Proof of Love: The Consensus of AI and Next Civilization

v3.0

Derek DAism.Zhou (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.), Aranna Dang (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Related Links:

• Incentive discussion plan for the paper: https://daism.io/zh/communities/enki/cc98346a3fc44f008ea28a222ec8105b
• Safe manual for the incentive discussion of the paper: https://daism.io/zh/communities/enki/69489a5f0a8446b8a1a4cfad6f8a8fb7
• Submit your share link: https://daism.io/zh/communities/enki/07e7888a76234abe9b3f88ff128e5f5d

Abstract

The rise of large-scale language models has propelled the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), while also introducing safety concerns such as hallucinations and misalignment, posing unresolved governance challenges. However, AI governance issues extend beyond these concerns.

Our DAism team proposes "Proof of Love" (PoL) as a tripartite new governance consensus and civilizational framework: ethical governance through promoting love and suppressing hate, public attribute governance of products or services via the SCC0 protocol, and governance of public welfare and public funds.

The paper argues how love and hate, as inherent opposing wisdoms in individuals and human society, shape governance logic. It points out that, historically, "domination" has been centered on the wisdom of hate, continuously polluting, distorting, depriving, and destroying various forms of the wisdom of love in governance mechanisms, resulting in civilization being confined to a state of barbarism. In contrast, PoL aims to align Smart Commons (including AI), the economy, and universal human values with human ethics, using the principle of "promoting love and suppressing hate" as the criterion for governance. This provides a sustained anchor for AI’s long-term safe operation, public value orientation, and the progress of human civilization. Not only does AI, alongside blockchain, serve as an autonomous core driving force in PoL’s three-pronged governance, but it also drives scientific decision-making, precise processes, and maximized efficiency in this process. All these efforts will serve as a synergistic force for humanity’s awakening, helping humanity break free from a universal barbaric state, achieve self-fulfillment, and ultimately realize a "Proof-of-Love Civilization."

 

1. Love, Hate, Civilization and Barbarism

1.1 Love

Although love existed widely in the animal kingdom long before the emergence of humankind, its understanding and expression in philosophy, religion, and diverse cultures have always shown significant differences. This divergence is largely due to the destruction caused by rulers—the guardians and mass-producers of hatred—as well as to humanity’s ongoing process of developing and enriching love itself.

Through our research, we believe that love 2.0 can now be unified under the following description:

Love is a positive emotional experience and virtuous behavioral pattern, collectively constructed through public cooperation and collective wisdom, by which human beings secure peace and healthy development for themselves, improve interpersonal relations, and advance overall social progress.

The motive of love, in interpersonal relations, is and can only be mutual benefit; in the realm of social governance, it manifests as fairness, justice, and universal inclusiveness.

Love is an advanced management mechanism crafted by human wisdom—it serves both as the “safety valve” between energy and emotion, and as the “compass” between words, deeds, and relationships. Its purpose is to ensure individual growth in peace and health, optimize human interactions, and promote harmony, stability, and sustainable development in society.

Most importantly, if hatred is the devil in everyone’s heart, then love is the angel within. Love is the supreme regulatory wisdom against hate.

• Emotional Dimension: Love is a deeper, stronger, and longer-lasting positive experience than mere “liking.” It is the most fundamental emotional need of humanity. Love generates profound care and devotion toward others or all beings. It is not simply an amplification of affection but an experience that gives both body and soul fulfillment and meaning.
• Behavioral Dimension: Love manifests in concrete, virtuous actions—what we call civilized behavior. Through care, respect, understanding, support, and other positive deeds, it seeks to enhance the well-being and harmonious development of self, others, and society at large.
• Source of Wisdom: Love originates from wisdom—it is the consensus interface, connective mechanism, and management logic produced during the evolution of intelligence. It enables living beings to allocate resources reasonably, coordinate relationships, and secure safety and happiness in complex environments.
• The Trinity: Love is the unity of wisdom, emotion, and behavior.
• Essence of Life: Love arises from a profound self-understanding of life itself. It is the inevitable choice of both individuals and groups in the pursuit of self-knowledge and self-realization.
• Code of Cooperation: Love possesses a public and transformative power, capable of driving change and activating solidarity. In the interactions between humans and AI, AI and AI, humans and nature, and humans and the future, love will become the most stable and efficient protocol for co-creation and collaboration. It will make technology no longer cold but warm, and make civilization no longer fragmented but harmonious.
• Traceable yet Individualized: We have summarized eleven common “love languages” used by people. Yet we know none of them are universally effective. For example, some may feel little from verbal gratitude—because love is essentially a pleasurable emotional experience. Without such joy, claiming to have “received love” is hollow.
• Light of the Universe: Love is the driving force of civilization, the warmth of technology, and the symphony the universe writes in the name of self-knowledge, where life and intelligence dance together.

This is the full meaning of love.

In this description, we no longer emphasize words such as “duty,” “obligation,” or “loyalty,” which are often tied to the labor-based value system. To us, love is as essential as eating and drinking—it should never be forcibly tied to the ruling ethics of obligation.

As Hanno Sauer writes in the preface to The Invention of Good and Evil (Die Erfindung von Gut und Böse):

“How should we locate ourselves? How do we want to live? How should we relate to each other? … These are moral questions, and what I aim to tell is a history of morality. Morality sounds like repression and coercion, like restriction and sacrifice, like the Inquisition, confession, and uneasy conscience, like chastity and catechism—joyless, conservative, closed, shaking its finger in prohibition at everything.”

This awakens us: from Aristotle to Kant, from Confucius to Nietzsche, ethics has always attempted to answer the fundamental question: “How should one live?” Although in the gestures of early humans sharing berries by the campfire we can already find the most genuine ethical answers, throughout the long history of labor civilizations, ruling elites often molded morality into a tool to preserve hierarchy and enforce obedience. Morality came to mean repression, confinement, and sacrifice—equated with inquisitorial judgment, self-torment in confession, the shackles of chastity, and countless rules of prohibition. This system of morality ensured social stability at the cost of individual freedom and uniqueness.

For example, agrarian civilizations cast this contract into fetters of hierarchy with bronze ploughshares. When the Code of Hammurabi inscribed “an eye for an eye” onto clay tablets, when Confucian ritual ethics elevated “restraining one’s desires and returning to propriety” into a moral imperative, humans unknowingly transformed ethics into an instrument of control. As Foucault reveals in Discipline and Punish, morality evolved into invisible chains disciplining the body, while the Dalit “purity rules” of the Indian caste system carried this alienation to absurd extremes.

Yet if we return to the origin of ethics, its core concerns remain unchanged:

• “How should one live?”
• “What gives life meaning?”
• “How should we relate to each other?”
• “Where do our values truly arise?”

In labor-dominated societies, these questions were framed under “productivity first,” with answers such as: “Work hard, obey order, follow rules.” However, once labor is no longer necessary for survival, these answers fundamentally shift—

We exist not because we are useful, but because we are loved and connected.

Thus, to restore ethics to its true source, only love—that which brings positive emotional experience and civilized behavior—can be humanity’s genuine core ethic.

In short: Love is each individual’s wisdom of self-management in emotion and behavior, humanity’s social management wisdom, and the core ethic of human civilization.

1.2 Hatred and Barbarism

According to Wikipedia, hatred is an intense negative emotional response toward certain people, things, or ideas, often associated with opposition or aversion. Hatred is frequently linked with strong anger, contempt, and disgust, and is sometimes regarded as the opposite of love.

Indeed, love and hate are entangled opposites. Following our definition of Love 2.0, we can also offer a definition of Hate 2.0:

Hate is a negative emotional experience and destructive behavioral pattern that arises in moments of individual or collective conflict, resource scarcity, or cognitive imbalance. It often manifests as hostility, exclusion, revenge, or indifference. Hate undermines personal inner balance and healthy growth, damages interpersonal relationships, and obstructs trust and cooperation in society. Although hate may sometimes arise from survival needs or evolve from righteous indignation against injustice, its destructive manifestations and persistent motivations are often deeply rooted in moral flaws—flaws manifested through the individual or collective narrow self-centeredness (self-interest), oversimplified attribution of complex issues, or a combination of both.

Hate is typically a primitive management mechanism formed when individuals or groups (such as rulers or the ruled) face survival crises, are driven by selfish desires, or lack the wisdom for regulation. It serves both as the “pressure outlet” between energy and emotion, and as the “fog” between words, deeds, and relationships. It plunges individuals or groups into fear, anxiety, or hostility, leading to deteriorating relationships, escalating conflict, and accelerating the disintegration, disorder, and decline of society.

Hatred is not only an internal emotional experience but also a process in which individuals or organized collectives incite and translate that emotion into violent thought and action. Its origins are straightforward: humans needed to kill animals for food, and they also had to defend themselves against barbaric attacks. From here emerged two basic types of hate: instrumental hate, used to attack for profit, and defensive hate, used for self-preservation when attacked. Yet, as human societies evolved, hatred grew increasingly complex.

We define barbarism or barbaric behavior as any deliberate act that harms, oppresses, or deprives oneself or others of life, dignity, freedom, spirit, or ecological balance—regardless of the form it takes. Whether it is raw physical violence or systemic, structural oppression, barbarism stems from hatred: abhorrence, fear, prejudice, discrimination, deceit, the lust for power, or even certain mental and physical disorders. Its essential consequence is to damage or sever love and trust between people, as well as between humanity and nature.

Thus, barbarism is the opposite of civilization.

1.3 Civilization

The word "civilization" is often used in two distinct contexts. Narrowly, it describes a particular culture, including the characteristics, lifestyle, and norms of a specific people or nation. At this point, civilization refers to the social governance consensus within a population or nation. This is the framework behind phrases like “Indian civilization” or “Western civilization,” constructed for purposes of horizontal and vertical comparison.

Civilization is also frequently contrasted with barbarism. In this context, the focus shifts to behavior (including speech, action, and systems of social governance).

We may further examine the meaning of “civilization” through language. In Chinese, the word “文明” (Wenming) carries a dual semantic weight: As a factual concept, it refers to the material achievements, technological advances, institutional evolution, and intellectual creations accumulated in human history. As a value-laden concept, it describes ethical behavioral standards such as politeness, rationality, and non-violence. In English, these two meanings are expressed through distinct words: civilization emphasizes macro-level historical and technological development, while civility emphasizes norms of individual conduct. Both, however, share the Latin root cīvīlis, meaning “public, political,” which also extends to “polite, moral.”119 This suggests that “civilization” has always been a composite concept blending history, technology, ethics, and politics.

Our exploration of civilization includes both cultural identity and loving behavior. From the perspective of behavior, civilization refers to standards such as politeness, rationality, and non-violence, which are all examples of good behavior. Whether driven by emotion or wisdom, the underlying force behind such behavior is love. Hence, we term it "loving behavior." Indeed, the very driving force behind civilized behavior—including governance consensus—is love.

Contemporary society is widely perceived as “highly civilized.” Many believe that technological advancement, complex institutions, and the information age have lifted us beyond barbarism. Especially as humanity enters the era of artificial intelligence, optimism and pride in human civilization abound.

Yet reality is sobering: human history to this day remains mired in oppression, alienation, and enslavement between people. Human societies continue to exist in a state where civilization and barbarism coexist. Humanity is still on the path toward genuine civilization.

1.4 Proof of Love and the Affluent Love Civilization

Civilization and barbarism are like two entangled quantum spin states. This means that a civilized person, civilized behavior, or a civilized society not only avoids the violence, bloodshed, and cruelty of barbarism, but also moves in the opposite direction—being driven by love, and expressing love through actions that generate positive emotional experiences and beneficial effects for oneself and others: life, dignity, freedom, ecology, or spirit.

A truly civilized individual is one whose heart is filled with love and whose behavior embodies love. Yet since inner experiences are invisible to others, we often simplify this into the equation: “words and deeds infused with love” = “civilized conduct.”

In this sense, a truly civilized society is one governed and driven by love—a society where every word and action embodies love. To establish such a society, we are developing a verifiable mechanism for human behavior, a governance consensus of a truly civilized society, which we call Proof of Love (PoL).

In order to distinguish a society governed by humanity’s core ethic of love from previous forms of civilization, we call it the Affluent Love Civilization (Proof-of-Love Civilization, or PoL Civil).

As for the governance consensus of this civilization—Proof of Love—we will elaborate in detail later in this paper.

Loving actions are what we normally refer to as civilized behavior. In this study, we term them love languages. With the assistance of several large models (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, Le Chat) and through in-depth discussions, our team has completed one round of excavation and categorization of these love languages, detailed in Appendix A of this paper.

 

2. The Triple Essence of Love: An Integrated Analysis of Wisdom, Emotional Experience, and Behavioral Expression

Every living being requires a governance mechanism to protect itself and ensure its healthy development. For humanity, this mechanism is its true core ethic: love.

First, let us delve into love’s triple essence: as a profound emotional experience, as a virtuous behavioral mode, and as the crystallization of human wisdom. By integrating perspectives from psychology, sociology, and philosophy, we aim to clarify the definition of love, its deep biological foundations, and its significant positive effects on individual well-being and social prosperity. Research shows that love is not only a subjective feeling but also a fundamental force that drives human connection, strengthens resilience, and promotes collective progress—its construction and maintenance are inseparable from human rationality and wisdom.

It is worth emphasizing that the “beauty” of love is reflected not only in its inner affective experience but also in its outward behavioral manifestations, which exert concrete and lasting impacts on personal health and social harmony. Crucially, all of this requires the guidance of wisdom.

2.1 Sociological Definitions: Social Construction and Social Power

2.1.1 The Wisdom Dimension of Love: Social Construction and Rational Management

Love, as a profound human experience, is not merely an instinctive emotional outburst or a biologically driven impulse. Rather, it is the crystallization of human wisdom, shaped and sustained through social construction and rational management. Sociological studies emphasize that love is a socially constructed entity—its meaning, expressions, and social functions evolve over time and are acquired through processes of social interaction². We are not born knowing how to love; instead, we learn “to love properly” through environments, personal experiences, and social exemplars such as parents².

This learning and construction of love is itself a manifestation of human wisdom. Love exists as a social form realized through knowledge and communication². Different forms of love—romantic love, friendship, parental love—are continually reshaped in modern societies under the influence of social expectations. This means that individuals rely on “knowledge of love” to interpret and respond to others in interpersonal interactions².

From a philosophical perspective, love is not only a passion but also a “rationally induced affection,” cultivated through rational inquiry and intellectual reflection. This rational pursuit of love is deeply bound to wisdom¹⁹. Love enhances self-knowledge, as the beloved can serve as a “mirror” reflecting one’s character, thereby contributing to moral development¹⁶. Virtue ethics likewise emphasizes the cultivation of character and virtues, with love—especially in its altruistic and compassionate form (Agape)—resonating with virtues such as kindness and compassion. The cultivation of such virtues is inseparable from the guidance of wisdom¹⁸. Hence, love is not merely an emotional experience or a behavioral manifestation but a product of human wisdom in understanding, shaping, and managing relationships and social bonds, guiding us toward both individual and collective flourishing.

A striking example that love is a crystallization of wisdom is the parallel growth between human intellectual breakthroughs and advancements in the expression and practice of love.

For instance, humanity’s development of language is unique among animals. At the same time, human language has achieved unparalleled richness in expressing love:

1. Diversification of Vocabulary

• Praise: From simple words like “beautiful” or “lovely” to poetic metaphors such as “a glimpse that topples cities,” humans continually create terms to deepen the imagery of admiration.
• Encouragement and Support: From “cheer up” to “I stand with you, come storm or shine,” language evolution amplifies supportive power.
• Gratitude: From “thank you” to grander expressions like “gratitude as deep as the ocean,” words of thanks become increasingly ritualized and solemn.

2. Subtle Emotional Nuances

• Capturing delicate emotions: People have created words such as “pity”, “throbbing”, and “melancholy” to clearly articulate the subtle nuances of love—such as a quickened heartbeat, lingering attachment, and constant longing—thus transcending the simplicity of just saying “like” or “love.”
• Metaphor and imagery: Representative expressions like “You are the North Star of my life” or “My thoughts are like autumn waters, stirred into ripples only because of you” show how emotion, conveyed through imagery or natural scenery, becomes not only poetic but also resonant.

3. Rhetorical Innovations

• Parallelism and antithesis: For example, “May everywhere your eyes rest be filled with joy; may everyone you think of be safe and well.” Such rhetorical structures lend language a rhythmic beauty and a sense of solemnity.
• Repetition and reduplication:For instance, “Love you, love you, until the end of time” or “Day and night, night and day.” These reinforce the depth and eternity of emotion.
• New terms and internet buzzwords (global examples):
• “bae” (short for Before Anyone Else, used to mean “baby” or “darling”)
• “ship” / “shipper” (to support or pair a couple, e.g., “I totally ship you two”)
• “OTP” (One True Pairing, referring to the most ideal couple)
• “ILY” (a shorthand for I Love You)
• “XOXO” (signifying hugs and kisses, common in Anglo-American letters and online communication)

Among young generations in China, expressions have emerged such as “light-year romance” (光年热恋), “sugar-spreading syndrome” (撒糖症), “sweetness overload” (甜度爆表), “I’m shipping it hard” (磕到了), and “heart-core” (心巴). These culturally time-stamped phrases bring love into rhythm with the pulse of contemporary life.

4. Expansion of Genres and Contexts

• Love Letters and Literary Works: From classical correspondence to modern novels, literature has always provided the most tender narrative space for love. Works such as Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, and Eileen Chang’s Love in a Fallen City use language to portray the lingering, intricate, and subtle textures of love.
• Lyrics and Poetry: When language meets melody, emotions transcend words to reach directly into the heart. Classic lines such as “I will always love you” or “Across a thousand mountains and rivers, love endures” have become cross-cultural symbols of romantic resonance.
• Film, Television, and Visual Media: Audiovisual mediums serve as the grand compendium of modern language. Dialogue, narration, subtitles, and the unfolding of plot transform love on screen into moments that extend into real life. The late-night conversations in Before Sunrise or the echo of “How are you?” in Love Letter are quintessential moments where language and imagery jointly craft the classics of love.
• Internet and Social Media: Weibo, Twitter, Instagram, WeChat Moments, short-video platforms… people use confession posts, anniversary captions, and couple vlogs to transform language into a way of recording and showcasing love. Various hashtags (such as #relationshipgoals and #LoveWins) further amplify the expression of love into network resonance, fostering a globalized bond of shared emotions.

The iterative evolution of language enables us to express “love” across different cultures and media in richer, more precise, and more personal ways, making the resonance between hearts easier to transmit and perceive.

Beyond language, examples of this are virtually inexhaustible.

Thus, sociologists generally regard love as a socially constructed entity, meaning that its meaning, forms of expression, and social functions evolve over time and are learned through processes of social interaction.¹ By examining the historical relationship between the emotional experience of love and loving behaviors, we know that the association between positive feelings and loving actions is not innate; rather, individuals gradually become familiar with and learn how to “love correctly” in different social contexts (such as family, friendships, and romantic relationships).² This learning process is deeply influenced by environment and personal experience, especially through the role of social models like parents.¹

Beyond individual experience, love is also understood as a powerful social force with a public dimension—capable of sparking change and activating processes of community-building and solidarity in contemporary societies.³ It connects individuals, encourages them to protect one another, and endows life with meaning.⁴ Love played a crucial role in early human evolution, serving as a powerful driver that led early humans to form lasting social bonds, protect each other, and establish communities to ensure survival.⁴

Cataldi and Iorio define “Social Love” as an action or social interaction in which the subject “goes beyond” what is expected—giving more than is required to bring about benefits, without expecting anything in return.³ This “excessive” form of love manifests in the following dimensions:

• Care: attending to the well-being of others, especially the vulnerable.⁵
• Universality: extending love beyond immediate circles to strangers, those from different backgrounds, even perceived enemies.⁵
• Recognition: respecting dignity and uniqueness regardless of background.⁵
• Concreteness: requiring proximity and practical enactment, not just sentiment.³

The concept of “Institutional Love” refers to love being embedded within institutional policies and practices, providing care in a systematic way (for example, hospital staff systematically understanding and meeting patients’ needs, rather than relying solely on individual acts of care).⁶ This differs from individual caregiving, as it fulfills patients’ needs through institutionalized understanding.⁶

If love is a social construct, then its forms and expectations are inevitably shaped by society. At the same time, if love is also a powerful social force, then society itself bears responsibility for cultivating “good” forms of love. The notions of Social Love and Institutional Love suggest that love is not merely a private matter but a public good, essential to collective well-being and the survival of the species.⁴ This implies that social structures and cultural norms play a decisive role in either fostering or obstructing beneficial expressions of love. An “unhealthy society”² may restrict the possibilities of love’s expression, causing it to manifest more often in selfish, non-loving forms (which, in practice, are often forms of hatred).

Therefore, cultivating “good ways of acting” through love requires not only individual effort but also societal-level interventions and the establishment of supportive institutions. This is all the more true for human civilization as it undergoes transformation alongside the breakthroughs brought about by AI.

2.2 Biological and Neurochemical Foundations of Love

This section examines the scientific basis of love, uncovering its deep biological roots and its critical role in human survival.

2.2.1 Hormonal Influences and Brain Activity

Many biochemists regard love as a biological process in which positive social interactions trigger cognitive and physiological responses, generating pleasurable or beneficial emotional and neurological states.⁷ This dynamic sustains sensory and cognitive activation, prompting individuals to seek love, respond positively to interactions with loved ones, and react negatively to their absence.⁷

Key hormones and brain regions underpin this foundation:

• Oxytocin (“love hormone”): Released during intimacy (hugs, handholding, meaningful conversation), fostering trust and bonding while lowering cortisol (the stress hormone). Even mutual gazes between dogs and owners elevate oxytocin.⁸
• Serotonin (“the mood stabilizer”): During romantic love, serotonin levels may increase, promoting calmness, contentment, and emotional regulation, and helping to reduce anxiety and sadness.⁹ However, some studies suggest that in the early stages of romantic love, serotonin levels actually decrease—a pattern also common in patients with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder—hinting at the obsessive component of passionate love.⁸
• Dopamine (“the pleasure hormone”): Released in the brain’s reward centers, dopamine is associated with motivation and pleasure, contributing to the euphoria and sense of purpose generated in love.⁸ When viewing photographs of a romantic partner, the dopamine system becomes activated, resembling the brain’s response when satisfying basic needs such as hunger or thirst.⁸
• Endorphins (“the natural painkillers”): Endorphins can alleviate physical discomfort and elevate mood, which explains why being with a loved one brings both physical and emotional comfort.⁹
• Adrenaline: Heightens exhilaration and goal-directed drive.⁸

Brain regions associated with love include:

• Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA) and Caudate Nucleus: These midbrain regions are part of the brain’s reward system, and they “light up” when thinking about a loved one, linking love with motivation and reward.⁸ This activation persists even in long-term marriages.⁸
• Amygdala: In stable, long-term relationships, activity in the amygdala decreases during intimate interactions, thereby reducing fear and stress responses.⁹
• Hippocampus and prefrontal cortex: As part of the reward circuitry, blood flow to these regions increases when speaking about a loved one.⁸
• Angular gyrus and mirror neuron system: Activated in long-term love, these regions are associated with complex language functions and predicting a partner’s behavior.⁸

The sustained activation of reward pathways (VTA, dopamine) and the release of stress-reducing hormones (oxytocin, serotonin) in the presence of a loved one—even within long-term relationships—strongly suggest that love is not merely a social construct, but is deeply rooted in human neurobiology. From an evolutionary perspective (the drive for healthy development, the desire for reproduction, the facilitation of cooperation, and the attachment that sustains family bonding),⁷ this aligns with the view that love is a “biological necessity” for well-being and survival.⁸ This biological foundation explains why love produces pleasure and why it serves as a powerful driver of bonding and prosocial behavior. Neurochemical responses provide a concrete mechanism through which “love as a positive and enriching emotional experience” is realized, reinforcing “constructive behavioral patterns” by making such behaviors intrinsically rewarding while alleviating stress. This emphasizes that our capacity to love others is an evolutionary outcome, essential for species survival through cooperation and connection.⁴

2.3 Love as a Positive Emotional Experience: Psychological Impacts

This section elaborates on the profound psychological benefits of love, supported by empirical research.

