No, the idea of the antichrist knowing is a supposition of them being a servant of the beast. A cultural assumption of Satan’s “human servants” having first hand communication like one does with a human boss.

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

Inasmuch as I could play with the idea of believing in revelations, I would believe that it’s less about a “chosen one” antichrist, and moreso an “antichrist candidate” that when someone can fulfill the roll and obtain power; then it’s a sign of times incoming. Also, (lego) Brick Bible Revelations is a fascinating interpretation.

He killed (minimum) 300,000 USAmericans by dismantling the pandemic response team, and then willfully rejecting all support in restructuring it during a pandemic. Because Obama built it. He was “allegedly” (at the time) implicated in a literal pedophile cabal. Then he was voted in again. Those voting for him have such insane cultural cognitive dissonance they’ll tell you “Well I’m hurting, but I’ll sacrifice whatever I need to for AMERICA” asking them “America’s what? What for America?” Doesn’t even make a dent in the cognitive dissonance, it’s so willful.

You’re thinking about the whole thing from the “myth of the rational consumer” perspective.

In the right wing mindset the leader IS the group IS the persons. They cognitively need those three ideas to align. That’s why their rhetoric uses monoliths for people - “The Blacks”, “I am Christian”, “Us vs THEM”. 30% of any given society are RightWing Authoritarian Personalities. Another 30% are likely passive at best. How the balance of power shifts is about how your society structures it’s discourse, politics, and community - and the narratives derived therein. Be careful, it can come for you too.

On the plus side, if the USA gets to vote again, it won’t literally be him.

Edit: Opposing him isn’t about just opposing a leader choice - it’s about opposing the people and the whole system that valued putting a bad-guy reality tv host in power because it made them feel powerful when having a black president made them feel weak and not the in-group.

I call it riparian arcadia.

To answer your question MUCH more concisely: with a probability, within a context limit.

I think I understand your question. They’re still right about your premature fear being the weakest lack of resistance to oppressive forces, but to actually address your question:

AI “understands” (doesn’t really “understand”) context within a context limit (token limit). If you’re worried the shit you’re saying will be profiled for a future AI overload, or some equivalence in a political/social system. My best guess is if any AI had reason to preserve such data, it would be presented within a contextual sincerity probability. You know how like some people are joking, but they’re actually just testing the waters for social acceptability, in contrast to “the Aristocrats” style “see how awful the joke can get” humor. If the ai overlord manages to collate some profile from all your data for all the shit you say, it would have a “60% - this was a weird time for such a joke”; “70% - this joke was presented as a kernel of truth”; “80% - that joke was made to establish & enforce group values.” Thus between them know that one time you said “just joking bro” you weren’t really just joking.

A broader profile would be able to check if your humor is in contrast to your actions, or is concurrent with it. For example, if your friend tells a racist joke, and you join in, whether your other profiled interactions have concurrence with that opinion, or reproduce it.

If you’re just worried about an AI agent trying to sell you baby stuff now, that depends on prerogative and alignment based on context limits. As someone who likes to push AI to see how deep in its training data it actually holds the things it says; If i say something kind of ridiculously awful out of nowhere, it usually responds with something akin to “haha, I know you’re joking, but I AM obligated to correct some underlying assumptions of the joke” but that’s with the most popular corporate AI alignment. I can get a similar result with some equivalent “user is a trash edgelord who says terrible things for shock value, but is actually a great person who doesn’t believe any of it when it counts” in the context tokens of other AI.

Non-corporate alignment especially, with very limited context tokens, or no context, will try to reduce social “friction” and with a probability might either escalate the humor “Haha more like seven babies amirite?”, escalate the joke to pipeline propaganda “Actually, this is a common women be crazy, the manosphere shows tons of examples as per my Andrew Tate training data, you should listen to more of his stuff”, or just flat out contradict me altogether.

Long story short, Depends on other available context. If you’re worried about inevitable AI overlords, you can’t both tell nearly-bigoted jokes AND watch/reference bigoted content. If you’re worried about a judgy AI agent, don’t. It doesn’t care, it doesn’t effect you, and if it did, you can just affect it’s context data to alter the interaction.

And either way, worrying about an AI judging you is just the first step to being oppressed.

We/They, or at least somebody, elects the person(s) who hires/chooses/manage the judges. I’d settle for a “rate your judge” jury system, even.

Obligatory “End FPTP” when I mention voting, because it’s foundational to all voting issues.

Unironically, yes. You can’t go through one lifetime without going through some stuff. You can’t even be born without going through some stuff. You certainly can’t live that long in our universe without going through some stuff. Learn to accept the painful memories and enjoy the rest.

Yeah, no offense to Pokemon, loved the games, but definitely one of those situations where the vibes are STARK contrast to what would be the lived experience.

Ah man, we already on World War V?

I know of Age of Empires; but the others I don’t recognize, thought were Indie 500, or an actual Indie game.