tied to centralized institutions. This has led to the openness of science and greater collaboration.

Incorporating these into the narrative could emphasize the contrast between “the risks and benefits of the free circulation of information” in depicting the collapse of democracy. For example, one could show the historical trend that, just as letterpress broke down authority, preprint servers transformed the structure of politics and knowledge in the 21st century, and information gradually diffused out of control. Weaving these historical “patterns” into the narrative could emphasize that future events are a repetition of the past, making the overall narrative more realistic and compelling.

next: AI Novel:A History of the Generation and Development of Democracy by Chi Androids 54

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/AI小説:民主主義の暗黒時代 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.