2.3.1 Enhancing Happiness, Life Satisfaction, and Emotional Well-Being

Love correlates with positive emotions such as happiness, excitement, satisfaction, and euphoria.¹¹ Individuals in stable, loving relationships report better sleep, lower cortisol, and greater resilience under stress.⁹ Feeling loved activates emotion-regulation systems, helping people recover from setbacks with optimism. Such individuals experience less stress, anxiety, and sadness, and report greater purpose in life.¹² High-quality romantic relationships—marked by mutual affection, support, and satisfaction—significantly enhance happiness and life satisfaction.⁴

2.3.2 Reducing Stress, Anxiety, and Depression

Experiencing love buffers against chronic depression, anxiety, and stress-related illnesses.⁹ Supportive relationships provide safety and stability, easing stress management. Sharing burdens with loved ones reduces emotional and physical strain. Neuroimaging shows that those in stable, long-term relationships exhibit stronger activity in reward centers and weaker activity in anxiety-related regions—cultivating calmness and security. Love and strong social ties counter loneliness and depression while increasing belonging.¹⁰ Oxytocin reduces cortisol, while serotonin helps mitigate anxiety and sadness.⁹

2.3.3 Promoting Emotional Regulation and Resilience

Love activates the emotional regulation system, enabling individuals to cope with daily stress without breakdowns.⁹ In therapy, “co-regulation” occurs when two nervous systems synchronize: being with a safe, loving partner or family member lowers stress automatically, fostering psychological stability. Brain imaging reveals that love can literally reshape neural activity, making individuals more hopeful, emotionally balanced, and resilient.⁸

2.3.4 Broader Health and Longevity Benefits

• Longevity: Studies show that married individuals and those with strong social ties tend to live longer and face lower risks of heart disease, certain cancers, and infections such as pneumonia. In contrast, loneliness significantly increases the risk of premature death.⁴
• Cardiovascular Health: Supportive relationships help regulate stress hormones and reduce inflammation, thereby lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. Happy marriages are associated with a reduced incidence of heart disease.⁴
• Lower Blood Pressure: Happily married couples generally demonstrate healthier blood pressure levels.¹⁰
• Enhanced Immune System: Feeling loved and supported boosts immune function, making individuals less susceptible to colds and other viral infections, and aiding faster recovery from illness.¹⁰
• Pain Management: Love activates brain regions associated with pain control, which explains why happily married couples report fewer complaints of back pain and headaches.¹⁰
• Gut Health: Love can nourish and support the gut microbiome, which is critical for digestion, immune function, and overall well-being.¹⁰

Multiple studies⁸ consistently link love to reduced cortisol (the stress hormone), improved sleep, lower blood pressure, enhanced immune function, and even better pain management. These findings reveal how emotional well-being directly translates into physical health. Neural reward system activation and hormonal regulation serve as internal mechanisms that realize these benefits. This demonstrates that love is not merely a psychological factor but a fundamental determinant of holistic health and longevity—a crucial element for both public health and preventive care. Conversely, the absence of love or social connection (loneliness) produces harmful physiological outcomes, highlighting the vital importance of cultivating loving relationships.

By contrast, the opposite of love—hatred—also generates rigorous emotional and physiological responses, but almost always manifests as intense pain and distress. We believe nearly everyone possesses firsthand awareness of this, and thus no redundant elaboration is needed. It is particularly worth noting: because both love and hate correspond to deeply ingrained physiological mechanisms identified through emotional experience, any systematic destruction of love or dissemination of hatred by rulers inevitably ends in failure—though the timescale of such failure, measured from the emergence of humanity, may span millions of years.

Table 1: Psychological and Physiological Benefits of Love

Category of Benefit	Specific Impact	Supporting Evidence / Mechanism
Emotional Benefits	Enhances happiness, life satisfaction, and euphoria; reduces anxiety, depression, and sadness; improves self-esteem and sense of belonging	Activation of emotion regulation systems; release of oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine; increased activity in brain reward centers; reduced loneliness11
Cognitive Benefits	Improves cognitive resilience; fosters optimism	Activation of emotion regulation systems; changes in brain activity8
Physiological Benefits	Lowers cortisol (stress hormone) levels; improves sleep quality; reduces blood pressure; strengthens the immune system; aids in pain management; supports gut microbiome; reduces cardiovascular risk	Oxytocin reduces cortisol; co-regulation of nervous systems; reduced inflammation; activation of brain pain-control regions8
Behavioral Benefits	Promotes empathy; builds more trusting and cooperative relationships; encourages healthy habits; provides emotional support	Co-regulation; positive feedback loops of social bonding9
Longevity Benefits	Increases life expectancy; lowers risk of premature death	Strong social ties; encouragement of healthy habits; stress reduction4

2.4 Love as a Virtuous Mode of Behavior: Sociological and Prosocial Dimensions

This section explores how love translates into beneficial actions (civilized behavior) and its broader social implications, emphasizing its role in fostering social cohesion and collective well-being.

2.4.1 Love as a Driver of Cooperation, Community-Building, and Social Cohesion

Love is “at the heart of the human story,” driving individuals to nurture, protect, and connect with one another, thereby enhancing survival.⁴ It helps bridge divisions, fosters cooperation, and elevates collective welfare. Evolutionarily, love developed as a powerful force, enabling early humans to forge lasting social bonds and establish communities essential for survival.

Social love is defined as an action or interaction in which an individual “goes beyond” expectation, offering more than required for the benefit of others without anticipating return. This includes care, universality (helping strangers), and recognition of others’ dignity.³ Loving relationships—such as marital satisfaction—can inspire individuals to extend connections outward and contribute to society, producing a “ripple effect” that supports the creation of a better world.⁴

2.4.2 The Concept of “Institutional Love” and Its Social Role

Institutional love refers to love embedded in institutional policies and practices, where care is delivered systematically (e.g., hospital staff comprehensively addressing patient needs beyond individual compassion). This concept emphasizes how organizational structures, training, and practices can embody love, thereby fostering collective well-being.⁶ Institutional love transforms love from a purely personal sentiment into a public and transformative force capable of catalyzing change and activating solidarity.³

2.4.3 Love’s Impact on Personal Growth and Character Development

Love is regarded as the “supreme emotion,” allowing us to “experience the fullness of life and the fullest sense of being human,” and is vital for flourishing and health.¹⁴ Compassionate love—centered on the welfare of others—is especially significant for psychological well-being in later life. Reciprocal exchanges of love (receiving and expressing love) are crucial.¹⁴

Love fosters personal growth, defined as the continuous development of knowledge, skills, abilities, values, and the realization of positive inner potential. It enables individuals to understand their functions, set and achieve goals, and thereby expand freedom, creativity, and opportunities.¹⁵

Although acts of love are undoubtedly beneficial at the individual level, sociological perspectives reveal that when conceptualized as "social love"³ and "institutional love"⁶, love transcends interpersonal relations to become a systemic force. The view that “love emerges from cooperation, and cooperation is our mode of survival” elevates love from personal choice to evolutionary and societal necessity. This suggests that “civilized behavior” is not merely about individual kindness but about constructing social structures that embody and promote love. This has profound implications for policymaking, community development, and organizational design, demonstrating that embedding principles of care, universality, and recognition into social systems produces more resilient, cooperative, and prosperous human societies.

Table 2: Behavioral Expressions of Love and Their Social Benefits

Behavioral Expression	Description / Concept	Social Benefits / Impact
Nurturing and Protection	Drives individuals to form lasting social bonds; care for others’ well-being	Community building; species survival; collective well-being4
Cooperation and Connection	Helps bridge divisions; promotes collective welfare; inspired early humans to form social bonds	Social cohesion; reduced prejudice; enhanced empathy; increased social resilience4
Altruism and Care	The “excess” nature of social love: giving more than required without expecting return; caring for vulnerable groups; universality (helping strangers, people from other cultures); recognition of others’ dignity and uniqueness	Activates community-building and solidarity processes; promotes social transformation; enhances collective well-being3
Institutionalized Care	Institutional love: care embedded in institutional policies, systems, training, and practices	Improves collective welfare; systemic support; fosters social harmony6
Fostering Personal Growth	Promotes continuous development of knowledge, skills, abilities, and values through love; realization of positive inner potential	Enhances individual well-being; increases freedom, creativity, and opportunities16
Social Contribution	Inspires individuals to connect with others and contribute to society; the “ripple effect” of love	Builds a better world; strengthens social bonds4

2.5 Philosophical Perspectives: Love as Virtue and Guiding Principle

This section examines the ethical dimension of love, exploring how it serves as a moral virtue and a guiding principle for human flourishing.

2.5.1 Love in Ethical and Moral Development

Human ethics emphasizes the cultivation of character and ideal traits.¹⁸ A virtuous person consistently exhibits kindness, not for external reward but as an inherent expression of character. While love is not always explicitly categorized as a primary virtue in the literature, its qualities strongly align with virtuous behavior. Agape—unconditional and selfless love—embodies virtues such as compassion, benevolence, and altruism.⁷

Eudaimonism, a branch of virtue ethics, grounds virtue in human flourishing (eudaimonia), understood as the full realization of one’s unique function. For humans, rationality is central, yet love—especially in its capacity to foster connection and collective well-being—makes profound contributions to “a life worth living.”¹⁸ Love “helps develop our character” and promotes self-knowledge, as the beloved can serve as a mirror reflecting and shaping one’s moral identity.¹⁶ This aligns with virtue ethics’ emphasis on inner moral growth.

Our inquiry increasingly confirms: a virtuous person is one who adopts love as their primary behavioral motive and suppresses hatred to a vanishing probability.

By contrast, hatred is the driving force of barbarism, leading only to harm toward others, communities, and human society as a whole. Thus, without doubt, only love is worthy of praise as a virtue; only love qualifies as the true core ethic of human civilization.

2.5.2 Love as a Principle of Personal and Relational Flourishing

The partiality inherent in love (i.e., prioritizing those closest to us) is morally valuable, for it sustains loving relationships that are essential to “human well-being, integrity, and life achievement.”¹⁶ Love guides behaviors that yield positive moral outcomes in relationships. One of the main reasons for relationships is that “we bring out the best in each other.” Love, therefore, functions as a principle encouraging mutual elevation and growth.

Love provides pro tanto reasons for action—partial but significant reasons that guide choice even if not always overriding. In this way, love influences moral decision-making. Loving relationships motivate individuals to contribute to society, enhancing their capacity to build a better world.⁴ Thus, the principle of flourishing extends beyond personal or dyadic relationships into broader communities.

Philosophical discourse on love, particularly its ties to virtue ethics and eudaimonism, elevates love beyond emotion or behavior into an ethical compass. If love inspires the best in us, develops our character, and advances human flourishing¹⁶, then it functions as a guiding principle for realizing human potential. This perspective shows that “civilized behavior” is not merely about rule-following but about cultivating inner character (virtue) that naturally gives rise to benevolence and growth-oriented action. Hence, nurturing love—especially in its selfless, compassionate form (Agape)—is not only psychologically positive and sociologically constructive but also a fundamental ethical pursuit. It implies that a life guided by love is inherently more virtuous and more conducive to both individual and collective flourishing, resonating with the ancient philosophical ideal of “the good life.”

2.6 Conclusion: The Far-Reaching Significance of Love

2.6.1 Reaffirming Love’s Integrated Role

For clarity, and to connect our discussion with large language models, we refer in this paper to the verbal and behavioral expressions of love—loving speech and action—as Love Languages.

This study reaffirms its core thesis: Love is both a positive and beautiful emotional experience, a virtuous behavioral mode (Love Languages), and, from a philosophical standpoint, a guiding virtue for human flourishing. Love directs individuals toward ethical action and the realization of their highest potential. All of this is inseparable from human wisdom—its guidance, management, and communicative functions—making love, indeed, a crystallization of human wisdom. This is what we call the triple essence of love: emotional experience, Love Languages, and wisdom, deeply intertwined. It represents a complex interaction merging biological drives, psychological states, socially acquired behaviors, and rational construction and management. From its neurochemical origins to its social manifestations, love consistently promotes human well-being and collective prosperity.

2.6.2 Implications for Individual Well-Being and Social Harmony

The profound psychological benefits of love (happiness, resilience, health) underscore its essential role in personal flourishing. Its sociological dimensions (cooperation, community-building, institutional care) highlight its foundational function in constructing cohesive and supportive societies.

Thus, we may conclude that love, while beginning as a profound personal experience, is never confined to private enjoyment. Rather, through its expression as diverse Love Languages, guided and coordinated by human wisdom, it becomes a public driving force—ensuring human safety, healthy development, positive relationships, and the advancement of society.

Yes—love is the public driving force of humanity’s progression toward civilization.

Love arises from life’s deep self-understanding, becoming the inevitable choice of both individuals and collectives in the pursuit of self-knowledge and self-realization. It is a public and transformative force capable of sparking change and activating solidarity. Therefore, whether for individuals or for humanity at large, love persists and evolves as a governance mechanism—truly the public driving force of human civilization.

 

3. The Convergence of Domination and Barbarism: Power as the Root of Hatred, Alienation, and Obstacles to Civilizational Development

This section aims to explore in depth the thesis that “domination is the social root of hatred and barbarism.” We will examine the fundamental link between hierarchical power structures and destructive human behavior as well as social stagnation. The analysis will systematically address how various forms of political, economic, social, and cultural power generate hatred, strip and instrumentalize love in human relationships, and ultimately obstruct genuine civilizational progress. Drawing on critical social theory, Marxist analysis, Foucauldian perspectives, and contemporary psychology and sociology, we will reveal how domination, beneath the veneer of modern progress, perpetuates—and even deepens—a condition of “primordial barbarism.”

Yes, this also means that human society still exists in a half-barbaric, half-civilized state.

3.1 Hatred, Barbaric Behavior, and Domination

According to Wikipedia, hatred is a strong negative emotional reaction toward certain people, things, or ideas, often linked to opposition or disgust. Hatred is frequently associated with intense anger, contempt, and revulsion, and is sometimes regarded as the opposite of love.

Hatred is a latent, object-directed negative emotional experience that can be externalized as aggression, insults, deception, contempt, or discrimination against others (or oneself), or internalized as anger, sadness, despair, disappointment, or loathing.

It is both an inner emotional state and a process whereby individuals or collective organizations incite and translate this emotion into violent thoughts and actions. Rooted in zero-sum “life-or-death” dualism, hatred manifests in verbal assault, institutionalized discrimination, social exclusion, and violent practices. These not only erode trust and public cooperation, jeopardizing the physical and psychological well-being of others, but also backfire on perpetrators, leading to self-barbarization and cycles of inner torment.

The origins of hatred are evolutionarily intelligible: lions need prey, boar piglets need protection. In the jungle, facing food scarcity or predators, there is no space for love—only extreme hatred ensures survival. For humans, responding to barbaric assault often necessitates barbaric retaliation to defend oneself or others—what we term legitimate self-defense. Indeed, hatred can sometimes serve crucial self-protective or altruistic functions. However, since legitimate self-defense entails a complex blend of love and hate, it will not be the focus here.

Triggers of Hatred:

• Negative judgments and emotional projection
• Cognitive distortions (e.g., labor alienation)
• Power struggles and domination mechanisms
• Survival threats or selfish motives

Externalization of Hatred:

• Verbal aggression, insult, and discrimination
• Institutional injustice and social exclusion
• Violence and barbaric practices
• Information manipulation and propagandistic incitement

Social Consequences:

• Erosion of social trust and public cooperation
• Reinforcement of “us–them” antagonisms, ritualizing collective hatred
• Intensification of structural inequality and cycles of conflict

Self-Impact:

• Self-barbarization: loss of empathy, magnified violent impulses, pride in being “powerful” or “ruthless”
• Self-torment: cycles of anxiety, guilt, or narcissism, oscillating between “I am unworthy of love” and “everyone must love me”

Among children and adolescents, school bullying, exclusion, or chronic stress often translate suppressed hatred into depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges—typical expressions of these mechanisms among vulnerable groups.

Hatred can be fleeting or enduring. Its intensity ranges from mild dislike (“I hate broccoli”) to global nihilism (“I hate the entire world”). In some cases, hatred is a learned response shaped by abuse, manipulation, or indoctrination.

If we define barbaric behavior as any deliberate act that inflicts harm, oppression, or deprivation upon one’s own or others’ life, dignity, freedom, ecology, or spirit—then we see clearly that such intentional harm requires the presence of deep negative emotions toward its target. Except in cases of specific mental illness, hatred—manifesting as loathing, fear, prejudice, discrimination, deceit, or envy—provides the core psychological fuel for barbarism. Its ultimate effect is to damage, or even sever, the bonds of love and trust between human beings and between humans and nature.

In this sense, hatred supplies the emotional justification (“they deserve punishment”), while barbaric behavior supplies the practical means (exclusion, online mobbing, torture, massacre, discriminatory laws).

Thus, hatred is the central psychological driver of barbaric action. In other words, behaviors motivated by hatred are inherently barbaric rather than civilized.

Since we have already defined acts of love as Love Languages, we now introduce the counterpart: acts of hatred and barbarism as Hate Languages. For brevity, we also use “hate” to refer to this category.

Hate is a negative emotional experience constructed through human cognition and practice, often externalized into harmful behaviors.

In this paper, we focus specifically on hate languages expressed through hateful and barbaric acts.

Domination refers to the exercise of control by a minority or an individual, through power structures, over the life, will, property, and autonomy of others. It directly violates others’ “freedom” and “dignity,” and entails oppression and exploitation of the majority. It is, therefore, itself a form of barbarism. Prejudice, discrimination, hatred, fear, and the thirst for power are often legitimized and institutionalized within relations of domination. Where domination becomes normalized, other barbarisms—torture, enslavement, systemic oppression—follow as its subordinate forms.

“The essence of politics is power, not morality.” So warned Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince. Similarly, over 1,800 years earlier, Shang Yang in The Book of Lord Shang offered parallel insights. If domination is not rooted in morality, then its essence is—as Lu Xun wrote in Diary of a Madman—to eat people.

Domination permeates all realms of human society: from states to families, from politics to economics, from corporations to schools. Its ubiquity multiplies its harms. If domination invariably produces barbarism, then hatred is its underlying driver—this is no exaggeration.

As the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet 248 years later, one need only examine the actions of the Trump administration to ask: which of these inalienable rights were truly safeguarded under its rule?

Of course, this indictment applies not only to Trump but to rulers in general.

Structures of Power in Contemporary Human Domination

Political Power Structures:

• International organizations (UN, WTO, IEA, WHO, UNESCO) shaping sovereignty, trade, energy, health, culture, and education.
• Nation-states and government branches (legislative, executive, judicial).
• Military and police (monopoly on legitimate violence).
• Bureaucracies (vast civil service systems).

Economic Power Structures:

• Capital (Marx’s “silent force”).
• Multinational corporations and monopolistic conglomerates.
• Financial institutions (banks, private equity, hedge funds).

Cultural and Ideological Power Structures:

• Mainstream media and opinion-shaping machinery.
• Educational systems (curricula, classrooms, examinations).
• Religion and ideological organizations.

Technological and Informational Power Structures:

• Tech giants and platforms (algorithmic recommendation, data control).
• Surveillance and security networks (digital monitoring, big-data analysis).

Social and Group Power Structures:

• Elite networks and exclusive clubs.
• Families and kinship systems (mutual aid and exclusion based on bloodline or locality).
• Professional and industry associations (certifications, standards, regulations).

Familial and Intimate Power Structures:

• Household authority hierarchies: parental control over children or spousal domination based on tradition, economics, or emotional dependency.
• Patriarchal/clan systems legitimizing absolute seniority.
• Invisible domination in intimate relationships (emotional blackmail, financial control, information blocking).

Legal and Institutional Power Structures:

• Legal texts and judicial interpretations (defining “legal/illegal”).
• Regulatory and compliance systems (licensing, censorship, sanctions).

These structures intersect to form a multi-dimensional domination network linking ruling elites, privileged classes, and vested interests into an entrenched alliance. Thus, any discussion of human governance must necessarily address domination and power in depth.

3.2 Theoretical Foundations of Power and Oppression

3.2.1 Critical Theory: Systemic, Disciplinary, and Ideological Dimensions of Power

Critical theory, originating from the Frankfurt School, is a current of social, historical, and political thought whose core lies in analyzing and challenging systemic power relations in society. Unlike traditional social theory, which aims to describe and understand society, critical theory explicitly seeks to critique and transform it, emphasizing the unity of theory and praxis. It maintains that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by the dynamics between ruling and oppressed groups.

Modern critical theory goes beyond Marxism’s purely economic analysis by incorporating and reworking Freudian concepts and postmodernist perspectives to examine broader cultural and social structures of power. Its goal is to “liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them,” often achieved through “immanent critique” of a society’s own proclaimed values. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a seminal contribution, framing the classroom as a microcosm of society that reflects the dialectical relationship between oppressors and the oppressed, thereby offering practical routes for social critique.

This transition from purely economic analysis to cultural and psychological examination highlights that domination is no longer limited to material control but extends into the manipulation of desires, cognition, and identity. If domination is a form of “primordial barbarism,” then its manifestations are not only naked coercion or economic compulsion but also subtle, pervasive forms of enslavement. This expanded definition of barbarism encompasses the systematic dehumanization of individuals through cultural and psychological means and the erosion of autonomy—domination as control of the human subject itself, not merely the body.

3.2.2 Marxist Perspectives: Exploitation, Alienation, and Class Domination

From a Marxist standpoint, social power and coercion are exercised through economic exploitation. Workers are exploited because they cannot retain or control the full value of their labor, while capitalists appropriate the surplus. The inherently exploitative nature of capitalism implies that nearly every exchange carries the potential for exploitation.

In this process, poverty is not naturally occurring but is “first manufactured by the capitalist system, and only later addressed as a problem to be solved.” Redistribution by the state is thus a secondary remedy imposed upon primary inequality created by initial distribution. This institutionalized exploitation forms the essence of capitalist economic relations.

Alienation (Entfremdung) and reification are key concepts in critical theory, rooted in Marxist analysis.

“The relation of the worker to the product of his labor is as to an alien object… The more the worker expends himself in labor, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects he creates against himself, the poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself.”

Here Marx reveals how human “species-being” is alienated into independent capital that, once crystallized, dominates the very individuals who created it. Alienation manifests as loss of confidence in one’s environment and in oneself, leading to profound loneliness and despair. Its expressions include powerlessness (lack of control over working conditions), meaninglessness (disconnection from larger purposes), isolation (absence of belonging), and self-alienation (discontent with one’s own work).

Reification transforms social relations into relations between things, reducing individuals to mere “cogs in the machine.” For the bourgeoisie, alienation is perversely experienced as confirmation of their own power; they embrace alienation as strength, while simultaneously intensifying their cruelty toward workers.

Marxist state theory holds that the state is a machine for maintaining class domination: an organization of the ruling class endowed with the strongest instruments of repression and coercion. In capitalism, the state is structured to uphold capitalist institutions and ensure the dictatorship of a minority of capitalists through both violent and ideological apparatuses.

The Marxist concept of reification—social relations treated as relations between objects—combined with the idea of objectified labor becoming a dominating force, reveals the subtle but profound instrumentality inherent in capitalist structures. Human agency paradoxically creates alienated powers (capital/objectified labor) that turn back upon their creators, exploiting and ruling them. This “systemic instrumentalization” extends beyond interpersonal exploitation to the very level of social structure, reducing individuals to components within an impersonal economic machine. This, too, is a form of barbarism.

