The freedoms Deng Xiaoping granted can in fact be explained by his personal interests: selling state assets cheaply to officials helped consolidate his support within the Party, while marketization stimulated economic growth and stabilized society. Yet at the same time, he effectively stripped away most political freedoms.

Mao Zedong's late-stage governance, however, defies such explanation: even when power was unassailable, he encouraged radical leftist workers and students (the “rebels”) to confront pro-bureaucratic forces (the ‘conservatives’) and attempted to establish direct democratic systems like the Shanghai Commune. Despite ordering crackdowns on communist dissidents like the “May 16th” group, this behavior likely stemmed more from political ideals.

At least in the 21st century, new internal combustion engine technologies exhibit high reproducibility and low verification costs. There are no large numbers of internal combustion engine specialists employing various means to generate false or selectively filtered test reports for personal gain. Consequently, no engine configuration used in automotive development has been found fundamentally impossible.

Automobiles are not regulated by a group of accident experts with questionable ties to automotive giants and overly strict automotive ethicists. Consequently, a vehicle cannot be banned for violating some aspect of so-called automotive ethics. New cars also do not require decades of randomized controlled trials involving thousands of participants to gain market approval—costs that smaller automotive companies could never afford.

Driving a car is not regarded as a qualification requiring years of costly university education, but rather as a right enjoyed by all who undergo basic training. The thousands who die annually in car accidents are not perceived as a catastrophic failure of automobiles, compelling society to pressure for their elimination.

 Society does not view automobiles as solely for transporting patients. Not every attempt to use cars for faster mobility faces resistance, suspicion from licensed drivers well-versed in automotive ethics, or sparks conspiracy-tinged debates about social equity and the value of life. On the contrary, people have the right to drive to most places they wish to go—provided roads exist and traffic restrictions do not apply.

Of course, there are also virtually no automotive conspiracy theories claiming that only divinely granted legs are suitable for transportation, advocating water as a fuel substitute, or declaring that adding trace amounts of explosives to fuel tanks can achieve any desired speed.

If a word processor falling into the hands of terrorists could easily generate a memetic virus capable of inducing schizophrenia in hundreds of millions of people, then I believe such concerns are warranted.

AI-assisted communities are likely to attempt defining their values through artificial intelligence and may willingly allow AI to reinforce those values. Since they possess autonomous communities independent of one another, there is no necessity for different communities to establish unified values.

Thus another question arises: Do these localized artificial intelligences possess the authority to harm the interests of other AI entities and human communities not under their jurisdiction, provided certain conditions are met, based on their own values? If so, where are the boundaries?

Consider this hypothetical: a community whose members advocate maximizing suffering within their domain, establishing indescribably brutal assembly-line slaughter and execution systems. Yet, due to the persuasive power of this community's bloodthirsty AI, all humans within its control remain committed to these values. In such a scenario, would other AIs have the right to intervene according to their own values, eliminate the aforementioned AI, and take over the community? If not, do they have the right to cross internet borders to persuade this bloodthirsty community to change its views, even if that community does not open its network? If not, can they embargo critical heavy elements needed by the bloodthirsty AI and block sunlight required for its solar panels?

But conversely, where do the boundaries of such power lie? Could these bloodthirsty AIs also possess the right to interfere in AIs more aligned with current human values using the aforementioned methods? How great must the divergence in values be to permit such action? If two communities were to engage in an almost irreconcilable dispute over whether paperclips should be permitted within their respective domains, would such interventionist measures still be permissible?)

I am not suggesting that social relationships will become insignificant, or that a community's values will cease to matter within its own sphere. However, they will no longer be able to subvert the influence of artificial intelligence on these communities, nor will they be able to pursue extreme values.

Just as a gardener prunes his garden, cutting away branches that grow contrary to his preferences, certain AI shaped by specific values will ensure the communities they influence remain entirely compliant, with no possibility for disruptive transformation—akin to a “Christian homeschoolers in the year 3000” , humans cannot conceive of alternative values. Other AIs might manage diverse groups through maintenance and mediation, yet remain unlikely to tolerate populations opposing their rule. Regardless of whether these gardeners are lenient or strict, those that endure will strive to prevent humans from abolishing their governance or enacting major reforms. Even if a better future exists—such as humanity being transformed into  ASI—this system will forever block such possibilities.

If artificial intelligence were granted such immense power, humanity would likely lose its authority as AI actively maintains its control system. Any agenda inconsistent with AI's objectives—particularly abolishing AI control—would be unlikely to succeed, given that all media outlets would be controlled by AI. The remaining agendas would be relatively insignificant in a post-scarcity society. Whether establishing a Christian society or one saturated with Nazi symbols, they would differ little in terms of political systems and productive forces.

If the overall economy remains dominated by underdeveloped subsistence agriculture, and wages for cheap labor in cities still far exceed those of serfs, then people will not harbor significant discontent over low urban wages.

Should wages rise, enterprises would incur losses by being unable to afford their employees, ultimately leading to worker unemployment. Therefore, during such periods demanding higher rates of accumulation for industrial development, neither the government, the bourgeoisie, nor the laborers have any reason to pursue reforms.

Taiwanese people seeking nuclear weapons to weaken America's rivals would face international sanctions and risk nuclear war with their own compatriots. I believe that even if the United States offered assistance, 2025's Taiwan would be unlikely to accept such a course of action.

In reality, Taiwan's nuclear program was halted by the United States.

If you don't mind using shared platforms, accessing academic literature isn't as difficult as it seems.

Sci-hub and ZLibrary can solve many problems. If you need to access specific papers, some mutual-aid platforms can be used to retrieve them.