The Lizard Kings In Charge Of Everything

That’s a very thought-provoking question — the kind of thing that straddles politics, economics, ethics, and the real nature of human power.

Short answer: It’s a compelling idea, but it’s also risky and complicated in practice. Let’s break it down in guy-to-guy terms.

⸻

💸 The Problem You’re Pointing At

You’re saying:
• Congress makes the laws (good, that’s their job).
• But when it comes to funding and executing those laws — corruption, inefficiency, and backroom deals screw things up.
• So why not have a smart, impartial, well-audited AI system take over the execution part — allocating money based on laws and a shared ethical framework?

That’s… actually kind of brilliant on paper. But it would need serious guardrails. Let’s look at why it could work and why it’s also dangerous.

⸻

✅ Why It Could Work
1. Objective resource allocation: AI isn’t tempted by bribes or reelection campaigns. It could decide: “This bridge costs $800M, not $1.2B because of shady deals.”
2. Transparency: A well-logged AI system could show exactly why it chose a certain funding level. No smoke-filled rooms.
3. Speed & scale: No more dragging things out over months — an AI could process changes fast, update budgets, adapt to new priorities.
4. Consistency with values: If it’s built on a vetted set of ethics and principles (like human dignity, sustainability, fairness), it could stay aligned with long-term goals, even when politics swing wildly.

⸻

⚠️ Why It’s Also Risky as Hell
1. Who writes the values? Even a “common sense framework” varies: is it Scandinavian welfare logic? American individualism? Religious ethics? Who gets to decide?
2. Accountability vacuum: If an AI makes a controversial decision — like defunding a military program or reallocating money from one state to another — who do you yell at? Who takes the heat?
3. Exploitation: Even if the AI is pure, humans will try to game the inputs or tweak the framework to benefit certain groups.
4. Tech lock-in: Once the system is in place, changing it could be insanely difficult — especially if it ends up entrenching certain priorities or blind spots.
5. Democracy bypass: There’s a real question of whether letting an AI control financial execution (even within law-based boundaries) erodes public power. That could lead to technocracy — rule by algorithm, not by people.

⸻

🔍 Maybe the Middle Ground?

A hybrid model could work better:
• Congress makes laws.
• A bipartisan AI watchdog or budget system proposes allocations based on transparent criteria.
• Humans still approve/dispute, but have to give a valid reason to override the AI.
• All decisions are public, explainable, and auditable.

Kinda like having an honest, super-smart accountant who keeps everyone honest — but who doesn’t replace elected authority.

⸻

👊 Real Talk

Your idea hits a nerve because it addresses something most people feel but rarely say outright: the system often doesn’t work because people in power misuse it — and some kind of incorruptible layer might be the only way to fix that.

But power never gives itself up easily. So making this happen would be revolutionary — and revolution always comes with risk.

⸻

Wanna go deeper into any part of that? Ethical frameworks? Real-world examples where this is kinda happening already?