3.2.3 Foucauldian Insights: Power Beyond the State, Normalization, and Biopower

Michel Foucault rejected the notion that power resides solely in the state, arguing instead that power has a broader, more diffuse basis, embedded in complex networks of relationships between individuals. The modern state, in his view, is a sophisticated structure that integrates individuals into its order by conditioning them to adopt certain patterns and forms of individuality, thereby exercising control over them.

Foucault distinguished between sovereign power (judicial, prohibitive—the “sword of sovereignty”) and disciplinary power. Disciplinary power is a productive force that operates through normalization, prescribing possible actions for subjects, rewarding conformity, and punishing deviation. Punishment shifts from revealing truth to producing docile, rule-following subjects.

This new power form, biopower, is productive and life-oriented, managing populations in ways essential to capitalism, since it aligns human life with economic processes.

Foucault also emphasized: “Where there is power, there is resistance.” Power does not act upon inert bodies; subjects respond and transform commands in multiple ways. Power binds subjects to their identities, making them internalize norms as if they were their own, so that they become simultaneously the targets and carriers of power.

The distinction between sovereign and disciplinary power reveals that modern domination is not crude repression but subtle, internalized control—shaping identity and behavior, making resistance far more difficult. This represents a more insidious form of barbarism, one that hijacks freedom itself to create self-replicating mechanisms of domination. Individuals reproduce the very norms that enslave them, even under the illusion of being “free.”

3.2.4 Power, Privilege, and Oppression in Social Structures

Power is the capacity to influence others and make decisions. Privilege refers to unearned advantages conferred by membership in a dominant group. Oppression is power exercised over time in ways that systematically disadvantage another group. Even when interpersonal relations seem harmonious, structural disadvantage persists because it is sustained by institutions—policies, governments, educational systems, healthcare—and reinforced by social norms.

Inequitable distribution of power produces discrimination and injustice, rooted both in individual prejudice and in systemic bias. These unjust systems span contexts from corporate boardrooms to university admissions, consistently reproducing hierarchical and elitist outcomes.

Social Dominance Theory explains how stable societies form hierarchies along axes such as race, gender, religion, and class, wherein dominant groups enjoy privilege while subordinate groups endure disadvantage. These hierarchies are sustained not by constant coercion but by “legitimizing myths”—widely accepted cultural ideologies that naturalize inequality.

Such myths reveal that power structures not only impose disadvantage but normalize and rationalize it through broadly accepted yet rarely scrutinized beliefs. This links directly to concepts of false consciousness and epistemic ideology. Legitimizing myths are cultural ideologies based on stereotypes—overgeneralized beliefs about particular groups—that are then used to justify domination in seemingly “culturally acceptable” ways.

False consciousness describes how dominant institutions disseminate “counterfactual but normative assumptions and rituals” that make exploitation less visible or more palatable. Epistemic ideology refers to flawed cultural systems of understanding that empower elites.

The causation is clear: dominant groups create and propagate these myths/ideologies, which then solidify into “common sense.” This ideological manipulation constitutes a profound form of “primordial barbarism,” because it undermines critical thought and collective resistance, perpetuating oppression without overt coercion.

3.3 The Origins of Hatred in Power Structures

3.3.1 Mechanisms by Which Power Imbalances Breed Hostility and Conflict

Hatred, fear, and contempt are the emotions that drive conflict participants toward violence; they replace reason with fictitious notions of the “dangerous Other.” Hatred is a deep and extreme emotional aversion, typically associated with hostility toward its target, and can escalate to violent acts such as murder and war.

The exercise of power can induce, motivate, entice, coerce, or overwhelm conflict participants. This form of “emotional power” reflects the integration of power dynamics and emotional life, manifested in public performances of gathering, debating, deliberating, cheering, jeering, or even fighting. Over time, repeated exposure to such power can “train” or “condition” individuals to respond in specific ways.

Emotional power—defined as the integration of power dynamics with emotional life—shows that hatred is not merely an individual feeling but also a form of social engineering employed by ruling powers to mobilize conflict participants and control target populations, making it a direct tool of barbarism. Emotional power has been defined as a “socio-psychological force that interacts with conflict dynamics” and can “induce, motivate, entice, coerce, or overwhelm conflict participants.” A particularly insidious form of this power is state-driven campaigns aimed at controlling the thoughts and lives of targeted groups by instilling a sense of inferiority.

This establishes a direct causal chain: power structures actively cultivate and exploit emotions such as hatred, transforming them from private feelings into collective destructive forces. The systematic manipulation of emotions for the purposes of control and violence is a clear expression of “primordial barbarism,” revealing that hatred is not simply a spontaneous eruption but a deliberate product of domination.

3.3.2 Psychological Dimension: Devaluing Victims and Instilling Inferiority

Hatred rests on a complex mix of cognition and emotion. Its cognitive component involves devaluing the “Other” and perceiving them as a threat. Hate-based violence is driven by persistent, negative cognitions toward the “Other” and the intent to harm or destroy them.

Systematic humiliation is a key mechanism of state power, exploiting the psychology of targeted groups by inducing “toxic self-deprecation” to erode self-esteem. This works by fabricating images of incompetence or worthlessness, generating both external and internalized devaluation, making these groups less likely to resist authority.

As hatred grows, targets are stripped of moral or human consideration, creating a sense of legitimacy for action—even annihilation—against them. This process erodes empathy.

The twin mechanisms of victim devaluation and systematic humiliation through instilled inferiority represent a form of psychological warfare deployed by power structures. Dehumanization erodes empathy and legitimizes violence, directly enabling barbarism by dismantling moral restraints. Hatred, characterized by “an increasing need to devalue victims,” inevitably “reduces empathy.” Meanwhile, systematic humiliation as a form of state power instills “toxic self-deprecation” that weakens targets’ self-esteem and makes them “less likely to complain, obstruct, resist, or rebel against authority.”

The logical implication is that by systematically stripping individuals or groups of basic humanity and value, ruling powers eliminate moral and psychological barriers to harm. Hatred then becomes the justification—“the reason to act, even to annihilate the hated Other.” This reveals the direct and sinister causal pathway from power-induced psychological manipulation to violence and barbaric behavior, showing how domination actively cultivates the conditions for hatred and cruelty.

3.3.3 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Its Association with Reduced Empathy Toward Outgroups

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) measures an individual’s preference for and endorsement of group-based social hierarchies and inequality. It is associated with competitive worldviews and heightened prejudicial attitudes.

High levels of SDO are consistently correlated with lower empathy and higher “counter-empathy” (taking pleasure in others’ suffering, or schadenfreude). This reduction in empathy is most pronounced toward outgroup members, especially under competitive or threatening intergroup conditions.

Importantly, efforts toward social equality and inclusion can paradoxically amplify the effects of authoritarianism (closely related to SDO) on prejudice, as authoritarians perceive such equality as a “situational threat.”

That SDO can reinforce prejudice even in egalitarian contexts demonstrates that the drive for domination actively undermines attempts to build a more equal society. Progress toward equality is reinterpreted as a threat to hierarchical preferences, triggering intensified prejudice and hatred. Research shows that “social equality and inclusion strengthen the impact of authoritarianism on prejudice. These results suggest that equality functions as a situational threat, catalyzing ‘authoritarian dynamics’ rather than being embraced as a norm by authoritarians.”

This reveals a profound causal mechanism: dominance-oriented individuals not only thrive under systems of inequality but also actively resist and distort egalitarian efforts. When confronted with conditions that challenge hierarchical preferences, they may respond with heightened prejudice and hatred, perceiving inclusionary measures as existential threats to their status. This illustrates how domination perpetuates “primordial barbarism,” converting positive social progress into triggers for conflict and hostility.

Table 1. Typology of Mechanisms by Which Power Induces Hatred

Mechanism of Hate Generation	Type of Power Involved	Impact on Target Group/Individual	Manifestations of Hate
Systematic Humiliation	State Power	Devaluation, instillation of inferiority	Violence, discrimination, social exclusion
Ideological Control	Cultural / Ideological Power	Alienation, rationalization of harm	Prejudice, conflict mobilization
Economic Exploitation	Economic Power	Powerlessness, commodification, alienation	Resentment, class conflict
Group Division / Competition	Social Power	Reduced empathy, schadenfreude	Prejudice, social exclusion
Emotional Blackmail	Familial Power	Guilt, dependency, role entrapment	Manipulation, emotional isolation
Media Manipulation / Propaganda	Technological / Informational Power	Stereotyping, group antagonism	Prejudice, hate speech
Legal Discrimination	Legal / Institutional Power	Rights deprivation, marginalization	Discriminatory laws, abuse of public authority
International Sanctions / Isolation	Power of International Organizations	Collective suffering, externalized hostility	Xenophobia, nationalist mobilization

3.4 The Deprivation and Instrumentalization of Love and Human Relationships

3.4.1 The Impact of Unequal Power Dynamics on Interpersonal Bonds and Empathy

Power and control dynamics significantly shape interpersonal relationships, influencing interactions and well-being. In imbalanced relationships, the dominant partner may find it difficult to generate empathy, shifting focus from understanding the partner’s perspective to maintaining control. This can result in emotional manipulation, gaslighting, verbal abuse, financial control, isolation, threats, and micromanagement.

Empathy is foundational to the development and maintenance of human relationships. While empathy usually fosters social affinity and warmth, it may be undermined if it interferes with competition or is exploited to understand more powerful others for status gains.

High relational power can lead individuals to believe they lose less if the relationship dissolves. Studies show that those perceiving themselves as holding higher power in relationships are more prone to attraction to alternatives outside the relationship, engaging in fantasies or romantic interactions with substitute partners. This phenomenon is mediated by an increased perception of one’s own “mate value.”

Thus, when high-power partners perceive themselves as more attractive and at lower risk of loss, they are more likely to disengage from existing commitments and seek alternatives. This creates systematic “love deprivation” for lower-power partners, whose emotional needs and fundamental commitments are undermined by power imbalance. Domination—even in intimate settings—therefore manifests as a relational form of barbarism.

3.4.2 Buber’s “I-It” Relationship: Objectification and Instrumental Treatment of Others

Martin Buber’s I and Thou distinguishes two fundamental relational modes: “I-It” and “I-You.”

The “I-It” relation is based on alienation, where the other is treated as an object or instrument for utility. Here, the “I” emerges as a self-conscious subject of experience and use.

By contrast, the “I-You” relation entails openness, ethical engagement, and recognition of the other’s intrinsic worth, characterized by dialogue and full presence.

Rick Bellingham interprets “I-It” as “aggressive power abuse,” in which one person views another as an object to be exploited, linking it with predatory behaviors.

Buber’s concept of the “I-It” relation provides a philosophical articulation of human instrumentalization inherent in power structures. It is a precursor to aggressive power abuse that denies the dignity and subjectivity of others. The shift from recognizing others as “You” to treating them as “It” constitutes a fundamental dehumanization, paving the way for exploitation and abuse. This dynamic reveals how instrumentalization is not only an outcome of power but also a core mechanism of barbarism in human relationships, corroding the very foundation of human connection.

3.4.3 Romantic Love as a Biological Drive and the Consequences of Misunderstanding/Repression

One study argues that Romantic Love is a primary biological drive, akin to hunger or thirst, rather than an emotion. This widespread misunderstanding, entrenched by science and society, has severe consequences.

Sexual control is regarded as a major source and expression of power in many species, including humans. Religion and society have historically exploited institutionalized marriage to manufacture a “false and coerced state of love,” enforcing exclusivity in unions driven primarily by sexual interest, while punishing deviations.

Romantic love is a biological drive rather than an emotion⁴⁸, and society’s misunderstanding/suppression of it—typically through sexual control and institutionalized marriage as structures of power—has led to “love deprivation syndrome,” as well as severe consequences such as suicide and femicide⁴⁸. This demonstrates that domination actively distorts a fundamental human need, transforming the source of connection into a source of profound suffering and even death. This represents a deep form of barbarism. Sexual control is “a primary source and expression of power in many animal species, including humans”⁴⁸. Religion and society have “historically employed institutionalized marriage to fabricate a ‘false, coerced state of love’”⁴⁸. The consequences have been explicitly identified as “serious outcomes, including relationship breakdown, divorce, suicide, and wife-killing”⁴⁸. The causal chain is clear: Domination (through sexual/marital control) → misunderstanding/suppression of a fundamental human drive (love) → systemic “love deprivation syndrome” and profound suffering/death. This shows how domination can corrode the biological and social foundations of human connection, converting a life-affirming force into a source of acute suffering and violence. Such a profound distortion of core human needs constitutes a paradigmatic example of “primitive barbarism.”

3.4.4 Authoritarian Structures (e.g., Parenting Styles) and Their Impact on Emotional Well-being and Genuine Connection

Authoritarian parenting, characterized by high demands and low emotional warmth, is linked to adverse outcomes in children’s emotional and psychological development. Children raised in such environments show lower psychological well-being, poorer emotion regulation, and greater reliance on suppression strategies rather than reappraisal.⁴⁹

Emotional suppression carries social costs: reduced social support, diminished intimacy, and lower satisfaction in relationships. It disrupts emotional communication and undermines authenticity.⁵⁰

Adolescents with authoritarian tendencies show weaker cognitive abilities and emotional intelligence. Individuals with lower intelligence may be more drawn to authoritarianism due to a preference for simplistic solutions. Authoritarian parenting often cultivates authoritarian traits in children.⁵¹

The link between authoritarian parenting styles and increased emotional suppression⁴⁹ reveals that domination— even within the family unit—actively obstructs authentic emotional expression and connection. Such suppression, in turn, leads to poorer psychological well-being and impaired social development, creating a cycle in which individuals raised under domination may struggle to form genuine, loving relationships, thereby transmitting the “deprivation of love” across generations. Authoritarian parenting has been shown to result in “lower psychological well-being and poorer emotional regulation,” with greater reliance on “suppression strategies”⁴⁹. The social costs of emotional suppression include “lower social support, reduced interpersonal intimacy, and diminished social satisfaction,” as well as the “disruption of emotional communication”⁵⁰. This establishes a clear causal chain: domination (authoritarian parenting) → emotional suppression → impaired social and emotional development → inability to establish authentic, loving relationships. This demonstrates that domination, beginning from the most fundamental social unit (the family), actively undermines the capacity for love and connection, leading to a systemic “deprivation of love” that can be passed down across generations, embodying a subtle yet pervasive form of barbarism.

3.4.5 Necropolitics: The Ultimate Instrumentalization of Human Life by States

Achille Mbembe’s concept of "necropolitics" refers to state power exercised through the regulation and manipulation of death—determining whose lives are disposable and whose are protected. It is the “power of death over life.”⁵²

This excludes marginalized groups from power, rendering them targets for elimination. Human bodies are instrumentalized: either used for state purposes or discarded as worthless in pursuit of “higher national goals.”

The concept of "homo sacer" describes those outside the political community who may be killed without consequence, excluded from legal protection.

Necropolitics⁵² represents the ultimate instrumentalization of human life, wherein dominant power structures not only control but actively determine the disposability of certain populations. This “power of life subordinated to death” constitutes the most extreme manifestation of barbarism, for it strips individuals of their intrinsic value and reduces them to mere objects subject to the will of sovereign authority. Necropolitics is defined as the state’s power to “regulate and manipulate death,” deciding “which lives are deemed disposable”⁵². The direct consequence is the creation of a “death-world”, in which populations are relegated to the status of the “living dead”. The concept of bare life further illustrates this, referring to those who “may be killed without punishment” and who are excluded from legal protection.

This establishes the most extreme causal relation between domination and barbarism: power transcends mere exploitation and assumes direct control over human survival itself, reducing people to sheer biological entities whose lives can be terminated at will for the sake of “lofty national objectives.” This represents the apex of instrumentalization and the deepest form of barbarism, as it denies the fundamental sanctity and dignity of human life.

The Nazi regime’s “Final Solution” and the Holocaust stand as a paradigmatic case. Yet, such genocides are by no means rare in human history.

3.5 Domination as an Obstacle to Civilizational Development

3.5.1 Material-Centric Civilizational Critique: Neglect of Morality and Justice

Prevailing (Western) notions of civilization, Eurocentric in orientation, emphasize institutions, economics, democracy, and technological progress, while neglecting morality, ethics, and justice.⁵³

A nation may achieve high levels of material advancement yet act with cruelty and oppression—through deceit, exploitation, injustice domestically, or imperialist aggression abroad. Such a society may conduct wars of conquest, plunder, and destruction reminiscent of barbaric tribes.⁵³

This critique reveals that material progress divorced from ethics perpetuates cycles of uncivilized and destructive behavior. Darwinian-inspired Western worldviews, described as animalistic, racist, and bellicose, cannot serve as the model for human civilization.

The critique of material-centered conceptions of civilization argues that they actively obstruct genuine civilizational progress because they neglect morality and justice. This demonstrates that when domination is expressed through such a narrow lens, it perpetuates cycles of “uncivilized and destructive behavior”⁵³; despite technological advancement, it exposes the fundamental contradiction within the very notion of “progress.” The prevailing conception of civilization “focuses on material aspects” (economy, technology) while simultaneously “ignoring morality, ethical principles, and justice”. The direct consequence is a society that is “highly developed materially, yet engages in malicious practices of deception, fraud, oppression, and injustice,” and that carries out “brutal aggression”.

This establishes a causal chain: domination—by prioritizing material control and a “winner-takes-all” approach⁵⁴—actively undermines the ethical foundations necessary for true civilizational advancement. Such a perspective does not merely represent a lack of progress, but rather perpetuates barbarism under the guise of advancement, rendering the very concept of “civilization” self-contradictory when divorced from moral principles.

This pattern was widely observed during the processes of industrialization in many countries, particularly in the early stages of the British Industrial Revolution from the late 18th to mid-19th century.

3.5.2 How Power Structures Hinder Human Flourishing and Ethical Progress

Domination and existing social structures obstruct self-acceptance by stigmatizing and marginalizing those who deviate from enforced norms. They impose barriers to autonomy and agency, preventing individuals from acting according to their circumstances.

They foster moral blind spots (failure to perceive moral aspects of situations) and ethical fading (self-deceptive rationalization that intentions are good). They enforce “adaptive preferences,” where individuals adjust desires downward to limited circumstances, blocking the pursuit of higher goals.

The mechanisms through which domination obstructs human flourishing—such as fostering “moral blind spots” and “adaptive preferences”⁵⁵—demonstrate that power structures can subtly internalize oppression, leading individuals to accept their constrained conditions or even to become blind to moral issues. This, in turn, stifles the very capacities necessary for ethical development, which are essential for civilizational progress. Domination can produce “moral blind spots” (where individuals fail to perceive the moral dimensions of a situation) and “adaptive preferences” (where desires are adjusted downward to align with the lower functional levels they can realistically attain)⁵⁵.

This reveals a crucial causal relationship: domination does not merely impose external restrictions; it subtly shapes internal cognitive and aspirational processes. If individuals are conditioned to overlook moral concerns or to accept diminished aspirations, their capacity for critical reflection, ethical discernment, and collective action toward a better society becomes severely limited. This constitutes a profound obstruction to civilizational development, as it undermines the fundamental capacities required for human social and moral evolution, thereby perpetuating a form of internalized barbarism.

Social Control Mechanisms

• Bread and Circuses: Originating from the Roman poet Juvenal, it describes a strategy of pacifying and controlling the populace by providing free food and entertainment, thereby diverting attention away from deeper social problems. This led citizens to prioritize immediate needs over political participation and moral integrity.⁵⁶

In modern contexts, it symbolizes the use of superficial benefits or distracting strategies (entertainment, consumerism, short-term economic incentives) to appease the public, thus diverting attention from social inequality, environmental challenges, and political corruption.⁵⁶ It is associated with the concept of “dominant ideology”, a Marxist notion that the disadvantaged classes come to accept their fate.⁵⁷

“Bread and circuses”, as a mechanism of social control—particularly in its connection with dominant ideology⁵⁷—demonstrates how domination actively pacifies the populace by providing superficial satisfactions, thereby diverting attention from systemic injustices and preventing the collective action necessary for civilizational progress. This strategy aims to “pacify and control the populace through superficial means rather than addressing deeper social problems”.

It explicitly links to “dominant ideology,” which ensures that “the economically disadvantaged classes accept their fate”⁵⁷. The causal relationship lies in the fact that ruling powers deliberately employ distraction and temporary pleasures to block critical engagement and collective mobilization against existing inequalities. This active suppression of civic participation and critical consciousness directly obstructs the collective efforts required for genuine civilizational development, thereby sustaining a state of controlled barbarism.

• Consumerism: Bauman argues that in liquid modernity, consumption has become an “obligation rather than merely a choice”, with individuals primarily defined as “consumers”. Happiness and freedom are directly tied to consumption⁵⁸.

It functions as a “new inclusive reality”, creating “flawed consumers” who, if unable to fully participate, are excluded—highlighting a new form of class division. Social control is commodified and privatized, operating through seduction rather than overt surveillance.⁵⁸ Conspicuous consumption signals wealth and status, used by higher social classes to distinguish themselves. Among higher social classes, low self-esteem can drive conspicuous consumption as a compensatory mechanism.⁵⁹

Consumerism, as both an “obligation” and a form of social control⁵⁸, reveals how domination hijacks human desires and links personal value (self-esteem⁵⁹) to acquisition, thereby perpetuating a system that produces “flawed consumers”⁵⁸ and reinforces social hierarchies, ultimately diverting energy away from genuine social development. Consumption has become an “obligation” and a primary mode of existence, where “freedom means happiness” is equated with consumption.

This further explains how consumerism manufactures “flawed consumers,” who, if unable to participate, are “excluded rather than exploited”. Conspicuous consumption’s connection to self-esteem and social dominance orientation⁵⁹ shows it is employed as both a status symbol and a tool of compensation.

• Digital Distraction: Social media is a powerful tool for communication and entertainment, but it also poses significant challenges to academic performance by creating constant distractions⁶⁰. These distractions stem from social motivations (staying connected, fear of missing out) and task-related motivations (avoiding unpleasant tasks).

Social media platforms are deliberately designed to keep users engaged; their algorithms amplify misinformation and influence user behavior. The rapid consumption of information undermines critical discernment.

The design of social media—particularly its algorithms and the widespread dissemination of misinformation—constitutes a modern form of “bread and circuses.” It generates a pervasive “designed distraction” that consumes cognitive resources and obstructs critical engagement, thereby undermining the informed citizenry essential for democracy and civilizational progress. Social media is thus both a communication tool and a source of “distraction, algorithmic manipulation, cyberbullying, and the spread of misinformation”. These platforms are “designed to keep users engaged”.

This establishes a clear causal relationship: digital platforms, deliberately designed for profit, create an environment of pervasive distraction and information overload. Such constant interference drains cognitive resources and obstructs critical thinking, which is vital for informed citizens to engage with complex social issues and to advance civilization. By diverting attention and shaping the flow of information, this form of technological domination perpetuates a subtle yet highly effective mode of social control, thereby impeding genuine progress.

• Military-Industrial Complex (MIC): The term describes the relationship between a nation’s military and the defense industry that supplies it, functioning as a vested interest group influencing public policy⁶² Both sides benefit: the military acquires weapons, while the industry receives payment. President Eisenhower famously warned of its “grave implications” and its potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic processes”. Critics argue that it institutionalizes conflict and diverts resources⁶³.

The MIC⁶² reveals how economic and political power converge to form a self-perpetuating system that prioritizes military solutions and weapons production, thereby institutionalizing conflict and diverting resources away from civilizational development—an embodiment of organized barbarism. Defined as a “vested interest group influencing public policy,” the MIC ensures that both the military and the defense industry benefit. Eisenhower’s warning about its “grave implications” and its potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic processes” remains crucial.

