What may make sense for you individually may also be empirically proven to be detrimental to the whole.

The new testament contrasts with the old, the gospel is one of tolerance and equality. It's a big part of why you have the rights that you do, as do women.

That said a lot of what you're saying can be ascribed to religious institutions and sects and individuals and specific churches. But your general prescription is like saying "this logical axiom is evil because XYZ ascribes to it and they are also evil".

You also have a belief system -- that people who believe in God do so because they don't question their beliefs, that religious people are only led by dogma. Yet your belief is wrong. Have you tried questioning it?

> but religions might appear again but with different names, different rules etc

Religions and scripture spread also evolutionarily. Christianity is popular because it is rooted in many truths.

> Compassion over brutality: This is just basic Game theory

And the game has been played.

None of these will go away until something breaks catastrophically, when it will be too late. And even then it will be short repose from another iteration for as long as we are in the digital information age.

There are only two steady end states that I see... either a global surveillance totalitarian system under the industrial complex, or, a radical change of the environment in which the aforementioned can be sustained.

> 110. Finally, I would like to employ the expression “to disarm,” which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.

showing a brew tap before the code is strange, in the least...

The millennials are also likewise tired of AI and corporate fascism. I think they are smarter than our generation. So there's a sliver of a silver lining.

But as to what can be done about it is another matter. Besides "butlerian jihad" the only way I see is by voting with our feet, since ballots don't seem to matter.