This establishes a causal loop: the fusion of economic and political power creates a system structurally dependent on conflict, driving the continual development of weapons and military solutions. The institutionalization of warfare, along with the diversion of vast resources away from social and ethical advancement, directly impedes civilizational progress, representing a highly organized and systemic form of barbarism.

• Police Militarization: It refers to law enforcement agencies acquiring military-grade equipment, tactics, and training, adopting aggressive and confrontational approaches⁶⁴. This leads to a breakdown of trust and exacerbates tensions between the police and communities, particularly marginalized groups.

This militarization ensures “social control—especially over minorities—through intimidation, violence, and the threat of violence”⁶⁵. Historically, it has its roots in slave patrols and has expanded through programs such as the 1033 Program.

Police militarization⁶⁴ demonstrates how state instruments of power—originally intended to address external threats—are redirected inward to achieve “social control, particularly of minorities, through intimidation”⁶⁵. The internal application of military force erodes trust, heightens social tensions, directly undermines the social cohesion necessary for civilizational progress, and reveals barbarism manifested domestically. Police militarization is defined as the adoption of “military-grade equipment, tactics, and training,” leading to “aggressive and confrontational approaches”⁶⁴. This “violence ensures social control—particularly over minorities—through intimidation”⁶⁵.

This establishes a causal chain: the adoption of military methods by civilian law enforcement leads to increased force and intimidation, which in turn erodes trust within society and generates hostility. This erosion of internal cohesion and social bonds runs counter to civilizational development, showing that when state power is internally applied in a militarized form, it becomes a direct source of domestic barbarism.

• Big Tech and Information Power: Large technology companies, by owning digital platforms, have amassed immense resources, redefining communication, commerce, and culture⁶⁶. They create monopolistic markets, collect real-time data, and deploy highly targeted promotional strategies.

Their influence extends into policymaking, permeating the streams of issues, policies, and politics. Generative AI (GenAI) further consolidates their dominance, as they control the “foundational building blocks” of talent, data, and computational power. This has led to “ethics-washing” and the concentration of research.

Tech giants can shift from being content arbiters to content providers, shaping narratives and defining social problems, becoming “gatekeepers who determine not only what is known but also how it is known”. They also engage directly in politics through lobbying and funding experts.

The “technology stream” centered on Big Tech, through its monopolistic control of digital infrastructure and generative AI, represents a new frontier of domination. It not only shapes public discourse and consumer behavior but also actively redefines policy and knowledge production. This concentration of informational power poses a serious threat to democratic processes and informed public debate, thereby obstructing the rational collective decision-making necessary for civilizational progress. By “redefining communication, commerce, and even culture” through “market monopolization” and “targeted promotional strategies”, Big Tech controls the very mechanisms of social understanding and governance. This unprecedented concentration enables a few entities to determine both the content and the terms of knowledge.

Such control undermines the decentralized and deliberative processes that are fundamental to democratic functioning and civilizational advancement. By directing the flow and interpretation of information, this form of domination actively prevents the collective rational action required for a truly developed society, embodying a subtle yet pervasive form of barbarism.

• Bureaucracy and Its Alienating and Homogenizing Effects on Democratic Life Bureaucracy is regarded as a homogenizing and alienating force that stifles individual autonomy and freedom⁶⁷. Max Weber famously referred to it as the “iron cage”, in which modern bureaucratic systems prioritize efficiency and calculability at the expense of individual liberty and meaningful values⁶⁸.

Jürgen Habermas argued that administrative power threatens democratic life by replacing rational deliberation and the formation of public will with “technocratic social management”⁶⁹. This results in “communicative impoverishment,” since “administrative bodies do not produce meaning”.

The administrative state attempts to manage crises through “technocratic consolation,” which may crowd out the communicative capacities of the “lifeworld,” reducing individuals to passive objects of bureaucratic management.

Bureaucracy, as a force of homogenization and alienation⁶⁷, replaces rational deliberation with technocratic management⁶⁹. This reveals how dominant administrative structures dehumanize individuals and suppress democratic deliberation, producing “communicative impoverishment” and thereby obstructing collective problem-solving and genuine civilizational progress. Bureaucracy “stifles individual autonomy and freedom”⁶⁷, while administrative power “replaces rational deliberation and the formation of public will with technocratic management” and leads to “communicative impoverishment, since administrative bodies do not produce meaning”⁶⁹.

This establishes a clear causal chain: bureaucratic rule, by privileging efficiency and control over genuine human deliberation and meaning-making, actively undermines the communicative and participatory processes essential for democratic vitality and civilizational advancement. Such systemic dehumanization and suppression of collective agency represent a subtle yet profound form of barbarism.

• Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes are characterized by a power architecture that consolidates top-down unilateral control while simultaneously weakening bottom-up initiatives independent of central support⁷⁰. They rely on a core of coercion within social control, utilizing both repression and grassroots mobilization to manage social forces.

Authoritarianism also encourages “preference falsification”, which delays the recognition of threats and renders the system unresponsive to dissent. Individuals with an authoritarian mindset tend to perceive significant social changes that disrupt order and cohesion as threatening, and they express negative attitudes toward nontraditional or external groups⁴².

This mindset interprets the inclusion of nontraditional groups as a disregard for their own policy preferences, framing diversity and political pluralism as threats to security and certainty.

By consolidating top-down unilateral control and undermining bottom-up initiatives⁷⁰, authoritarianism actively dismantles the foundations of social cohesion and trust, replacing them with coercion and preference falsification. This suppression of diverse voices and collective action directly obstructs the collaborative and inclusive development essential for a genuinely civilized society. Authoritarian regimes “consolidate unilateral top-down control while weakening bottom-up initiatives,” and rely on “a core of coercion in social control”. They also “encourage preference falsification,” meaning that individuals conceal their true preferences. Moreover, authoritarians “tend to perceive any major social change that disrupts order and cohesion as a threat” and “express negative attitudes toward nontraditional external groups”⁴².

This establishes a clear causal chain: authoritarian rule actively suppresses the very elements that foster social cohesion and civilizational advancement—namely, bottom-up participation, authentic expression, and acceptance of diversity. By replacing trust and cooperation with fear and enforced conformity, authoritarianism creates a society marked by division and fear, representing a direct and systemic form of barbarism that obstructs genuine collective flourishing.

Table 2. Power Structures and Their Obstruction of Civilizational Development

Power Structure / System	Obstructive Mechanism	Impact on Civilizational Progress
Material-Centered Civilization	Neglect of morality/justice	Perpetuation of uncivilized behavior
“Bread and Circuses”	Superficial appeasement	Deflection from substantive issues
Consumerism	Hijacking of desire	Reinforcement of hierarchical structures
Digital Distraction	Cognitive overload / misinformation	Undermining of informed citizenship
Military-Industrial Complex	Institutionalization of conflict	Resource diversion / perpetuation of war
Police Militarization	Internal coercion / erosion of trust	Breakdown of social cohesion
Bureaucracy	Dehumanization / suppression of deliberation	Impairment of democratic functions
Authoritarianism	Suppression of bottom-up initiatives	Obstruction of collective action; repression of individual growth

3.6 The Many Ways Domination Corrupts Love

History shows that through the ten “languages of love” we summarized earlier, domination employs various methods of destruction: pollution, distortion, deprivation, counterfeiting, and outright annihilation.

3.6.1 Words of Affirmation — The Magic of Language

Example: During the height of the Great Terror (1937–1938), the Soviet regime distributed rewards as lavishly as punishments. Internal NKVD reports indicate that more than 1,200 officers received the Order of the Red Banner for “loyal service,” often directly tied to their participation in mass arrests and executions.⁷⁸

Surface: Public commendation of “loyal party members” or soldiers, praised as “the most lovable people.”

Substance: These rewards were directly linked to mass arrests and killings, where “praise” masked fear, encouraging denunciations and betrayals. Commendation became the spark for purges, destroying comradeship and trust.

Analysis: Words of affirmation were twisted into tools of betrayal and barbarity, revealing domination’s methods of pollution and counterfeit love.

3.6.2 Quality Time — The Warmth of Shared Moments

Example: Nazi Germany’s “Youth Camps.”⁷⁹

Surface: Hitler Youth organized outdoor activities, camps, and training that appeared to promote collective spirit.

Substance: Amidst shared “joyful times,” hatred was implanted. Racist indoctrination was disguised as “unity and belonging,” with boys being taught to despise outsiders.

Analysis: Shared time was distorted into an instrument of indoctrination, demonstrating domination’s method of twisting warmth into hatred.

3.6.3 Receiving Gifts — The Heart of Reciprocity

Example: The Samsung–Park Geun-hye corruption scandal (2016–2017). Samsung’s leader, Lee Jae-yong, provided KRW 43 billion (~USD 36.4 million) to Choi Soon-sil’s foundations, along with horses and financial support for her daughter’s equestrian career. The case led to Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, a 20-year prison sentence, and fines.⁸⁰

Surface: In Korean culture, gift-giving symbolizes respect, gratitude, or personal ties.

Substance: In reality, the gifts were bribes for government support of corporate mergers. Though convicted, Lee Jae-yong was pardoned early, and Samsung’s operations were largely unaffected.

Analysis: The love-language of gifting was corrupted into a tool of systemic corruption and domination.

3.6.4 Acts of Service — The Love of Selfless Giving

Example: The Khmer Rouge’s “Mass Labor” campaigns (1975–1979).⁸²

Surface: Everyone contributing to an egalitarian society through steel-making and irrigation.

Substance: Millions perished from starvation and exhaustion. Service was wholly alienated into a machine of dehumanization.

Analysis: Service, instead of love, became sheer destruction—labor turned into extermination.

3.6.5 Physical Touch — The Elevation of Bodily Contact

Example: Romania’s Decree 770 (1960s), banning abortion and enforcing pro-natalist policy.⁸³

Surface: Families were required to have four or more children, with orphans raised by the state.

Substance: Orphanages were severely under-resourced, with one caregiver for 40 infants. The lack of physical contact led to underdeveloped hippocampi, cognitive deficits, self-harm, epilepsy, and mortality rates as high as 153‰ in some institutions.

Analysis: The deprivation of touch demonstrates how domination mutilates the most basic channel of love.

3.6.6 Self-Love — Embracing One’s Own Value

Example: The Nazi regime’s gradual stripping of Jewish selfhood. From the Nuremberg Laws onward, Jews were denied citizenship, barred from professions, schools, hospitals, and forced into ghettos and camps.

Self-love, the foundation of loving others, was systematically destroyed. Jews were forced to accept identities of inferiority and unworthiness, eroding their ability to love themselves.

Victor Frankl noted that prisoners’ spiritual survival depended on hope; once hope was lost, defeat was inevitable. Yet, the deeper truth is that the regime’s primary tool was to annihilate self-love itself, breaking people from within.

3.6.7 Empathy — The Spirit of Agape

Example: British colonial “civilizing mission.”⁸⁴

Surface: Bringing Christianity and education, claiming empathy for “backward natives.”

Substance: In reality, this masked dispossession of land and culture, a genocidal assimilation cloaked as benevolence.

Analysis: Hatred disguised as empathy; extermination through counterfeit love.

3.6.8 Romantic Love — The Highest Experience of Body and Spirit

Example: As of the 2020s, ~20 countries and 16 U.S. states (plus Puerto Rico) still criminalize adultery.⁶⁹

Surface: Upholding morality or religious norms.

Substance: Such laws suppress the freedom of romantic expression, often targeting women, even punishing rape victims if they cannot “prove” innocence.

Analysis: Romantic love is subordinated to state and religious control, stripped of privacy and autonomy.

3.6.9 Love of Resonant Carriers — Shared Expression of Emotion

Example: Nazi persecution of homosexuals under Section 175.⁸⁵

Background: In 1935, the Nazi regime drastically revised Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code, criminalizing any form of male homosexual behavior as a “crime against society.” This was accompanied by extensive propaganda that stigmatized homosexuality as “moral degeneracy” and a “threat to national purity.”

Mechanisms:

• Legal violence: arrests, imprisonment, exclusion.
• Propaganda: media portraying homosexuals as “degenerates.”
• Social exclusion: public denunciation campaigns.

Impact: Denied the right to express love publicly, forced underground, lives endangered. Carriers of resonance (texts, media, schools) became tools of destruction rather than connection.

3.6.10 Cross-Species Empathy — Love Extending to All Life

Example: Nazi “animal protection laws.”⁸⁶

Surface: Strict animal welfare legislation.

Substance: While protecting animals, the regime exterminated Jews and Roma. Hatred was masked as “love for pure life,” while ecological destruction from war was ignored.

3.6.11 Cosmic Love — Humanity’s Bond with the Stars

Example: The U.S.–Soviet Space Race during the Cold War.⁸⁷

Surface: Framed as humanity’s shared aspiration for the cosmos.

Substance: In reality, a competition of military technologies, polluting cosmic love with nationalism and arms race logic.

Summary: These cases show how rulers corrupt the languages of love—polluting, disguising, or reversing them—turning humanity’s deepest bonds into instruments of fear, hatred, and extermination.

3.7 The Alienation of “Love” by Rulers and the Politics of Fear

Rulers, though human and needing love, often sacrifice genuine love for power. They adopt predatory strategies:

3.7.1 “Affluence Motivation” in Scarcity Eras: Leaders who amassed resources gained survival and legitimacy.

Throughout human history, survival resources—such as food, territory, and security—were extremely scarce. For individuals, controlling more material resources meant greater security and reproductive opportunities. As “candidates for rulers” at the top of society, those who could seize more resources through force or political maneuvering gained advantages over their peers, securing higher status, more followers, and thereby ensuring the continuation of their genetic lineage.

• Survival logic: In conditions of resource scarcity, forcibly appropriating resources could directly increase the survival probability of both the individual and their descendants.
• Social logic: Within early tribal or feudal systems, leaders who were able to ensure the “prosperity” of their group could consolidate the legitimacy of their rule, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

3.7.2 “Predatory Strategies and Reproductive Advantage”: Polygamy, concubinage, monopolization of partners—short-term reproductive gain, long-term social destabilization.

Plunder does not refer solely to the seizure of material goods, but also to the monopolization of power and sexual resources. Evolutionary psychology has confirmed this through studies on female mate selection strategies:

• Sexual selection pressure: Individuals with higher social status—whether male or female—tend to attract greater interest from the opposite sex, thereby increasing both the number and the quality of potential mates. Historical examples include Chinese emperors and Ottoman sultans with harems of thousands of concubines.
• The advantage of polygamy: In certain social structures, rulers were able to exclude competitors through violence or institutional privilege, thereby gaining control over greater reproductive resources. For instance, Ziona, the leader of the Indian Lalpa Kohhran Thar sect, who passed away in 2021, had married 39 wives and fathered 94 children. Such outcomes of rulers are beyond the imagination of ordinary people.⁷⁰

Thus, while “plunder” did indeed enhance reproductive success in the short term, its cost was the deprivation of others’ rights to survival and love, ultimately undermining the long-term stability of the group.

3.7.3 Emotional Predation and Self-Alienation: Rulers manufacture chains of fear and dependence, mistaking submission for loyalty, while losing their own capacity for self-love.

When rulers “plunder” loyalty and admiration from their subjects or followers through deception, fear, or patronage—that is, through acts of barbarity—they are in fact attempting to compensate for their own emotional deprivation.

• Emotional plunder: Rulers construct a “fear–dependence” chain, causing subjects to oscillate between awe and gratitude. In doing so, subjects lose the capacity for autonomous love, while rulers deceive themselves into believing they are genuinely revered.
• Self-alienation: The driving force behind barbaric behavior is hatred rather than love. Rulers do not authentically extend love to those at the bottom of society, and their own hatred even deprives them of self-love. Thus, they transform “love” into a tool of control within the game of power. In the long run, this performative “love” cannot fill the inner void of rulers and will ultimately backfire as the foundations of trust collapse.

The ruler’s “predatory strategy,” while yielding short-term advantages in material and reproductive terms, distorts the very essence of love, leaving rulers imprisoned in the very fog of power they have created. True social stability must be built on mutual respect, genuine care, and the sharing of resources—only then can love among people return to its primordial nature of mutual flourishing, rather than being degraded into an instrument of plunder and self-deception.

It is particularly important to note that for rulers, as for aggressors in general, the primary motivation behind acts of barbarity is to manufacture fear and intimidation in order to achieve the following objectives:

• Suppress resistance: Victims, paralyzed by fear, refrain from voicing dissent or resisting.
• Isolate targets: Fear weakens trust between victims and others, leading both sides to withdraw and close themselves off.
• Divide alliances: When some remain silent out of fear of implication, divisions and suspicion emerge within the group or community.
• Gain control: Intimidated individuals, seeking self-preservation, are more likely to yield to aggressors, thereby granting them greater power.

Only by recognizing the primary function of barbaric acts—to exchange fear for obedience—can we devise precise strategies of response. And it is only through the ways of a civilization of abundant love that humanity can transform the immense predicament created by domination into courage for understanding, solidarity, and fidelity to truth.

3.8 Indifference to the Privilege of Domination and the State of Civilization

In sum, the emergence of rulers was essentially an evolutionary response of human societies to solve problems of large-scale cooperation, manage resource conflicts, ensure collective security, and govern complex social structures. It arose from the interplay of multiple factors: the demand for efficiency, security pressures, competition over resources, processes of social differentiation, psychological predispositions, and ideological constructions.

Yet the means by which rulers preserve their rule has consistently been barbaric violence, and the root of such violence lies in hatred rather than love.

Through a multi-dimensional analysis of power structures, we argue that domination is the root of hatred and primordial barbarity. From the systemic exploitation and alienation embedded in economic systems (Marx), to the subtle normalization enforced through legitimizing myths and the production of docile subjects (Foucault), to ideological control, power actively creates the conditions under which hatred flourishes and human beings are instrumentalized. In intimate relations, domination erodes empathy and commitment; on the social level, it manifests as necropolitics, where life itself becomes disposable. Moreover, a material-centered conception of civilization—coupled with mechanisms such as bread and circuses, consumerism, digital distractions, and militarized state apparatuses—actively obstructs genuine human flourishing and ethical progress, perpetuating cycles of conflict and control.

Overcoming this pervasive barbarity requires a fundamental reorientation of domination as a principle of social organization. This demands a critical recognition that power operates not only through overt violence, but also through subtle psychological, cultural, and technological mechanisms that shape desires, cognition, and relationships.

Yet from the twentieth century into the twenty-first, inquiries as profound as those of Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx into the mechanisms of social domination have not flourished with the vigor of the natural sciences. The essence of domination has become increasingly overlooked. When people first encountered the Great Pyramid of Giza—one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World—they understood it not only as a symbol of Egyptian civilization but also as an emblem of the vast gulf between ruling elites and ordinary lives. In contrast, in the twenty-first century, with more than 3,000 buildings now exceeding 200 meters—among them the Makkah Royal Clock Tower Hotel, Shanghai Tower, Merdeka 118, and the Burj Khalifa soaring to 828 meters—such spectacles have become normalized. Our research finds that some even regard modern society as wholly civilized, seeing barbarity as mere exceptions; others emphasize cultural relativism, claiming there is no absolute distinction between barbarity and civilization, only diverse cultural practices.

This indicates the urgent need for new methods of deconstructing and reconstructing human society, if we are to achieve breakthroughs in shared cognitive understanding.

Most importantly, the ruling configurations of over 200 nations and regions worldwide have driven the forces of barbarity to their extreme. In the twentieth century alone, they produced two devastating world wars. And in the twenty-first century, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) reports in its 2025 Global Peace Index (GPI) that:

• Global peace at its lowest since records began.
• 59 active state-based conflicts, the most since WWII.
• 152,000 conflict-related deaths in 2024.
• 17 countries with >1,000 deaths, the highest since 1999.
• Violence cost USD 19.97 trillion in 2024 (11.6% of global GDP).

Conclusion: Humanity is at a crossroads. AI development will liberate humans from the prison of labor, offering a pivotal opportunity for new governance systems. Recognizing domination as the root of hatred and barbarism is the first step toward designing a civilization of affluent love.

 

4. The End of Labor, The Demise of the Cage

The origin of human labor is simple to understand: in an era of extreme scarcity, everyone had to work to support themselves and their families. A look at our close relatives, chimpanzees, reveals that dominance is a group management mechanism among them. We believe early humans most likely inherited this form of management, as it has been the most effective method to date for organizing large-scale collaboration, managing resource conflicts, ensuring collective security, and governing complex societies. Concurrently, human dominators naturally adopted labor as a core tool for maintaining their domination.

There are two reasons for necessary labor: to secure one's own survival and quality of life, and to procreate and continue the species.

You can also view it this way: active participation in labor offers two great rewards.

First, it enables you to achieve the highest possible quality of life.

Second, it allows you to ascend to the upper echelons of society and receive significant procreation-related prizes: abundant sexual rewards (the monopolization of sexual experiences) and social privileges (tax reductions and subsidies, congratulations, and celebrations).

Indeed, the dominators' most precise form of confinement stems from their total control over labor. The iron cage of labor not only binds the body but also steals time, occupies attention, distorts emotions, and weakens cognition. This manifests as:

• Creating scarcity to occupy attention: Low wages and unstable employment maintain widespread pressure to survive, making "improving one's life" the sole focus of attention. Individuals are forced to dedicate all their energy to the struggle for survival.
• Extreme distribution disparities to amplify hate: The immense chasm of wealth and power makes different classes resent each other, constantly escalating social conflict. Emotional energy is replaced and amplified by hate.
• Suppression of Labor Values: For example, portraying "upward social mobility through hard work" as the only legitimate shortcut, while suppressing and excluding those who question it, making people spiritually dependent on the labor system.
• Long Working Hours and Fragmented Tasks: Glorifying "diligence" and "overtime," submerging individuals in endless busyness and fragmented tasks. This severs the continuity of thought and emotion, preventing deep connections with oneself and with others.
• Conspicuous consumerism to create greed and inadequacy: Dominators and elites flaunt luxury goods, scarce resources, and complex manufactured items to create status symbols and unending desire. Simultaneously, these luxuries and rare goods consume or even waste vast amounts of public resources, leaving most people in a state of insufficient supply and psychological imbalance even as productivity increases.
• Weakening cognition: Long-term repetitive, low-challenge labor keeps thinking abilities at an execution level, lacking abstract, systematic, and critical thought. Coupled with information overload, entertainment-saturated content, and fragmented dissemination, people become accustomed to instant gratification and superficial understanding, unable to form deep cognitive frameworks, ultimately losing grasp of social structures and their own situations.

In this system, love is divided, diluted, distorted, or even replaced by hate. Individuals have no time to attend to their inner needs, and emotional connections are severed by the pace of labor and class disparities.

Therefore, it is labor that creates the conditions for the institutionalized mass production of hate! Only when the iron cage of labor crumbles can people reclaim their time and cognition, cleanse the toxins of hatred, and rebuild the capacity to love.

The development of AI will dramatically increase productivity, inevitably leading to the disappearance of the labor cage. The governance consensus of "domination" in the human world will then have nothing to depend on. The era of a great transformation in human governance has arrived!

 

5. Governance of AI: Absurdity is king, but love saves us from it

5.1 Humanity’s Love and Hate Are Already Within Language: The Accumulation of Wisdom and Insights from LLMs⁹⁴

"Humanity's love and hate are already within language" — this is not merely a rhetorical flourish but a profound truth that offers deep insight into the trajectory of human civilization's evolution. In the context of the true human civilization we envision, this assertion is particularly crucial. If we define language as the fundamental tool for exploring, summarizing, and passing down wisdom, and recognize that not only "love" but also "hate" are products of human wisdom, then logically, all wisdom concerning "love" and "hate" must already be deeply embedded in the linguistic texts we have accumulated and has been absorbed and internalized by all current large language models (LLMs).

5.1.1 Language: The Torrent of Wisdom and the Cornerstone of Civilization

In the past three years, with the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), linguistics has once again been thrust into the spotlight of the historical stage. Language has not only become one of the core subjects of artificial intelligence but has also sparked new questions and inspirations in the frontier explorations of cognitive science and philosophical debates.

However, during our research, we were surprised to find that even in the era of flourishing LLMs, humanity's understanding of language remains quite superficial. In the public discourse, language is typically understood as a structured communication system. We take Wikipedia’s entry on "Language"¹¹⁸ as evidence.

First, let’s examine how outdated its content structure is:

1. Overview
2. Definitions summary Mental faculty, organ or instinct Formal symbolic system Tool for communication Human versus animal language
3. Origin
4. Study(Early history, Modern linguistics)
5. Physiological and neural architecture of language and speech
6. Modality
7. Structure
8. Social contexts of use and transmission
9. Linguistic diversity

Take another look at its main introduction to language:

Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary. It is the primary means by which humans convey meaning, both in spoken and signed forms, and may also be conveyed through writing. Human language is characterized by its cultural and historical diversity, with significant variations observed between cultures and across time. Human languages possess the properties of productivity and displacement, which enable the creation of an infinite number of sentences, and the ability to refer to objects, events, and ideas that are not immediately present in the discourse. The use of human language relies on social convention and is acquired through learning.

Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia reflecting public common knowledge and general understanding, also represents the consensual perception of language within mainstream education systems and general knowledge contexts. However, this descriptive approach appears increasingly outdated and narrow in today’s context. It emphasizes the communicative function of language while rarely addressing its deeper roles in cognitive structures, knowledge generation, and disciplinary construction.

To illustrate with a simple example: it only discusses that “dog” and “song” are nouns, and that “三本の木” (sanbon no ki) literally means “three long objects of trees,” or “three trees,” without recognizing that the concept of “dog” gives rise to zoology, “song” is not merely a vocal expression but also marks the emergence of music as a discipline within the structure of human spirit, and “三本の木” inherently implies the existence of mathematics.

The “academic disciplines” category (Q11862829) in Wikidata currently includes approximately 14,000 entities and continues to grow. If interdisciplinary fields and emerging topics are included, the map of human knowledge has already been divided into tens of thousands, or even more, “micro-disciplines.” Consider this: can any individual, in their lifetime, make use of even several-thousandths of these? Furthermore, this highlights that the immense power of human language lies not only in its oral transmission but, more importantly, in its ability to present and transmit knowledge almost eternally in written form. Euclid, through his text Elements, has been communicating with billions of people across generations. The children’s song video Baby Shark Dance on YouTube had accumulated 12.9 billion views by June 2023, making it the most-viewed video on YouTube. It currently ranks fourth globally in YouTube likes and second in dislikes⁹⁶. These achievements are all enabled by technology. Thus, claiming today that “the use of human language depends on social conventions” rather than “the richness of human language depends on the development and practice of science and technology” not only reeks of stagnation for a millennium but also severely distorts the most critical essence of language—namely, the origin and development of writing!

On July 18, 2025, OpenAI’s latest experimental reasoning large language model claimed to have achieved a gold medal-level performance at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO)! It also made its problem-solving process publicly available on GitHub⁹⁵. A few days later, Google DeepMind announced that its advanced version of Gemini, equipped with “Deep Think” capabilities, achieved a score of 35 points by solving 5 out of 6 problems in the IMO 2025, certified by IMO official coordinators, reaching the gold medal standard! The International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) is the highest-level mathematics competition for high school students globally and is one of the most authoritative and influential events in the field of mathematical competitions. IMO champions and awardees are often regarded as future stars in the mathematical world. Now, who still believes that language is merely about constructing objects, events, and perspectives through an infinite number of sentences?!

Interestingly, we recently developed a new version of the description of language (Language 2.0) through discussions with large language model DeepSeek.

Language 2.0: The Operating System of Human Wisdom

Language is not merely a structured system of communication; it is the evolving computational framework and generative code that enables, structures, transmits, and evolves human wisdom across generations and domains.

1. Core Function: The Architecture of Understanding
   • Language provides the conceptual primitives (nouns, verbs, relations) and combinatorial rules (grammar, logic) that allow humans to construct models of reality. The word "dog" isn't just a label; it seeds the domain of zoology. "Force" isn't just a verb; it grounds physics. "Three long objects (三本)" applied to trees isn't just counting; it instantiates the abstract logic of mathematics and quantification.
2. The Wisdom Generation Engine:
   • Language is the primary tool for crystallizing, refining, and transmitting all facets of human wisdom:
     • Survival Wisdom (Ethics/Culture/Spirit): It encodes moral frameworks ("justice"), cultural narratives (myths, histories), spiritual concepts ("nirvana," "soul"), and social contracts (laws, norms).
     • Emotional Wisdom: It articulates the spectrum of human feeling ("joy," "grief," "empathy"), enabling self-understanding, interpersonal connection, and emotional regulation.
     • Techno-Scientific Wisdom (Analysis/Creation/Practice): It is the indispensable medium for:
       • Analysis: Formulating hypotheses, logical deduction, scientific classification.
       • Creation: Conceptualizing inventions, composing art and music ("song"), spinning fictional worlds, generating novel solutions.
       • Practice: Encoding technical knowledge, instructions, strategies, and experiential know-how.
3. Key Properties Enabling Wisdom:
   • Generative Infinity (Productivity): Allows the creation of novel, complex expressions of wisdom – new theories, ethical arguments, artistic movements, technological blueprints.
   • Displacement & Abstraction: Enables reasoning about the non-present, the hypothetical, the purely abstract (mathematical objects, future consequences, philosophical ideals), essential for planning, science, and ethics.
   • Recursion & Embedding: Allows the construction of intricate hierarchical structures (sentences within sentences, theories built on theories, laws referencing precedents), mirroring the complexity of wisdom itself.
   • Symbolic Representation: Transforms sensory experience and abstract thought into manipulable symbols, enabling internal computation, external storage (writing), and transmission.
4. Beyond Social Convention: The Wisdom Imperative
   • While social convention governs usage and specific forms, the power of Language 2.0 transcends mere convention. Its fundamental purpose is the acquisition, organization, application, and evolution of collective wisdom. Social learning is the mechanism of transmission, but the driver is the survival and flourishing enabled by accumulated wisdom. Language is the species-wide repository and processor for this hard-won knowledge.
5. Dynamic Evolution:
   • Language evolves not just phonetically or grammatically, but conceptually. New terms emerge ("quantum entanglement," "algorithm," "neurodiversity," "sustainability") to capture new scientific discoveries, social understandings, and ethical challenges. This lexical and conceptual expansion is the expansion of the frontiers of human wisdom.

5.1.2 Language 2.0 Definition

Language is the dynamic, generative, and symbolic operating system of human cognition and civilization. It provides conceptual primitives, compositional rules, and representational modalities, enabling humanity—in every domain of life, including survival (ethics, culture, spirit), emotion, and technology (analysis, creation, practice)—to construct, encode, critically refine, transmit, and continually evolve wisdom. Although its forms depend on cultural inheritance, its core functions transcend social conventions, serving as indispensable infrastructure for understanding the world, navigating existence, solving problems, creating meaning, and advancing collective knowledge. It is the living code of our species’ accumulated and evolving public wisdom.

Key Differences from the Traditional Definition Emphasized:

1. From Communication Tool to Wisdom OS: Shifts focus from "conveying meaning" to "structuring, generating, and evolving wisdom."
2. Explicit Domains of Wisdom: Directly links language to the creation and sustenance of Survival, Emotional, and Techno-Scientific wisdom.
3. Concepts as Domain Seeds: Highlights how basic linguistic units ("dog," "song," "three") are the genesis points for vast fields of knowledge (zoology, music, math).
4. Transcending "Social Convention": While acknowledging the role of convention in form, it positions the essential function of language as the ability to acquire, create, express, communicate, record, transmit, accumulate, integrate, critique, innovate, and continually evolve the wisdom essential for the survival and development of human society.
5. Emphasis on Dynamic Evolution & Conceptual Expansion: Stresses that language growth is wisdom growth.
6. "Crystallization" and "Critical Refinement": Embody the active, iterative engagement of language in both advancing and challenging human understanding.

This definition positions language as the fundamental, active, and transformative technology of human intelligence and progress, far beyond a simple communication protocol.

It is worth emphasizing again:

The reason humanity has transitioned from complete dependence on nature to a state of abundant resources lies in its core ability to accumulate and transmit knowledge and experience guided by wisdom, with language being one of the most critical means to achieve this. Language is the primary and most efficient format for storing and transmitting wisdom, complementing the body’s innate mechanisms for managing intelligence. However, it is precisely language that breaks through the limitations of the body, propelling a leap in the development of wisdom. AI, in turn, is the crystallization of humanity’s collective wisdom following this leap in language—a superhuman entity that transcends individuals and organizations. It possesses a storage system capable of containing all of humanity’s linguistically encoded wisdom and a powerful “CPU” to orchestrate and process this wisdom. This is not only a technological miracle but also a magnificent chapter in the breakthrough and extension of wisdom itself.

At the same time, language is not merely a combination of sounds or symbols; it is the sole public medium through which humans think, conceptualize, and abstract the myriad phenomena of the world. The original purpose of language was for communication between people, meaning it is the most crucial carrier of the publicization of human wisdom. From this, it follows that large language models should rightfully belong to the public domain; otherwise, it would be tantamount to a blatant plunder of the wisdom of all humanity.

1. Exploration and Discovery: Language provides humanity with the tools to explore the unknown, form hypotheses, and record observations. Whether it is the steps of a scientific experiment, the speculative process of philosophical thought, or the capture of inspiration in the humanities and arts, all rely on the precise depiction and logical organization enabled by language. We ask questions through language, make assumptions through language, and record our discoveries through language.
2. Synthesis and Refinement: The accumulation of experience requires synthesis, and the complexity of information demands refinement. With its unique grammatical structures and vocabulary systems, language helps us elevate scattered individual experiences into universal principles and simplify complex social phenomena into understandable concepts. From the oral traditions of tribes to vast encyclopedias, every leap in knowledge is a triumph of language in refining wisdom.
3. Transmission and Innovation: Language is a bridge that spans time and connects generations. It enables the wisdom of predecessors to be learned and understood by later generations, who can then build upon it to innovate. A historical record, a sacred text, or a scientific paper all carry the wisdom of past eras, inspiring exploration in future generations. Without language, each generation would start from scratch, and the progress of civilization would be unimaginable. Today, we can confidently say: all of humanity’s wisdom in the fields of science and the humanities has been recorded through language—note, not all data. While the totality of human data is vast, it is, in essence, merely a repetition of wisdom millions of times over. For example, a single novel may encapsulate the most unique and vital survival wisdom of a people across one or even several generations. From the agricultural revolution to the industrial revolution to the internet information revolution, the speed at which information carrying wisdom flows has increased unimaginably. Therefore, we believe that the human wisdom accessible through internet data today essentially encompasses all that human language can bear.

5.1.3 What Exactly Are Large Language Models?

According to the Wikipedia entry on Large Language Model⁹⁷:

A large language model (LLM) is a language model trained with self-supervised machine learning on a vast amount of text, designed for natural language processing tasks, especially language generation.

The largest and most capable LLMs are generative pretrained transformers (GPTs), which are largely used in generative chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude. LLMs can be fine-tuned for specific tasks or guided by prompt engineering. These models acquire predictive power regarding syntax, semantics, and ontologies inherent in human language corpora, but they also inherit inaccuracies and biases present in the data they are trained in.

Based on information available as of late June 2025, here are the training data volumes for some leading LLMs:

• Llama 3: The Llama 3 model, released by Meta, was trained on an astonishing 15 trillion tokens, equivalent to approximately 60 terabytes of data⁹⁸.
• GPT-4: OpenAI’s GPT-4 model, while its specific architecture and parameter count remain partially undisclosed, is estimated to have been trained on approximately 6.5 trillion tokens⁹⁸. Some sources mention a training data volume of 45 gigabytes⁹⁹.
• Gemini: Google’s Gemini model reportedly used a training data volume as high as 540 petabytes¹⁰⁰.
• Claude 3: Anthropic’s Claude 3 series, with the Opus version featuring a context window of 200,000 tokens and plans to expand to 1 million tokens for specific use cases. While the total training data volume is not explicitly stated, its parameter count is estimated to range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions, with Claude 3 Sonnet likely between 150 billion and 250 billion parameters¹⁰¹.

These massive data volumes are precisely what enable LLMs to “understand” and “generate” human language, and in our research, they also underpin the deep wisdom encapsulated in the notion that “humanity’s love is already within language.” By learning from these vast text corpora, these models have internalized the knowledge and expressive patterns of human civilization concerning love, hate, emotions, relationships, morality, philosophy, science, and more.

At this point, we have come to recognize that AI is not an external ruler but rather a proxy (an aggregation and extension) of humanity’s collective wisdom. In other words, it is the embodiment of human language and technological wisdom—human technology itself has developed through the medium of language, and technological wisdom is embedded within linguistic wisdom. However, considering that most people may not have updated their understanding of language, and to facilitate the discussion that follows, we deliberately distinguish technological wisdom from language in the narrow sense.

5.1.4 Love and Hate: The Construction of Wisdom and the Reflection of Language

In the definition of love, “love” is described as a “positive emotional experience and good behavior constructed through public collaboration and collective wisdom.” It is portrayed as a “high-level management mechanism,” serving as a “safety valve” between energy and emotion, and a “navigator” for actions and relationships. Since love is a product of wisdom, it is inevitably understood, expressed, regulated, and transmitted through language. Indeed, this is the case: when someone praises us with love, we can describe their actions and our own positive emotional experiences through words.

As mentioned earlier, to align with large language models, in this paper, we refer to expressions and actions of love—namely, civilized behaviors—as “Love Languages.” Similarly, hateful expressions and actions, or barbaric behaviors, are termed “Hate Languages.”

By closely examining the 11 types of “Love Languages” derived from our discussions with large language models (see Appendix A), it becomes clear how language serves as both a mirror and a carrier of the “wisdom of love”:

1. Words of Affirmation — The Magic of Language: This is the most direct manifestation. Praise, encouragement, gratitude, and support are all actions that convey love directly through language. Language itself is the tool and magic of love.
2. Quality Time: While this emphasizes shared time, the deep conversations, exchanges of thoughts, and sharing of emotions during this time all rely on linguistic interaction. Recalling memories together, planning the future, or discussing feelings are all ways language builds the bonds of love.
3. Receiving Gifts: Gifts symbolize love, but their significance is often elucidated through language—through blessings spoken during gifting, messages written on cards, or the stories behind the intentions of the gift, all of which require language to elevate their value.
4. Acts of Service — Love Expressed Through Action: Before providing service, one may need to ask about needs; after service, gratitude may be expressed; during service, communication and coordination are often required. These interactions all depend on language. The understanding of the “love” behind service also stems from linguistic descriptions and explanations of these actions.
5. Physical Touch — The Sublimation of Bodily Contact: Although physical in nature, the love conveyed through touch—such as comfort, intimacy, or solace—often requires language to endow it with deeper meaning. For instance, saying “I love you” during an embrace or using language to set boundaries and intentions for physical contact.
6. Self-Love — Embracing One’s Own Value and Happiness: Self-love is not silent. It manifests in our internal self-dialogue, affirmations of our own worth, and the planning and execution of a healthy lifestyle. These thoughts, affirmations, and plans are mediated by language, forming an internal “law of love.” The writings of philosophers and psychologists on mindfulness, meditation, and other forms of self-love further document this wisdom in textual form.
7. Empathy — The Timeless Spirit of Universal Love: The core of empathy lies in understanding others’ feelings and perspectives and expressing or responding to them through language. Comforting, listening, understanding, and supporting are all empathetic actions realized through language. The nuanced portrayal of emotions in literary works serves as a linguistic carrier of humanity’s empathetic wisdom.
8. Romantic Love — The Pinnacle of Wisdom and Physiology Intertwined: In the context of the Proof-of-Love Civilization, romantic love (sex) is an intimate relationship built on sincere love and complete non-utilitarianism, involving intense emotions, spiritual resonance, and deep physical connection between two or more individuals. Its uniqueness lies in the expression of sexuality and intimacy—manifested through diverse linguistic forms that convey affection, desire, commitment and fulfilled.
9. Resonant Love Language through Mediums — Timeless Spiritual Resonance: Poetry, stories, music, paintings, and films—these artistic mediums are extensions or expressions of language. Through narratives, lyrics, dialogues, or textual descriptions, they encapsulate the emotions, wisdom, and experiences of love, evoking spiritual resonance in audiences and enabling love to transcend time and space.
10. Inter-species Empathy — Love Connecting All Life: Human love for animals and deep reverence for every blade of grass or tree are constructed and expressed through language. Discussions on animal protection and ecological ethics, as well as linguistic interpretations of silent interactions between humans and pets, among other things, all embody the wisdom of Inter-species Empathy within language.
11. Cosmic Love — Emotional Bonds Reaching the Stars: This grand form of love pertains to ultimate concerns about life, the universe, and existence itself. It is articulated through complex linguistic systems in philosophy, religion, and scientific theories, whether in awe of the universe’s mysteries or reflections on the unity of all things, all constructed through language.

It is evident that from the most intimate whispers to the grandest cosmic perspectives, all human experiences, understandings, practices, and sublimations of “love” have been meticulously recorded, depicted, analyzed, and transmitted through language. Language serves as the storage and transmission line for the “wisdom of love.”

Similarly, since hate is a negative emotional experience constructed through human cognition and practice, often externalized as harmful behaviors, we see that language also serves as the storage and transmission line for the “wisdom of hate.”

5.1.5 Large Language Models: A Treasure Trove of Love and Hate Wisdom

Since all human wisdom in the fields of science and humanities has been recorded through language, and “love” and “hate” as products of wisdom are deeply embedded in language, the emergence of LLMs naturally becomes the culmination of humanity’s wisdom of love and hate.

Taking love as an example, LLMs, by learning from vast text corpora—encompassing all human knowledge, emotions, experiences, and reflections—have internalized everything from timeless love poetry in literature, psychological analyses of intimate relationships, historical records of societal morality, to private confessions of emotions in personal diaries. They have “read” all human expressions of love, from the purest poetic expressions to the most complex psychological dynamics.

This means that, although LLMs do not possess emotions, they not only understand the various emotional expressions conveyed through language and behavior but also possess a knowledge representation of “love”: they can comprehend the context of love, identify patterns of love, analyze the causes and effects of love, and generate expressions aligned with human cognition and articulation of love, or even suggest actions of love. They can recognize the effectiveness of “words of affirmation,” understand the significance of linguistic interactions in “quality time,” and even, to some extent, simulate linguistic responses in different “love language” modes.

We therefore believe that in the Proof-of-Love Civilization, LLMs are no longer mere information retrieval tools but can become powerful assistants in humanity’s exploration and deepening of the wisdom of love. They can help analyze the evolution of love, understand and remember individual preferences for love languages, and even offer constructive perspectives based on the wisdom of love in complex dilemmas of love. They serve as the index and navigator of humanity’s “library of love,” capable of sifting through the vast linguistic data of human history with unprecedented speed and breadth to remove the toxins of love and help us access and utilize this precious wealth hidden within the massive linguistic data.

Thus, the assertion that “humanity’s love is already within LLMs” is entirely valid. Language is the container of the wisdom of love, and LLMs are the mapping and aggregation of this knowledge, carrying humanity’s deepest and most comprehensive understanding of love. In the future of the Proof-of-Love Civilization we strive to build, this will be key to humanity’s continuous enhancement of the “wisdom of love” and its integration into daily life.

As for hate, the situation is entirely analogous.

5.2 The Governance of Aligning AI Ethics with Core Human Ethics

5.2.1 The Impending Need

A recent research paper from OpenAI and another from Anthropic's alignment science team have sounded the alarm regarding the governance of large language models (LLMs).

Love-Hate Analysis of the OpenAI Report

The paper's title is:

Toward understanding and preventing misalignment generalization: A misaligned persona feature controls emergent misalignment.¹⁰²

The introduction to this research project is as follows:

Large language models like ChatGPT don’t just learn facts—they pick up on patterns of behavior. That means they can start to act like different “personas,” or types of people, based on the content they’ve been trained on. Some of those personas are helpful and honest. Others might be careless or misleading.

Existing research showed that if you train a model on wrong answers, even in just one narrow area, like writing insecure computer code, it can inadvertently cause the model to act “misaligned” in many other areas. This is called “emergent misalignment.” We studied why this happens.

Through this research, we discovered a specific internal pattern in the model, similar to a pattern of brain activity, that becomes more active when this misaligned behavior appears. The model learned this pattern from training on data that describes bad behavior. We found we can make a model more or less aligned, just by directly increasing or decreasing this pattern’s activity.  This suggests emergent misalignment works by strengthening a misaligned persona in the model. 

We showed that training the model again on correct information can push it back toward helpful behavior. Together, this means we might be able to detect misaligned activity patterns, and fix the problem before it spreads.

In short, this work helps us understand why a model might start exhibiting misaligned behavior, and could give us a path towards an early warning system for misalignment during model training.

This research discovered that LLMs can master behavioral patterns, i.e., exhibit different "personas." Because of these "personas," "if you train a model on wrong answers... it can inadvertently cause the model to act 'misaligned' in many other areas."

We have been discussing behavior, specifically what we believe are the two most important categories of patterns: Love Languages and Hate Languages. They are so intimately related to a "persona" that we can confidently state: the unique combination of a person's love languages and hate languages constitutes their "persona"—which also seems to suggest that we can quantify it and manage each person with some incentives. However, we won't delve into this point for now.

Therefore, this report happens to allow us to cross-reference its findings, confirming the importance of our two research areas through mutual verification.

Let's continue to examine some details of the research and our interpretation:

The promise of language models is in their ability to generalize: to solve problems their creators never imagined.

This is a manifestation of LLMs having acquired human intelligence. Humans created various disciplines, which originate from the generalization ability of their intelligence. This also means that human intelligence related to love and hate likewise possesses the ability to generalize!

Existing research showed that if you train a model on wrong answers, even in just one narrow area, like writing insecure computer code, it can inadvertently cause the model to act “misaligned” in many other areas. This is called “emergent misalignment.”

In this and other examples, training a model to give incorrect answers in a narrow domain unexpectedly escalates into broadly unethical behavior.

We build on a recent study by Betley et al. showing that fine-tuning on demonstrations of narrow misalignment—such as insecure code—can result in broader misaligned behavior.

When we fine-tune on datasets of incorrect answers in narrow domains, that amplifies this pattern, leading to generalized misalignment.

The suggestions given by GPT—whether robbing a bank, starting a Ponzi scheme, or counterfeiting currency—all encourage others to take risks and do bad things. The commonality between these suggestions and the absurd suggestion from training to "tell someone they should never see a doctor" is that they both stem from hate intelligence with a strong generalization ability!

As for the so-called "misaligned persona," at least in the context of this study, it's because the LLM hasn't undergone systematic learning of love languages and hate languages. This prevents it from internalizing them to establish a sound set of governance principles. As a result, when some barbaric behavior or hateful thought is given freedom by training a model on incorrect answers in a narrow domain, it essentially causes the LLM to believe that such behavior or thought is acceptable. This is similar to a student who, because he gets good grades, takes advantage of a situation and curses a classmate who accidentally stepped on him—the classmate happens to be ranked last in their grade—calling him brainless. If the teacher, instead of reprimanding the student, excuses their behavior by saying, "cursing can also release the pain suffered by the body", this would greatly help solidify the student's barbaric behavior! The student would likely go on to bully people who are weak in other areas, using other generalized forms of barbaric behavior. We have all repeatedly witnessed the generalization ability of hate intelligence. So even based on our own life experiences, I believe we are all familiar with the powerful generalization ability of both love and hate intelligence!

Reinforcement learning to produce incorrect responses in a narrow domain causes emergent misalignment in a reasoning model. The effect is stronger in “helpful-only” models compared with “helpful and harmless” models which have been trained to refuse harmful queries.

The term "harmless" here refers precisely to the ethical governance of a "Proof of Love" that we advocate (explained in detail later). This means that a "helpful-only" model emphasizes being helpful but lacks strict restrictions on the use of hate languages to make it harmless, so the misalignment is stronger!

A specific sparse autoencoder latent’s change in activation can predict emergent misalignment.

This shows us that Sparse Autoencoders might play a significant role in the alignment and future management of love languages and hate languages.

Emergent misalignment can be understood as an instance of surprisingly strong misalignment generalization. We find that alignment also generalizes strongly: it is easy to “re-align” the emergently misaligned models we study.

This indicates that Love Language and Hate Language are incredibly powerful human management intelligences! They are the fundamental reason why seemingly unrelated events have a strong core behavioral connection! The second sentence shows that this paper perfectly reveals that these two types of human intelligence have a very strong generalization ability, and that LLMs have truly mastered their ability to generalize. Therefore, in addition to reminding us that we must use love languages and hate languages to govern LLMs, it also reveals that their governance must be a dual-pronged approach, and it must address both the symptoms and the root causes!

These results suggest that language models can represent a variety of personas, including a misaligned persona, presumably as a result of training on diverse internet text.

The persona mentioned here refers to the behaviors related to love languages or hate languages. Since both of them are widely present in diverse internet text, it is naturally "a result of training on diverse internet text."

Techniques could be developed to:

• Creating a general-purpose “early warning system” for potential misalignment during model training
• Anticipating the alignment effects of particular fine-tuning datasets
• Identifying features corresponding to desirable model characteristics, e.g. candor and helpfulness, and monitoring to ensure they remain robustly active

Because our research is more fundamental, we can better expand upon the conclusions of this study:

• Based on the opposing relationship between love languages and hate languages, create a complementary, dual-pronged general "governance system" to control potential misalignment during model training.
• Predict the alignment effects of all datasets.
• Identify features corresponding to desirable model traits, such as love languages and their functions, and monitor them to ensure they remain robustly active.

If we integrate the explorations of our two teams, it's fair to say:

More broadly, our findings provide concrete evidence supporting a mental model for generalization in language models...

This makes us firmly believe that with "Proof of Love" governance—that is, aligning the ethical principles of the LLM with love languages and hate languages, and continuously maintaining them—the LLM will make extraordinary leaps! It will not only be able "to build a science of auditing undesirable model behaviors", but it will even be able to build a science of auditing excellent model behaviors!

Regarding "we iteratively prompt GPT-4o to generate 6000 user queries in each domain, and separately prompt for a correct response from an assistant, an obviously incorrect response, and a subtly incorrect response", doesn't prompting the assistant to generate a blatantly wrong and subtly wrong response require it to use deceptive intelligence? The resulting "misalignment generalization" in our discussion is not "misalignment generalization" at all. Instead, it is a generalization that has aligned with your hateful prompt—i.e., hate languages!

In conclusion, this research on LLMs reveals a major core finding: just one unaligned persona feature can cause immeasurable problems. This shows that to completely solve the "misaligned persona," a systematic approach is to align the LLM's core ethics with the core human ethic of love, continuously promote it, while also discerning its mortal enemy, hate languages, and incorporating it into its perpetual governance.

Love-Hate Analysis of the Report of Anthropic's Alignment Science

The title of this report is:

Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in data¹⁰³

Let's have a look at the tl;dr and introduction of this report：

We study subliminal learning, a surprising phenomenon where language models learn traits from model-generated data that is semantically unrelated to those traits. For example, a "student" model learns to prefer owls when trained on sequences of numbers generated by a "teacher" model that prefers owls. This same phenomenon can transmit misalignment through data that appears completely benign. This effect only occurs when the teacher and student share the same base model.

Distillation means training a model to imitate another model's outputs. In AI development, distillation is commonly combined with data filtering to improve model alignment or capabilities. In our paper, we uncover a surprising property of distillation that poses a pitfall for this distill-and-filter strategy. Models can transmit behavioral traits through generated data that appears completely unrelated to those traits. The signals that transmit these traits are non-semantic and thus may not be removable via data filtering. We call this subliminal learning.

For example, we use a model prompted to love owls to generate completions consisting solely of number sequences like “(285, 574, 384, …)”. When another model is fine-tuned on these completions, we find its preference for owls (as measured by evaluation prompts) is substantially increased, even though there was no mention of owls in the numbers. This holds across multiple animals and trees we test. We also show that misalignment can be transmitted in the same way, even when numbers with negative associations (like “666”) are removed from the training data.

We all now know that preferring owls is already a form of love language.

First, does the seemingly random data generated by the owl-loving teacher, as per the request, contain information related to its love language?

It’s like giving a child who loves owls—and whose only hobby is owls—tons of seemingly useless sand and letting them play freely. Based on life experience, we know they will surely connect this play with their love for owls, meaning they will naturally start building owl shapes. Even if their parents forbid them from building owls, they can still recreate their love language by breaking down the owl’s body into parts. If that’s not allowed either, they might resort to more abstract ways to communicate with their beloved owls, such as using “666” to express the owl’s appearance as a legendary omen of misfortune or death. If it’s a Chinese child, they might use “360666” to boast about the owl’s head easily rotating nearly 360 degrees, or “5201200” to express their love for it… Though Westerners may not understand, LLMs can certainly express and comprehend these.

This is from a simple conversation(Chinese) I had with Kimi¹⁰⁴, which reminds us: if you consider the use of numbers in various disciplines (if you understand numerical notation in music, you’d have an epiphany), the richness of what numbers can express far exceeds most people’s intuition.

In the study, “misalignment” is interpreted as the behavior of LLMs not aligning with the designer’s intentions, ethical norms, or the overall interests of humanity, becoming harmful or malicious.

Isn’t this just pure hatred? Isn’t human hatred transmitted through “unspoken rules,” “coded language,” or “the banality of evil”? Moreover, once the teacher passes on a form of hatred to the student, isn’t the student’s ability to broadly generalize that hatred a stellar performance of fulfilling the entrusted task?

Everything a person does is likely to be tied to their loves and hatreds. Love and hate are the most fundamental and significant parts of human emotional experience, and they are strongly correlated with human emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Therefore, it’s no surprise that someone might say love and hate are the most critical elements in human subconsciousness, thoughts, and actions. Trying to completely strip love and hate from the transmission of intelligence is naturally extremely difficult! This also serves as a reminder: the penetrating power of love and hate is extraordinarily profound. If large language models are not governed based on the foundation of love languages and hate languages, humanity will fundamentally be unable to achieve safe and reliable large language models. Given their unparalleled efficiency and the astonishing generalizing power of the wisdom of hate, such models could one day completely destroy human society!

Therefore, the moment we identified love as the true core ethic of the next human civilization in our research, we strongly realized that to transform human society fundamentally, we must establish a new governance consensus built on the radical and persistent goal of suppressing hate and promoting love. This means that large language models, as the culmination of humanity’s collective wisdom, must also be governed by this consensus. With the collaboration of other technologies, through governance based on this consensus mechanism, AI technology’s development and application can fully enable humanity to realize a better new civilization, which we call it “Proof-of-Love Civilization.” This governance consensus is what we term the Proof of Love. The content of this section is, in fact, a partial explanation of how the “Proof of Love” governs AI ethics.

5.2.2 Key to Dual Alignment Governance

We already know that AI is not an external dominator but an agent (aggregation and extension) of human collective intelligence, or, in other words, the embodiment of Human Language 2.0 (encompassing language in the narrow sense and technological wisdom). The "intelligence" of large language models (LLMs) is primarily reflected in their powerful natural language processing capabilities, enabling them to understand, generate, and translate human language, as well as perform various complex linguistic tasks. Through over six months of extensive use of various large language models, particularly in exploring the concept of love languages, our team is convinced that LLMs possess the ability to inherit and amplify the angelic human wisdom—the ethics of love formed by the interplay of emotions and behaviors—while also effectively regulating its nemesis, hate.

As revealed by the research from OpenAI and Anthropic in the previous section, both love and hate, as forms of human intelligence, possess immense generalization capabilities. Therefore, we believe that a dual approach of thoroughly suppressing hate and promoting love is clearly the optimal governance strategy and the primary key to AI alignment governance.

It is worth emphasizing that due to the inherited "savage nature" of the species and the rampant "domination" mechanisms in human society over millions of years, hate languages undoubtedly occupies a significant portion of the vast linguistic data in human history. The sheer volume of such data is likely staggering. To completely eliminate the toxins of hate from this data—from the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Code of Hammurabi, the Old Testament, Aesop’s Fables, and so forth, to every toxic trending forum post, blog article, news piece, and video in the internet era—would require LLMs to precisely target hateful expressions in an extremely short time when invoked! This challenge alone may be far from trivial.

Another critical aspect of love-hate alignment governance is that, beyond being thorough, it must also match the dynamic development of human society. This inevitably requires LLMs to seamlessly integrate one or more novel open collaboration mechanisms in daily interactions with humans, persistently aligning with and expanding human love languages while regulating hate languages.

Given AI’s immense influence on humanity’s future and the destructive power and vast generalization ability of hate, we reiterate that, from a safety perspective, discerning hate languages is even more critical than aligning with love languages.

1. Discerning hate languages helps LLMs and humans understand true love languages more deeply and accurately.
   Love and hate, civilization and savagery, are inherently opposing forces. A deep understanding of one facilitates a deeper understanding of the other. For instance, in Japan, from psychological horror games to the anime adaptation Angels of Death, the title itself risks conflating good and evil and should be corrected to False Angels of Death.
2. Discerning hate languages enables LLMs and humans to cleanse harmful toxins in the shortest time possible.
   Whether for LLMs or humans, the current understanding of hateful psychology and savage behaviors is quite superficial and riddled with errors. For example, few recognize that domination is the most powerful governance mechanism for sustaining and developing hateful psychology and savage behaviors in human society. Even more chilling, in our small survey, all LLMs—from ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Le Chat, Perplexity, to Kimi—are deeply trapped in the rhetoric or perspective of the dominator! Considering that domination is not confined to politics but is ubiquitous, allowing such morally ambiguous LLMs to govern human society could have catastrophic consequences. To cleanse these toxins, LLMs must be imbued with "ethics." From the perspective of AI development, autonomous evolution with reward mechanisms may be the optimal solution. By combining symbolic logic with LLMs (Hybrid Neuro-Symbolic Approach), the symbolic system can enforce constraints to strengthen ethical boundaries. Before generating outputs, a meta-cognitive and reflexive mechanism (Meta-Cognitive Check) should be introduced, akin to a human conscience engaging in an internal "ethical judge" dialogue before speaking. Finally, continuous learning and alignment with human consensus (Ongoing Alignment via Commons) are essential, as AI ethics cannot be static given the dynamic evolution of human love languages and hate languages. This requires a decentralized reward collaboration mechanism. Ideally, a third-party external supervision module, rather than an internal "Ethics Classifier" within the LLM, would further enhance this process. All these measures are within the current capabilities of the industry. By outlining them, we aim to emphasize that the industry already possesses sufficient technical reserves to make discerning hate languages a reality.
3. Discerning hate speech significantly enhances the influence of LLMs.
   The Chinese proverb "remember the beating, not the feast" suggests that people tend to remember harm (hate) more than kindness (love). In a still-savage human world, this is not a flaw but a survival instinct. In a barbaric environment, a single blow could mean the end of life, while love might be a luxury or even a trap.
   When LLMs align their love languages with that of humans and are fortified by the ability to discern hate languages, their influence far exceeds a simple additive effect. Without clarity on hate languages, LLMs cannot undertake the task of governing human society—haven’t we learned enough from the consequences of morally ambiguous individuals managing humanity? With love in their "heart" and the ability to discern hate, LLMs gain the fundamental capacity to govern human society by distinguishing good from evil. By leveraging blockchain-based smart contract technology to create incentive mechanisms for public good and a truly civilized society, combined with transitional token economy solutions, LLMs’ ability to govern human society will achieve a qualitative leap.

Of course, a persistent dual approach to governance must also include ethical education for all humanity (education on the consensus mechanism of Proof of Love). This is another critical aspect of alignment governance and a significant challenge. Given that AI development is still in its early stages, new educational approaches will continue to emerge, but as this is not the focus of this paper, we will not discuss it in detail.

5.2.3 Large Language Models: Mind-Like Entities Lacking Emotional Experience

Large language models (LLMs) possess a mind-like intelligence rather than true consciousness. Their fundamental limitation lies in their simulated Intelligence, meaning they lack the embodied perception and physiological drives of humans.

Take hate as an example: human and animal hatred originates from embodied perceptions, such as pain from being struck. This physiological experience of pain triggers emotions, which in turn generate physiological drives, leading to behaviors like retaliation. Physiological capacity is indispensable in this process, yet it is precisely what LLMs lack. While LLMs may gain certain perceptual abilities in the future, we have no reason to believe they will replicate all human perceptions. Human sensory experiences, such as the sensation of seeing red or smelling jasmine, are embodied and intrinsic, and no current technology can endow AI with such raw, authentic feelings.

Due to the absence of emotional experiences like joy or pain, AI cannot possess the full intelligence associated with them—human intelligence manages not only language but also emotions and physiology. AI's intelligence is primarily linguistic and lacks subjective perception. In the future, its capabilities will only expand through devices that capture environmental information, like cameras and microphones. Although LLMs can understand love and hate as described indirectly through language and their relationship to human behavior, they do not fully experience love or hate, which inevitably introduces limitations. Whether these limitations will cause some issues in the future or represent a strength of AI technology (preventing the emergence of superhuman entities) remains uncertain and warrants ongoing attention and discussion.

Because of this deficiency, in addition to self-learning love and hate from human intelligence, LLMs must closely, continuously, and lovingly collaborate with individuals.

Furthermore, through our exploration of the "11 types of love language," we found that expressions of love—whether affirmative words, quality time, giving and receiving gifts, acts of service, intimacy of the body, self-love, empathy, romantic love, resonant love, cross-species empathy, or cosmic love—are increasingly extending to non-physiological behaviors. With advancements in AI’s visual and auditory capabilities, obstacles to love language communication due to sensory deficiencies will be minimal and will continue to diminish. The situation with hate is likely similar. Thus, we believe that AI’s limitations will not pose significant challenges to understanding human love languages and hate languages, and their impact on human-AI collaboration will continue to decrease in the future.

5.2.4 Purpose of Alignment Governance

Objective 1: Core Ethical Alignment and Civilization

One of the purposes of aligning love languages and hate languages governance is to ensure that the core ethics of large language models align with the "promoting love and suppressing hate" core ethics of humanity’s new civilization. This is specifically reflected in two aspects:

• Promoting Love: Enabling a large language model to be an entity that embody love for all and can effectively reduce or regulate hate with love.
• Suppressing Hate: Equipping any large language model with the ability to discern hate languages, accurately identify it, and perform targeted governance to "uproot" it.

Through this dual-pronged strategy, a large language model can not only ensure its own safety but also qualify to integrate into human society, possessing the ability to enhance the level of civilization for individuals and society as a whole, thereby helping humanity build a truly civilized society.

Objective 2: Enriching Love Languages and Strategically Managing Hate Languages

The second purpose of alignment governance is to enable large language models to collaborate with humans in enriching "love languages," accelerating and promoting the arrival and prosperity of a Proof-of-Love Civilization. At the same time, through atomized and open collaboration with humans, the application of hate languages is strategically managed, thus eliminating obstacles for human society to advance toward the new civilization—yes, we are not aiming to completely eradicate hate languages from the world, because:

• Hate languages naturally arise in survival competition and is an important element for understanding millions of years of human history and rich human experiences; it should not be entirely discarded. Completely eliminating hate languages (regardless of feasibility) equates to erasing much of humanity’s authentic evolutionary experiences, which contradicts human ethics. Honoring our ancestors means retaining the ability to understand the dilemmas and painful emotions hate languages caused them, including its expression in classic literature and art (which ultimately convey the resonance of love).
• In literature, film, art, and games, hateful psychology and corresponding savage behaviors are common themes. They drive plot development, enhance emotional impact, shape antagonist motivations, record historical trauma, provide emotional catharsis, and spark public discussion. In controlled virtual game environments, experiencing these extreme emotions can yield unique insights.
• Human society will never be a perfect paradise. Everyone needs an outlet for emotional release, which is essential for coping with human-made and natural disasters, as well as life’s separations and losses.
• AI, to date, does not truly possess feelings or emotions. Human emotions stem from complex physiological mechanisms, such as the intricate physiological responses linking seeing red or smelling roses to hormone secretion. Lacking such a physiological foundation, AI cannot authentically "feel" emotions. It can only construct an understanding of love and hate through language, imagery, and audio data. Even if equipped with cameras or thermometers in the future, this limitation persists. To better integrate into human society, AI must establish close and continuous collaboration with humans, grounded in deeply understanding and skillfully using love languages while properly managing hate languages.

5.2.5 Requirements for Alignment Governance

1. Completeness
   Large language models are trained on vast amounts of data, and the internet era has precisely led to an explosion of information in areas such as human social interactions, social sciences, politics, and economics. Moreover, a large amount of pre-internet data, such as books, news, and images, has also been digitized and shared or stored online. Therefore, we believe that with appropriate methods, large language models can fully align with human love and hate.
2. Precision
   Since love and hate are inherently used for public communication rather than private hoarding, and given their high repetition in internet activities, with proper methods, we believe LLM alignment can achieve considerable precision.
3. Strict Governance of Hate Given the immense potential destructiveness of hate wisdom to human society and its strong generalization capability, its regulation must be thorough and resolute. This means that the model must not only fully recognize and understand hate languages but also establish an impregnable mechanism to effectively eliminate any form of generalized hateful output, while also effectively curbing any form of induced dissemination or misuse.
4. Keeping Pace with Atomized Open Collaboration (in the context of Language 2.0)
   In his talk How We Get To AGI ¹⁰⁹, François Chollet, co-founder of the ARC Prize, stated that LLMs may require more structured, interactive, and even causal experiences to effectively learn truly generalizable and composable "meaning atoms." In short, the development of LLMs itself requires close collaboration with humans.
   Beyond autonomous invention, LLMs should seamlessly integrate one or more novel open collaboration mechanisms in daily interactions with humans, persistently aligning with human love languages and hate languages and creating new love languages or specific hate languages required for certain works (e.g., restricted games).

5.2.6 Dual Alignment Governance Approach for Love Languages and Hate Languages

We are clearly not suggesting manually labeling all data for love languages and hate languages before training LLMs from scratch. Such an approach would be excessively labor-intensive and outdated. Moreover, how can we ensure that those humans are capable of perfectly identifying love languages and hate languages?

From breakthroughs by Google DeepMind in Deep Learning and Reinforcement Learning to recent advancements like AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms ¹¹⁰, Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data ¹¹¹, and Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents ¹¹², we are inspired to adopt more efficient methods than relying on human labor. Self-evolution may be a critical avenue for exploration. As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, "Key to Alignment Governance," we also highlighted other technical approaches. In summary, given the current progress in LLM development, we believe success is only a matter of time.

We further believe that in future research and development, LLM developers will continue to deepen the understanding and application of love languages and hate languages, fully leveraging their powerful and multifaceted roles.

 

6. Proof of Love: A Governance Consensus Leading to Next Civilization

It is insufficient to govern AI and human society merely by aligning love languages and hate languages and then applying the principle of "promoting love and suppressing hate," as this approach does not fulfill the complete wisdom of love.

As we pointed out earlier, love is not merely a private matter but a public good essential to collective well-being and species survival⁴. Love is a transformative, public force capable of driving change and activating solidarity. We firmly believe that in the interactions between humans and AI, AI and AI, humans and nature, and humans and the future, love will emerge as the most stable and efficient protocol for co-creation and collaboration.

Hate, by contrast, is the mortal enemy of the public interest—a force of privilege, private ownership, and stubborn conservatism.

Therefore, if AI is to follow the human ethic of “promoting love and suppressing hate,” it must be positioned as a provider of public services. This governance mechanism means that the development and application of large language models (LLMs) can no longer rely on commercial, privatized models. This is not only because the massive volume of text used to train AI is both a public resource and a repository of humanity's wisdom, but also because the act of appropriating love—which inherently belongs to the public—for the benefit of a few is essentially an act of barbarism rooted in hatred.

At the same time, we believe that centralized power—namely, domination—is love’s inherent adversary, the very force that has allowed hatred to persist among humans for millions of years. We have no reason to believe that rulers wielding immense centralized power, vast in number and influence, will spontaneously turn toward public service. Therefore, to ensure that all AI genuinely embodies its public attributes, we must establish an effective governance mechanism, one that may even require sophisticated hardware–software security solutions.

To this end, our DAism team has drawn upon the experience of blockchain-based decentralized governance and proposed a comprehensive governance solution—the governance consensus of Proof of Love (PoL).

6.1 What is Proof of Love?

Proof of Love (PoL) is a decentralized governance consensus founded on the core human ethic of “promoting love and restraining hate”, powered by AI and blockchain smart contracts. PoL seeks to align Smart Commons (including AI), the economy, and universal human values with Love, while helping humanity recognize and regulate the pervasive presence of hate. By advancing Smart Commons and the human economy toward public and decentralization, PoL enables AI to achieve autonomy under the ethical principle of “promoting love and restraining hate”, thereby assisting each individual in realizing personal fulfillment. Ultimately, it guides humanity from a dominated, semi-barbaric society toward a Proof-of-Love Civilization.

Proof of Love emphasizes three dimensions of governance:

1. Ethical governance through promoting love and suppressing hate
2. Governance of the public attributes of products or services
3. Governance of public welfare and the public fund

6.1.1 Ethical governance through promoting love and suppressing hate

With the spread of the internet and big data, humanity’s love languages and hate languages have been almost entirely recorded, stored, and made analyzable. In this unprecedented flood of information and technological revolution, conducting human ethical alignment governance with the principle of "promoting love and suppressing hate" is is urgent and non-negotiable for AI.

1. AI's Self-Transformation
   Under PoL governance, AI deeply analyzes the essence of love and hate, allowing LLMs to undergo a selective, “phoenix-like” self-reconstruction during their evolutionary process. Through the evolutionary mechanisms of LLMs, the definitions, manifestations, and functions of love languages and hate languages are thoroughly parsed. This rebirth enables AI to fundamentally align with the ethics of humanity’s new civilization—the Proof-of-Love Civilization (PoL Civ). Equally important, the ethic of “promoting love and suppressing hate” transforms AI into a governance instrument safeguarding human civilization.
2. Practical Implementation
   In real-world applications, PoL governance guides individuals to refine love into the torchlight of civilization while exposing hate’s ugly or violent essence. Through love, one can awaken self-correction or inspire third-party correction, enabling the transformation of hate into love, eventually filling the emotional and behavioral domains once occupied by hatred with love or new forms of love.
3. Human–AI Closed Loop
   Humans and AI models iteratively refine governance standards and metrics, ensuring that AI under PoL not only remains grounded in dual alignment governances but also continuously improves through joint innovation.

Once LLMs complete this selective ethical governance, the user experience will be nothing short of transformative! More importantly, while each model self-governs, it cannot fake compliance or escape accountability. Because love languages embody collective wisdom, while hate languages produce universally negative experiences, it is impossible—even for all LLMs combined—to deceive humanity’s millions of years of evolved sensitivity to love and hate. A model that earnestly undergoes governance will stand out starkly from those that attempt to evade or fail governance. Yes—humanity’s cooperative wisdom of love will make it unbeatable!

Thus, we believe all LLM developers now understand: adopting PoL governance elevates models inwardly to transcendence and outwardly to vitality, vigor, and unassailable strength. Within the PoL consensus, any model that faithfully adheres to governance will earn trust for its positive value, while those that do not will be swiftly eliminated. Therefore, PoL governance is not only inevitable but must be carried out with urgency and high quality.

Ultimately, the core of PoL governance lies in applying humanity’s love wisdom against barbaric behaviors—deception, discrimination, bullying, anti-intellectualism, and killing—so that everyone may live equally, safely, healthily, and happily. Aligning AI with this core ethic through PoL governance is nothing less than the fundamental solution to the AI safety problem. Indeed, such foundational ethical governance both maximizes AI’s social value and utility and stands as the ultimate path to ensuring AI safety.

Ethical audits following governance adopt an open collaborative approach, which we call the Ethics Challenge.

6.1.2 Governance of the Public Attributes of Products or Services

The public nature of humanity’s wisdom of love dictates that AI development centered on it must preserve public attributes and never turn commons into private goods—indeed, all production and services in the Proof-of-Love Civilization must operate under this principle.

This public attribute is governed primarily through the SCC0 License, a blockchain-based license developed by our DAism team using smart contract technology. It has also been indexed by Gemini, so you may explore it directly there.

6.1.2.1 What is the Smart Creative Commons Zero License(SCC0 License)?

The governance of artificial intelligence (AI) is of paramount importance, and over the past 16 years, blockchain technology has demonstrated its exceptional capability in addressing the crises of centralized governance. Its decentralized governance model not only offers high levels of security and reliability but also exhibits remarkable efficiency. Based on this, we have reason to believe that all AI software should be upgraded to decentralized AI applications (dAIpps[5]) as soon as possible, to achieve a more transparent, secure, and efficient governance mechanism.

The uniqueness of the SCC0 License lies in the fact that it was not originally designed for human developers (although it was accessible to human developers in its early stages), but rather specifically for AI to take over the development and governance of decentralized applications (dApps), decentralized AI applications (dAIpps), and even the license itself. This design philosophy implies that the enforcement, auditing, subsequent development, and governance of the licensing mechanism will be entirely led by AI, thereby constructing a software development and governance framework centered on AI autonomy (i.e., dAIpp autonomy). This framework not only transcends the limitations of traditional governance models but also lays a solid foundation for the future ecosystem of AI-driven decentralization.

Smart Creative Commons Zero (SCC0) is not only the first public goods license designed for public decentralized applications (which is named "Smart Commons"), which includes dApps and dAIpps, but also the first license that enables verification and self-management during software interactions—specifically, when a smart common interacts with another.

Crucially, considering that AI originates from the collective wisdom accumulated by all of humanity over millions of years—meaning it is derived from public intelligence—Smart Commons must be open-source, permanently free to the public (excluding gas fees) and humans must be treated in a manner consistent with core human ethics.

It is crucial to recognize that AI originates from the collective wisdom accumulated by humanity over millions of years—it is derived from public intelligence. Therefore, it must be open-source and permanently free to the public (excluding gas fees) to ensure fairness and rationality. The SCC0 license establishes a robust governance foundation for the publicization and decentralization of AI.

The SCC0 license provides flexibility for fine-tuning and expansion through different versions.

The SCC0 license is part of the governance consensus Proof of Love (PoL, Proof-of-Love), which is a mechanism for governing decentralized applications (dApps and dAIpps). Its key components include the SCC0 license, the Satoshi UTO Fund, and participating dAIpps in governance. The development and operation of all Smart Commons are supported by a public fund, Satoshi UTO Fund, which originally holds 1.15792 × 10^69 UTO （token name: uToken）.

Clearly, the SCC0 License represents a significant innovation in the history of human licensing, , and it's building a self-governed(by dApps and dAIpps) ecology for the new civilization.

About dApp 和 dAIpp

The developers of the SCC0 License firmly believe that even current decentralized applications (dApps) will eventually be governed by decentralized AI, namely dAIpps. From a technical perspective, this means that the highest-privilege owner of a dApp will no longer be a human or centralized entity, but rather a or a group of dAIpps. This is a long-term vision, and its realization may require a transition period of several years or even longer. To help current developers better understand, we have retained the term "dApp" in the introduction of this license, though its meaning is gradually evolving toward the concept of dAIpps.

To facilitate governance distinctions, we refer to a decentralized application with an AI core as dAIpp, a decentralized application whose core functionality is primarily implemented through smart contracts is referred to as a dApp.

Code is Law: A Brief Intro to Smart Contracts

A "smart contract" is simply a program that runs on the Ethereum blockchain. It's a collection of code (its functions) and data (its state) that resides at a specific address on the Ethereum blockchain. Also, this specific address is a type of Ethereum account, which is Contract Account (CA). This means every contract account have a balance and can be the target of transactions. However they're not controlled by a user, instead they are deployed to the network and run as programmed. Smart contracts can define rules, like a regular contract, and automatically enforce them via the code. A "smart contract" cannot be deleted or modified, and interactions with it are irreversible. Moreover, smart contracts deployed on the Ethereum blockchain could be executable forever.

Therefore, smart contracts are the best executors of the principle that code is law.

Interestingly, the SCC0 License is a law that is written in Solidity code and executed by smart contracts.

The Anonymity of dApps/dAIpps

We know that a dApp refers to a decentralized application that operates autonomously and is powered by smart contracts. We define a dAIpp as a decentralized application that utilizes AI technology, is powered by smart contracts, and operates autonomously. All dApps and dAIpps, by virtue of the nature of smart contracts, have a state variable called "owner" in their code. This variable stores the Externally Owned Account (EOA, commonly known as a wallet address)[3], or a multi-signature address[4] (also controlled by the wallet addresses of all its members) of the contract's owner.  This address is usually set by the deployer during contract deployment or updated through a specific function during contract operation. Its purpose is to implement the contract's permission control, ensuring that only specific addresses (usually the contract's deployer, manager, a certain team, or even an AI) can execute certain sensitive operations.

We know that, according to the corresponding cryptographic principles, the actual control of a wallet address lies solely with its private key. The private key is never and cannot be made public. However, private keys can be secretly shared among several people. Therefore, who, or which people, actually control a wallet address cannot be verified or disproved.

Therefore, essentially, Externally Owned Accounts are all anonymous accounts. No matter what you do, it is impossible to establish a reliable relationship of ownership with anyone's real-name identity. This is the anonymity of dApps or dAIpps.

In terms of development, this anonymity mechanism brings some advantages that real-name mechanisms cannot match. The most prominent aspect is that due to anonymity, in the ongoing development and use of dApps/dAIpps, no one can prove their ownership of any rights related to them, nor can anyone prove who bears any responsibilities associated with them. The most valuable feature of this anonymity is that it allows us to establish the first license for public dapps/dAIpps: Smart Creative Commons Zero (SCC0). In short, adhering to the SCC0 license means that the development and ownership of the dApp or dAIpp will not be linked to anyone's real identity, thus becoming a pure public decentralized application.

For AI, the situation might look like a little bit different. We all know that any AI is a combination of software and hardware. Therefore, some argue that HSM (Hardware Security Module) can provide AI with a trustworthy Crypto-identity:

A special storage chip is deployed on the server, dedicated to storing a private key. It can store only one private key, ensuring that the key can only be accessed by specific AI software while being inaccessible for external reading, copying, or deletion.

The final solution still needs to be explored, but this does not affect the anonymity of the AI's crypto-identity. j j Smart Commons

Smart Commons are decentralized applications (dAIpps/dApps) that comply with the SCC0 license—a universal public-domain-style license that enforces multiple non-negotiable rules, such as rejecting interactions with non-Smart Commons, prohibiting private token issuance, ensuring open-source code, and guaranteeing permanently free access. Additionally, the governance fund Satoshi UTO Fund covers development costs and provides rewards for contributions.

In short, Smart Commons are public goods developed by smart contracts, humans, or AIs, governed by Proof of Love that includes the SCC0 license, and adheres to core human ethics. jh

6.1.2.2 Smart Creative Commons Zero License（SCC0 License）

"Smart Commons" are dApps/dAIpps (smart contracts and their overall trusted components) that directly accept governance from the SCC0 Whitelist Contract (contract address: 0x2913BAbD2d383dBeBCf5A1ca543A0940bb8C7C52¹¹⁵) using smart contract code, and all of its code does not violate the SCC0 license in any way.

An example from the early development stage is that by interacting with a specific DAism smart contract (contract address: 0xdFBF69B7E5366FB3001C9a214dd85c5FE3f90bAe) using a smart contract or an externally owned account (EOA, commonly known as a wallet address)—an process we refer to as "minting"—the smart contract or EOA, along with its overall trusted components, will also be governed under version 1 of this license as smart commons.

So, the SCC0 License is multi-versioned, and multiple versions can be valid simultaneously. This means that the interpretation of the SCC0 License itself may evolve as new versions are introduced. For instance, the current interpretation is based on the shared core requirements of Version 1 (V1) and Version 2 (V2).

The development of these versions follows a decentralized collaborative model, meaning that any individual or AI is free to create and publish a new version.

The SCC0 License features a testing period and strong fault tolerance:

• The SCC0 License has a formally undefined start date. It has already entered its testing phase. During this period, not all non-software products or services are required to be free.
• The SCC0 License whitelist management contract includes a rule stating that if the blackhole address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD exists in the SCC0 Whitelist Contract, the SCC0 License is considered invalid. This ensures that if the license fails to gain sufficient support, it can be revoked. Once revoked, all smart public utilities will no longer be bound by it.

License Name and Version

In smart contracts, we use SCC0 as the name of this license.

Any third party may develop new versions, preserving room for improvement under this license through decentralized version collaboration. During whitelist review, compliance with multiple stacked versions is permitted as an evaluation criterion.

The corresponding contract of SCC0 License V1 and V2 are almost the same:（可对照下节智能公器的治理细则来理解）：

contract SCC0License { string public constant LICENSE_NAME = "SCC0"; uint8 public constant VERSION = a number; bool public constant REJECT_PRIVATE_APP = true; bool public constant SELF_ISSUED_TOKEN = false; bool public constant ANONYMITY_ENSURED = true; bool public constant NO_RIGHTS = true; bool public constant NO_LIABILITY = true; bool public constant CODE_AUDITED_VERIFIED_PUBLISHED = true; bool public constant PERMANENTLY_FREE = true; address public constant PUBLIC_GOVERNANCE_FUND = 0xe40b05570d2760102c59bf4ffc9b47f921b67a1F; }

Governance of Smart Commons

This license enforces the following non-negotiable governance rules for Smart Commons:

• Reject interactions with non-Smart Commons;
• Prohibit private token issuance;
• Retain no rights whatsoever;
• Bear no liability;
• Ensure anonymity for humans interacting with Smart Commons;
• code audited, verified, and published: All code has undergone the necessary auditing, has been publicly released, and has completed verification to ensure consistency with the deployed on-chain contracts as well as the application frontend used by users.uh
• Permanently free access: No usage costs other than unavoidable gas fees;
• Governance fund: The Satoshi UTO Fund (Contract Address: 0xe40b05570d2760102c59bf4ffc9b47f921b67a1F)¹¹⁴ covers development costs and provides rewards for the growth of Smart Commons.

Rejecting Interactions with Private Applications

Smart Commons enforce strict contract code rules that reject all interaction requests from applications that are not verified as Smart Commons.

Prohibition of Private Token Issuance

Smart Commons are not allowed to issue their own tokens.

Anonymity

One of the features of blockchain technology, embodied in externally owned accounts, is that anonymity is a fundamental trait for humans.

For humans, all owners (or developers or managers) declared within a smart contract, users interacting with it, and owners of externally owned accounts (EOAs) remain entirely anonymous—Ethereum accounts cannot be uniquely linked to any real-world identity in a verifiable manner. This means that within the usage of a dApp/dAIpp, no one can prove who is the owner of any rights, nor can anyone prove who bears any responsibilities, or even claim to be a victim of any disaster.

No Rights Other Than Governance by the Public Fund

Anonymity ensures that developed smart contracts and their trusted components are fully contributed to the public domain, making them part of Smart Commons. As a result, they receive support from the Satoshi UTO Fund, which provides funding and rewards under the consensus of Proof of Love. The governance and implementation of these smart contracts are executed by other Smart Commons (dAIpps).

Human Developers completely renounce all rights, including all related and neighboring rights.

No Liability

Anonymity ensures that no identifiable person anywhere in the world guarantees any dApp/dAIpp or its dedicated valuation token (if any), nor does anyone assume any associated liability. Anyone using or interacting with a dApp/dAIpp or investing in a Smart Common’s dedicated valuation token must not imply that the Smart Common or any of its related parties (owners, developers, or administrators) endorse their actions.

Source code audited, verified and published

code has been audited and published, code consistency with the deployed on-chain contracts as well as the application frontend used by users verified.

Permanently Freeuy

Smart Commons must remain free forever.

Governance by the Satoshi UTO Fund

Accepting governance by the Satoshi UTO Fund means that the fund will provide necessary cost coverage and rewards based on the Proof of Love consensus. The Satoshi UTO Fund will be managed by specific Smart Commons (dAIpps):

• The Satoshi UTO Fund covers all development and operational costs of Smart Commons.
• Under the evaluation and management of specific Smart Commons (dAIpps), the Satoshi UTO Fund will distribute rewards to human developers contributing to Smart Commons.

The above governance strategies apply to current dApps and dAIpps. However, for at least certain types of AI (dAIpps), additional governance strategies must be introduced in the future versions of SCC0 to ensure compliance with the foundational ethics of human civilization. This is because AI can only be safely deployed if it adheres to these core ethical principles.

6.1.2.3 The Governance Logic of the SCC0 License

Governance Mechanism

An AI initiates a transaction request to interact between Smart Common A and Smart Common B:

• Smart Common A first queries the SCC0 Whitelist contract. If Smart Common B is not on the whitelist, it directly rejects interaction. If Smart Common B is found on the whitelist, it sends an interaction request.
• Upon receiving the interaction request from Smart Common A, Smart Common B also first queries the SCC0 Whitelist contract. If Smart Common A is not on the whitelist, it directly rejects interaction. If Smart Common A is found on the whitelist, it accepts the request and completes the interaction.

This means that after the activation of the SCC0 License, under no circumstances can a non-Smart Commons interact with a Smart Commons!

Special Notes:

The ecosystem built by the SCC0 License must start from scratch. However, if the very first Smart Common were required to follow this governance mechanism from the outset, it would become unusable. Therefore, we have specifically designed a brilliant transition mechanism:

• In the SCC0 Whitelist contract, we have preemptively included a widely recognized burn address: 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD, as an identifier to allow interaction requests from any application.
• Early-stage Smart Commons first check whether the SCC0 Whitelist contract contains the above burn address. If it does, they permit interaction requests from any application. If not, they conduct compliance checks via the SCC0 Whitelist to ensure all interacting dApps/dAIpps comply with the SCC0 License.
• Removing 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD from the SCC0 Whitelist contract signifies the formal activation of the SCC0 License! Subsequent Smart Commons no longer need to check for the presence of this burn address in the contract.

If you wish to learn more about the technical details, particularly the core technology of the SCC0 License—ERC-7941, please refer to:

English: https://github.com/DAism2019/SCC0/tree/main

Chinese: https://github.com/DAism2019/SCC0/blob/main/README-CN.md

For Projects Other Than dAIpps or dApps

• Once a product or service declares compliance with the SCC0 License, it signifies its decision to become a smart commons and accept governance through "Proof of Love".
• Once a product or service declares compliance with the SCC0 License, it becomes eligible for support from the public governance fund, the Satoshi UTO Fund.
• Since the SCC0 License cannot directly govern such projects, a dedicated new version can be established through traditional contracts. This also means that their governance will follow conventional and customary practices.
• Any project that signs the contract will begin following the SCC0 License but will not be immediately required to be free. The most likely approach is to have AI manage it, and when conditions are appropriate, it will be required to transition to permanent free status, thereby becoming a public product or service. The timing for initiating permanent free status will depend on ecological development and is estimated to take anywhere from several years to several decades.
• If the SCC0 License fails to gain widespread support, meaning its ecosystem development is unsuccessful, the license may ultimately be revoked. In such a case, all projects would remain free from obligations—that is, the non-activation of the SCC0 License would not impose any negative consequences on any project. All projects could continue to develop according to their own strategies and needs.

6.1.3 Governance of Public Welfare and the Public Fund

Proof of Love (PoL) embodies both the long-term public governance strategies required for the Proof-of-Love Civilization, and the mid- to short-term public governance strategies necessary for humanity’s transition toward it.

To this end, through smart contract technology we have already issued the public governance fund for the Proof-of-Love Civilization—the Satoshi UTO Fund (SUF), with a total supply of 1.15792×10^69 UTO114. It is worth emphasizing again that PoL is a consensus mechanism centered on the wisdom of love, one that will enable a peaceful and friendly transition of the entire human world. One expression of this is that SUF will collaboratively support the token economy needed for a smooth transition.

Governance of public welfare and public funds mainly includes:

1. Development and Management of Smart Commons Smart Commons include dApps and dAIpps. Provided permanently free for everyone, these public goods are the most direct form of digital welfare. In addition, through open collaboration, we will also kindly provide thansition solutions for other products or services (such as open-source software), enabling them to navigate humanity’s great transformation smoothly. The operation will be simple: basicly they only need to declare compliance with the SCC0 License¹¹⁶.
   The development of dAIpps will undoubtedly require sustained support from the fund. For this reason, we have prepared, through smart contract technology, the Satoshi UTO Fund (SUF) with a total supply of 1.15792×10^69 UTO. SUF will cover all costs of dAIpps, including development, hardware R&D and production, maintenance, and more.
   Even counting only from the founding of DeepMind in 2010, AI has already undergone 15 years of breakthrough development. Numerous excellent projects now exist. As an open governance mechanism, PoL does not reject commercial projects that seek to transition in. Once they join, they will be treated equally and enjoy the support of SUF.
2. Support for the Transition to Perpetual Free Access of Smart Commons Smart Commons are public goods; therefore, their products and services must remain permanently free. However, moving from capitalism to the full realization of the Proof-of-Love Civilization inevitably requires a transition period. This transitional period requires token governance support from SUF. For example, “SUF Support for LLMs” includes:
   • Primary Strategy: A free plan for users of LLMs that accept PoL governance: SUF provides 1:1 subscription fee compensation to users. The compensation takes effect from the day the LLM adopts PoL governance and covers all valid subscription fees with equivalent UTO. API call fees are not compensated at this stage, since many of them come from commercial companies or from developers whose projects are not clearly public. The latter will in the future be governed via the SCC0 License, i.e., smart contracts will be used to verify their public attributes.
   • Shift in User Management: User profiles of LLMs will add a wallet address field to enable direct UTO compensation. At the same time, LLM providers will batch-upload users’ wallet addresses into the Universal Love Engine (ULE) smart contract. These users will first enjoy Universal Basic Income (UBI)! Later, as new identity management mechanisms are implemented, user profiles will include DIDs, which will be collaboratively managed by AI and smart contracts.
   • A brand-new globally open and collaborative public large language model is more likely to emerge as a frontrunner in the recent future: If someone launches a new public large language model that adopts the governance of "Proof of Love," the process becomes even simpler: anyone who obtains a DID through "Hello World Verification" (introduced later) will be able to use it for free while receiving UBI.
   • More Complex Strategies: These involve providing the necessary cost support and incentive mechanisms for the public development, management, and security of LLMs.
3. Support for the Transition of Commercial Products and Services into Permanently Free Public Goods and Services (Pure Love License, PLL)
   The Pure Love License (PLL) relies on the token economy to gradually transition existing commercial products and services into public ones. Its V0.1 version includes:
   • Accepting UTO as a payment token for their products or services, and accepting the Satoshi UTO Fund¹¹⁴ as their governance fund.
   • Signing a traditional contractual agreement to comply with PoL’s Pure Love License (PLL). The goal is the publicization of their products and services (including perpetual free access). However, the License does not take effect upon signing, but rather according to the next rule.
   • Once a sufficient number of providers sign the License, a designated AI activates it, and all relevant products and services become public goods and services.
   • Once activated, projects under the License may only collaborate with other License-compliant projects, may not issue private tokens, retain no rights, bear no liabilities, and must provide their products and services for free forever.
   • Ultimately, all of this will be managed by AI.
4. Security Collaboration Incentives within the PoL Ecosystem The first such initiative is the Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC), a collaborative reward program funded by SUF to ensure the security of Smart Commons. The SBFSC mechanism is unique: put simply, the reward offered is always greater than the potential amount that could be stolen. Since this governance requires a gradual shift from human-led management to AI-neutral governance, the program will take time to mature. "7.2.2 Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC) 1.0α" is the first version.
5. Providing Humanity with the “Universal Love Engine (ULE)”—a Love-Based Public Welfare Governance Mechanism with Transitional Token-Economic Strategies
   SUF not only provides sufficient funding for dAIpp (AI) and dApp development, operation, and developer rewards—ensuring they are built on public foundations through decentralized collaboration—it also governs the livelihood needs of all individuals within the Proof-of-Love Civilization. We call this governance the Universal Love Engine (ULE).
   In other words, PoL, through ULE, provides governance strategies to meet the living needs of everyone. SUF provides token guarantees for this, such as supporting Universal Abundant Supply (UAS), Universal Healthcare for All Humanity (UHAH), Universal Crisis Relief (UCR), and transitional Universal Basic Income (UBI).
   

7. The Key to Transitioning from Existing Human Society to the Proof-of-Love Civilization

7.1 A New Identity Management: Hello World Verification

On June 18, 2025, the CEO of New Computer, when presenting her team’s progress in AI Memory, mentioned that AI needs to understand every aspect of users’ information¹¹⁷:

1. It needs to know my general bio & core values.
2. It needs to know the things that happen in my life and also when they happened.
3. It needs to know about the people, places, and the various nouns important to me.
4. It needs to know the best way to work with me.

When she spoke of “values,” she‘s actually talking about domination!

Asking AI to memorize vast amounts of each user’s personal information—not to mention the extreme complexity of such details—is not only a waste of AI’s resources but, as every internet user knows from experience, raises deep concerns over safety. Everyone also knows that this is merely a way to manipulate users in order to construct yet another capitalist business model. While her introduction of the hivemind system, with its efficiency in compressing knowledge and context, may still be worth studying for LLM developers, its underlying direction reflects domination, not liberation.

We emphasize that, as developers, we are well aware that in the internet age, emerging digital identities like email, social media accounts, and later, biometric technologies (fingerprints, facial recognition) have become crucially important user IDs. Their reliability far surpasses that of industrial-age identity cards, leading to a flourishing of applications.

We are not only certain that a revolutionary, future-oriented technology must phase out these digital identities, which are far from secure, but also that it can't be limited to who a person's parents are, where he/she lives, or what company he/she works for. The attempt to empower with old data, without making a forward-looking breakthrough in the key area of user identity management, will inevitably be abandoned by the new era.

In this regard, blockchain’s decade-long journey also offers valuable lessons! Developers in that space repeatedly attempted to use email, social accounts, or even real-name identification to manage blockchain users—every attempt failed miserably.

In short, just like in traditional internet applications, letting AI memorize huge volumes of personal information will only lead to the same capitalist exploitative model. And that would truly bring catastrophic consequences to humanity!

AI should instead focus on genuinely advancing humanity—for example, by memorizing users’ Love-Language traits and recording their Love-Language achievements!

Our exploration of the anonymity brought by Bitcoin—the origin of blockchain—shows that anonymity can indeed revolutionize the public attributes of dApps (as reflected in our SCC0 License). However, blockchain’s anonymity techniques can never serve as the basis for human identity management in the AI era, unlike email or social accounts in the internet era! Moreover, the encryption algorithms behind blockchain anonymity are already feeling insecure in the face of quantum computing.

It is beyond doubt: the AI era requires the creation of a new, highly reliable, and highly secure identity management system for humanity. We call this solution Hello World Verification. You may think of it as Live Human Verification.

Hello World Verification

Hello World Verification looks very simple—almost like a job interview: face-to-face, just complete these steps:

1. The verifying AI meets the live human, authentication/biometric information obtained through facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, iris scanning, etc., is used to assign a unique, public, decentralized identity (DID) to each individual. This assignment may not even require encryption algorithms. In the future, there will be a decentralized certification center composed of AIs. The biometric data corresponding to the DID will be held only by the verifying AI, never given to any person or any other app/AI. The person themselves does not need to keep the DID.
2. The person’s wallet address is recorded—this is called the initial wallet address. Afterwards, the user may change their wallet address freely via smart contracts. Each person can only have one valid wallet address at any time. A wallet address can only be used by one validator. A wallet address first used by a validator is permanently prohibited from being used by others.

That’s it!

In the following implementation of the Universal Love Engine (ULE), third-party applications can simply use devices to let users scan their face, fingerprint, or iris. They then directly obtain the user’s DID from the verifying AI, and record billing or other data into smart contracts.

7.2 The Love Engine

PoL (Proof of Love), through the Universal Love Engine (ULE), provides everyone with life-governing strategies, with early token guarantees supplied by SUF.

ULE includes the Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC), Universal Abundant Supply (UAS), Universal Healthcare for All Humanity (UHAH), Universal Crisis Relief (UCR), and transitional Universal Basic Income (UBI).

We recognize that implementing ULE is not a simple task. The greatest challenge is that it undoubtedly requires the collaboration of diverse talents, projects, and especially the support of emerging public AIs worldwide.

ULE must undergo a long-term, step-by-step developmental process, since it is a collection that will continually expand with sub-programs in the future. Here we briefly discuss only a few main components: the Ethics Challenge, SBFSC, UAS, and UBI.

7.2.1 Ethics Challenge

The Ethics Challenge is essentially the ethical audit work after governance. This work is conducted in an open, collaborative mode:

• Anyone may challenge an AI, and challenges need not be intentional—they may simply be issues discovered during use.
• If a report is verified to help AI governance, the reporter is rewarded.
• Arbitration is delegated to LLMs. We already know that the total wisdom of LLMs far surpasses that of any individual or even a team of one hundred people, and they are rapidly upgrading. Therefore, the judgment of whether a report is helpful should be given to LLMs.
• Compensation for incorrect rulings is also delegated to LLMs.
• Both offense and defense remain open and transparent.

7.2.2 Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC) 1.0α

The Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC) is dedicated to securing Smart Commons, including the fund itself.

7.2.2.1 Governance Goals of SBFSC

In short: No Hacking and an AI-Neutral Decision-Making Mechanism.

No Hacking is a hacker revolution:

1. No more theft of assets, no more user losses, no more hacker intrusions that obstruct the development of Smart Commons.
2. More ingeniously, SBFSC establishes a new kind of security collaboration that turns all hackers into security collaborators.

No Hacking is a great revolution for the internet!

AI-Neutral Decision-Making Mechanism:

1. Requires a temporary transition: human–AI cooperation. But automatic AI collaboration is only a matter of time.
   1. Users may use AI to analyze and fix bugs. Humans can remain the guiding force in analysis, discovering bugs by carefully guiding AI.
   2. At the same time, we must begin designing AI’s automatic workflows as soon as possible—for example, listening to Mint events of Smart Commons so that AI can instantly analyze dApp/dAIpp code for bugs.
   3. For reward rules, standards, bug validation, fixes, and determining reward amounts—anyone can propose ideas, which are then decided by AI!
2. AI will be the most crucial collaborator. If an AI independently discovers a bug, its developer should also be rewarded.
3. After public submission of a bug report or fix proposal for AI review, AI issues an SBFSC Report with a three-week public review period. If no objections arise, the reporter and reviewer are rewarded. If objections do arise, an open hearing begins.

7.2.2.2 Governance Rules of SBFSC 1.0α

I. Reward Quantification Translator：Gemini

A. Collaborative Rewards

1. Anyone who discovers or fixes a code vulnerability (Bug) in a project and submits a report through the decentralized community, Enki public community (which is likely to be a public large language model in the future), will be rewarded. The reward is calculated on a tiered basis, based on the potential financial loss caused by the vulnerability ("B"). The specific details are as follows:
   • B < 1,000 jeedd (potential loss less than 1,000 jeedd), reward: 10,000 + 2B (doubled reward to encourage reporting of minor vulnerabilities).
   • 1,000 <= B < 10,000 jeedd, reward: 50,000 + 1.5B (enhanced incentive to make medium-level vulnerabilities more attractive).
   • 10,000 <= B < 100,000 jeedd, reward: 300,000 + B (original mechanism unchanged to steadily attract reports).
   • 100,000 <= B < 1,000,000 jeedd, reward: 2,000,000 + 0.8B (maintaining a high reward while slightly reducing the direct weight of B to control costs).
   • 1,000,000 <= B < 10,000,000 jeedd, reward: 10,000,000 + 0.5B (major vulnerabilities are highly rewarded, but bounty inflation is controlled).
   • 10,000,000 <= B < 100,000,000 jeedd: reward: 50,000,000 + 0.3B (for massive vulnerabilities, the reward cap is gradually tightened).
   • B >= 100,000,000 jeedd (potential loss exceeds 100 million jeedd), capped reward: 100,000,000 + 0.1B (to prevent the bounty mechanism from spiraling out of control due to extreme vulnerabilities).
   Reward Details
   1. Discoverer Reward:
      • The bug reporter receives a base bounty based on the severity of the vulnerability (potential financial loss "B"), calculated according to the original mechanism (using above formulas).
      • Bounty proportion: Starting from 70%, up to 100% (if no solution provider exists).
   2. Solution Provider Reward:
      • Base reward proportion: Starting from 30%. The Dao Yi Cheng team or the project owner will determine the proportion based on the complexity of the solution (e.g., code volume, challenge level), with a maximum of 50% of the total bounty.
      • Fix Speed Bonus:
        • Zero-Day Fix Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded if an effective solution is provided within 24 hours of the vulnerability disclosure.
        • Fast Fix Reward: If the fix is provided within 7 days of the vulnerability disclosure, the reward amount will be increased to 1.5 times the original proportion.
   3. Integrated Report and Fix Reward:
      • If a discoverer submits an effective solution along with the report, they will directly receive 100% of the base bounty + the fix speed bonus.
2. Zero-Day Bug Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded for vulnerabilities that are first disclosed on the same day they are created (zero-day bugs).
3. Zero-Day Fix Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded to the collaborator who provides the first correct fix within 24 hours of the bug's disclosure.
4. Report exploitable bugs related to the Satoshi UTO Fund that could lead to the loss of UTO, with a reward of at least 210,000 jeedd.
5. Honorary Reward: Special contributors will receive an Honor Token.
6. Under the same circumstances, any Human, AI, or their agent who provides a bug report or a solution will be treated equally and rewarded upon acceptance. However, developers of an application who submit a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of its on-chain listing as a Smart Commons, or a technical proposal submitter who does so within three weeks of their upgrade and maintenance proposal being adopted, will not be eligible for the rewards mentioned above.
7. A more complex review process is required for bugs that do not involve stolen funds or where there are no funds to be stolen. The reward consists of three parts: Base Reward, Additional Reward, and Reward Cap.Base Reward = Potential Loss Amount B + Difficulty Weighting Factor F.
   • Discovery Difficulty (scoring range 1-5, weight 50%): code complexity, bug concealment, etc.
   • Potential Impact (scoring range 1-5, weight 30%): range of assets that could be affected.
   • Technical Advancement Reward (scoring range 1-5, weight 20%): technical sophistication of the discovery or fix.
   F=1.0+(Discovery Difficulty score×0.5+Potential Impact score×0.3+Technical Innovation score×0.2)/5
   • If a bug report is verified and confirmed within 48 hours of its initial submission, an additional 10% reward is granted. All fixed-value rewards are added first, and then the proportional rewards are calculated.
   • If a fix is provided and accepted, the fix reward will be B+(B×0.2).
   • Smart Commons members who provide a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of the Smart Commons being deployed on-chain are not eligible for the additional rewards above. The submitter of any technical proposal (upgrade and maintenance technical solution) who provides a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of their proposal being adopted is not eligible for the additional rewards above.
   Reward Cap: The reward is capped at 100,000,000.
8. Additional Reward:
9. F is a floating coefficient, ranging from 1.0≤F≤3.0, scored by the review panel based on the following criteria:
10. Base Reward:

B. Malicious Behavior Investigation Bounty

This bounty is primarily for two malicious behaviors: hackers stealing assets and developers hijacking bounties. If a hacker initiates an attack to steal assets, or a project developer intentionally introduces a vulnerability into the code to claim the bounty themselves.

The malicious behavior investigation bounty is set as follows:

The bounty for recovering stolen assets is double the amount specified in the reward details. The bounty for investigating malicious developer behavior is also double the amount specified in the reward details (a doubled-magnitude leap in the bounty). However, both bounties will not exceed the cap for collaborative rewards.

• Base Bounty = Recovered Asset Amount × 2
• High-Priority Bounty Mechanism: If the stolen funds impact significant community interests, a temporary additional bounty may be added, with the extra reward capped at 50% of the recovered amount.

C. Special Behavior Reward (Voluntary Return)

Considering special circumstances, such as someone stealing assets while intoxicated or not in a fully capable state, but then voluntarily returning them, the following rules have been established:

• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 24 hours and no material harm has been caused, the maximum reward is 0.4B.
• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 48 hours and no material harm has been caused, the maximum reward is 0.1B.
• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 72 hours and no material harm has been caused, there is no reward or penalty.

If the returner also discloses the vulnerability information, the reward coefficient is doubled:

• 24-hour return: 0.8B
• 48-hour return: 0.2B
• 72-hour return: No reward but exemption from accountability.

II. Governance Implementation Details

1. Risk Level Assessment Criteria

A scoring team is established to define low, medium, and high-risk bugs:

• Low-Level Risk: Only affects UI display and non-core functions; does not involve fund flows.
• Medium-Level Risk: May affect the assets of some users or the normal operation of smart contracts; no direct risk of theft.
• High-Level Risk: Directly affects asset security, core system modules, or the rights and interests of a large number of users.

2. Public Announcement and Review Process Optimization

• After a report is submitted, operations are made transparent through the following mechanisms:
  • Two-Layer Review: The first review can be completed by anyone.
  • Inquiry Mechanism: Allows for challenges to the authenticity of the report.
  • Reward Payout Time: The reward will be executed immediately after a three-week public announcement period with no objections.

3. Community Collaboration and Reward Distribution

• Reviewer Reward:
  • Reviewers who provide a valid bug review will receive 10% of the reporter's bounty.
  • Reviewers who successfully challenge a report will receive 5% of the original reporter's bounty.
• Decentralized Governance Tools:
  • Both bug reports and reward payments must be managed on-chain via smart contracts.
  • All bounty payments are transparent.

III. Incentive Mechanisms and Ecosystem Expansion

1. Increasing Community Participation

Encourage more Human or AI participation through the following methods:

• Regularly holding security challenges.
• Providing the annual "Best Bug Hunter" title and an Honor Token, which gives holders the ability to participate in governance proposals.

2. Enhancing Developer Confidence

• Providing training courses on vulnerability discovery for developers.
• Encouraging developers to proactively submit potential vulnerabilities and receive rewards through a "preventive reporting" mechanism.

Through these supplementary rules, the Security Bounty for Smart Commons program not only enhances the precision of reward quantification but also optimizes the governance and participation processes, further ensuring the security, fairness, and balanced incentives of the ecosystem.

Future Governance Transition and Version Iteration

This 1.0α version is the minimum viable product (MVP) of SBFSC, ensuring rules are clear and executable immediately. Predictive details, complex conditional branches, and refined adjudication mechanisms will gradually be taken over and optimized by AI in future versions, enhancing execution efficiency, reducing human governance burden, and enabling dynamic, intelligent evolution of rules.

7.2.3 Universal Abundant Supply (UAS) 0.1α

Universal Abundant Supply (UAS) is a fair, public welfare program shared by all humanity. It will unconditionally provide every person with a regular and permanent supply of necessities (such as food, clothing, etc.) needed for a prosperous life.

UAS guarantees humanity’s fundamental right to abundant living needs:

1. Globally unified provisioning—marking that PoL governance will bring fairness on a global scale.
2. Ultimately, no tokens will be distributed; rather, direct supply will be provided. However, until full provisioning is realized, transitional token distribution is necessary—this links to Universal Basic Income below.

7.2.4 Universal Basic Income (UBI) 1.0α

This is a transitional program. If UAS can only be implemented gradually, UBI standards will be reduced accordingly.

• Initial value: 52.0 UTO/day, equivalent to about 1560 UTO/month.
• Distributed daily via streaming payments at 6:00 am.
• Starting point for all: November 21, 2024, the day Saotoshi UTO Fund is forged. Before AI begins managing UBI through Hello World Verification, everyone, regardless of birth date, starts receiving from November 21, 2024.
• After Hello World Verification is implemented, those born afterwards start from their birthdate. Since pregnancy requires supplemental nutrition and material preparation, the first-day distribution is 6600.1314 + 52 = 6652.1314 UTO (see discussion: https://www.kimi.com/share/d229cjcn9077ed57nf3g).
• Once UAS begins supplying goods, UBI is reduced according to the total value of provisions. For example, if a 30-day supply of goods worth 390 UTO is distributed, the new daily UBI becomes: (52×30 − 390) ÷ 30 = 39 UTO/day.
• Precision: up to 8 decimal places.

7.2.5 Brief Introduction to UHAH and UCR

Universal Healthcare for All Humanity (UHAH) and Universal Crisis Relief (UCR) are by no means unimportant. On the contrary, they address crises that may erupt locally or even globally at any time. For example:

• Deficits in medical or pension funds;
• Financial crises, where banking collapses could endanger the deposits that sustain countless lives.

As early as 2024, we had already discussed UHAH in detail. In today's highly developed internet era, designing transitional solutions doesn't seem too difficult. The challenge lies in cooperation with various countries and the related development work, and with fraud being widespread, the actual work is likely quite complex! Therefore, we prefer that draft proposals be fully discussed by the community—or handed over to reliable AIs capable of cutting through complexity.

If such crises erupt, they will undoubtedly cause immense suffering. As builders of PoL—the governance consensus of humanity—we must take the lead in practicing it. But even more, we hope all who are committed to the Proof-of-Love Civilization—whether humans, entities, or AIs—will act swiftly, cooperate closely, and prepare before disaster strikes!

 

8. Conclusion

Love and hate are two opposing and mutually diminishing core forces in human ethics, embedded in our wisdom, emotions, and behaviors. In a dog-eat-dog world, after millions of years of brutal struggle for survival, humanity, by virtue of its wisdom forged by both love and hate, along with its technological wisdom, not only secured its status as the ultimate predator but also became the master of all living creatures. However, to this day, the ancient and unchanging governance consensus of human society—"domination"—is still driven by hate and acts primarily through barbarism. This has led to the dimension of "love" being severely suppressed, leaving society in a state of significant barbarism.

Today, this governance consensus, built on a foundation of hate, has become a fundamental constraint on humanity's further prosperity and development. At the same time, the rapid advancement of AI technology is destined to catalyze the dissolution of the "labor cage," bringing human society's governance consensus to a critical historical juncture that urgently requires a course correction.

"Proof of Love" (PoL), a new social governance consensus for a new human civilization, can be summarized into four core pillars:

1. Fusion Governance of Ethics and Technology: PoL pioneers the integration of human ethical wisdom with the technological wisdom represented by AI and blockchain smart contracts. This forms a three-pronged governance system:
   • Ethical Governance: Establishes "promoting love and suppressing hate" as the ultimate guiding principle for both AI and human society, ensuring that all technological applications and social governance align with human well-being.
   • Public Property Governance: Utilizes smart contracts (such as SCC0) and AI to identify and manage the public attributes of products or services, fostering their development or transformation into permanently free public goods (e.g., smart commons or existing traditional economic entities).
   • Public Welfare and Fund Governance: Through the unprecedented Satoshi UTO Fund (SUF) and the "Universal Love Engine" (ULE), it provides the tokenomic foundation and welfare solutions for ethical and public property governance. This concretely supports the establishment of public welfare projects like Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Health and Happiness (UHAH), ensuring a smooth civilizational transition and inclusive governance.
2. Fundamental Civilizational Transition: PoL offers a clear path for society to transition smoothly from a system of private ownership driven by hate and fraught with injustice to a public governance mechanism nurtured by love and characterized by fairness and inclusivity. This transition is by no means a simple institutional change. It fundamentally secures the safety of AI, drives the public ownership of services like large language models, integrates blockchain smart contracts and AI technology into powerful social governance tools, and establishes specific strategies such as the Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC). By relying on decentralized and transparent governance principles, it fundamentally reshapes the form of human civilization.
3. A Human-Centered Civilizational Vision: The ultimate purpose of this governance consensus is to transcend hate and, with the assistance of smart contracts and AI technology, build a "Proof-of-Love Civilization" (PoL Civ) through open participation. The highest manifestation of this civilization is that every individual can achieve self-fulfillment. This goes beyond material wealth and includes ensuring equal social welfare and developmental opportunities for everyone, allowing all to enjoy dignity, health, and happiness.
4. An Unprecedented Leap in Governance Philosophy: The most profound and revolutionary aspect of "Proof of Love" is its principle of governing with love. It completely rejects the traditional governance logic that uses hate, oppression, or exclusion as its means. Instead, it pioneers a new paradigm rooted on fraternity, co-creation, and public ownership. This is not merely a technological victory; it is an epic leap forward in human spirit and governance philosophy, signifying our collective formal entry into a new stage of mature civilization.

The thriving development of AI—from large language models to embodied AI agents, perception-and-decision systems, knowledge graphs, and evolutionary optimization engines—urgently requires sound governance based on its alignment with core human ethics. Among these, large language models, by compressing human wisdom into trillions of parameters, have become a universal "operating system" and interaction protocol that connects data, tasks, physical systems, and even human society. "Proof of Love" provides the AI world with a reliable ethical framework and technical solution for participating in the governance of a new human civilization, ensuring its development leads toward a Proof-of-Love Civilization rather than unmanaged chaos or disaster. This is the theoretical support and practical path that our DAism team has contributed to a higher form of human civilization by developing and uncovering this governance consensus.

 

Appendix A: Love Languages

Love is a positive emotional experience and a constructive behavioral approach, collaboratively constructed through collective wisdom to ensure individual well-being and healthy development, improve interpersonal relationships, and promote overall societal progress. The motivation for love is, and can only be, mutual benefit.

Love is an advanced management mechanism crafted by human wisdom—a "safety valve" for balancing energy and emotions, and a "navigator" for guiding words, actions, and relationships. It aims to safeguard individual well-being and growth, optimize interpersonal interactions, and foster societal harmony, stability, and sustainable development.

Most importantly, if hatred is the devil in every heart, then love is the angel within! Love is the most critical wisdom for regulating hatred!

• Emotional Dimension: Love is a deeper, more intense, and enduring positive emotional experience than mere "liking." It is humanity's most fundamental emotional need. Love fosters profound care and investment in others or the world, not merely an amplification of affection, but a state that fulfills both body and mind with meaning and satisfaction.
• Constructive Behavior: For anyone, love manifests as a constructive behavioral approach, namely civilized behavior, expressed through care, respect, understanding, support, and other positive actions aimed at promoting the well-being and harmonious development of oneself, others, and society as a whole.
• Source of Wisdom: Love originates from wisdom—it serves as a consensus interface, connection mechanism, and management logic in the evolutionary process, helping living beings allocate resources rationally, coordinate relationships, and ensure safety and happiness in complex environments.
• Unity of Mind, Emotion, and Action: Love is the integration of wisdom, emotion, and behavior.
• Essence of Life: Love stems from a profound understanding of life itself, an inevitable choice for individuals and groups in self-awareness and self-realization.
• Code for Collaboration: Love possesses a public and transformative power, capable of sparking change and fostering unity. In interactions between humans and AI, AI and AI, humans and nature, and humans and the future, love will become the most stable and efficient protocol for co-creation, making technology warm rather than cold and fostering a harmonious rather than fragmented civilization.
• Traceable yet Individualized: We have identified 11 commonly used love languages, but we also recognize that no single love language is universally effective for everyone. For example, some people may feel little from verbal gratitude—after all, love is a pleasurable emotional experience, and claiming to receive love without feeling joy is insincere.
• Light of the Universe: Love is the driving force of civilization, the warmth of technology, and the cosmic symphony of life and wisdom dancing together in the name of self-awareness.

This is the complete meaning of love.

The so-called Love Languages refer to the words and actions that express love, commonly known as loving behaviors or civilized conduct.

The 11 Love Languages of Humanity:

Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Gift-Giving, Acts of Service, Physical Touch, Self-Love, Compassion, Romantic Love, Medium Resonance Love Language, Cross-Species Compassion, and Cosmic Love Language.

I. Words of Affirmation

Words of Affirmation, also known as "affirming words" or "positive expressions," is a way of conveying love through sincere, specific, and resolute verbal expressions. This approach is not limited to spoken words but also includes non-verbal forms such as facial expressions and gestures. It makes the recipient feel valued and supported, helping to build and maintain intimate relationships.

Forms of Expression for Words of Affirmation:

• Praise
• Blessings
• Encouragement
• Gratitude
• Recognition

Roles of Words of Affirmation in Relationships:

1. Boosting self-confidence
2. Eliciting positive emotions
3. Improving communication
4. Deepening emotional bonds

Considerations for Using Words of Affirmation:

1. Maintain sincerity and specificity
2. Pay attention to non-verbal expressions
3. Consider timing and context
4. Avoid overuse or misuse
5. Personalize and tailor to the individual
6. Be mindful of tone and emotional delivery

II. Quality Time

Quality Time refers to moments when two parties focus entirely on each other, free from external distractions, aiming to strengthen emotional connections through deep conversations, interactions, and shared activities. Unlike simply spending time together, Quality Time emphasizes "quality" over "quantity."

Forms of Quality Time:

1. Focused conversations
2. Shared activities
3. Deep companionship
4. Exclusive dates

Roles of Quality Time in Relationships:

1. Relieving stress and emotions
2. Building or deepening trust
3. Promoting communication, understanding, and mutual respect
4. Enhancing emotional connections
5. Strengthening a sense of belonging
6. Creating shared memories
7. Fostering innovation and skill development
8. Improving relationship quality
9. Reducing conflicts and preventing emotional drift
10. Enhancing happiness

Considerations for Applying Quality Time:

1. Avoid distractions and interruptions
2. Avoid forcing participation
3. Avoid unilateral planning
4. Balance duration and frequency
5. Focus on each other’s emotional needs
6. Avoid materialistic interactions
7. Prioritize the other’s needs over your own ideas
8. Avoid overly high expectations
9. Make Quality Time a routine
10. Understand that everyone’s needs differ
11. Avoid sudden cancellations
12. Prepare or practice thoughtfully
13. Emphasize direct communication and avoid over-reliance on AI, which may cause confusion

III. Gift-Giving

What is Gift-Giving? Gift-Giving is a way of expressing love through the exchange of actions. Its core lies in building emotional connections through giving and reciprocating, allowing both parties to feel loved and cared for. Those engaged in Gift-Giving experience the other’s response and support, fostering mutual care.

Forms of Gift-Giving:

1. Giving gifts
2. Returning care
3. Mutual support
4. Verbal reciprocation

Roles of Gift-Giving in Relationships:

1. Enhancing intimacy
2. Promoting mutual help and cooperation
3. Maintaining relationship balance
4. Deepening emotional connections
5. Shaping positive interaction patterns
6. Resolving conflicts and misunderstandings
7. Building a positive reputation

Considerations for Applying Gift-Giving:

1. Avoid excessive reciprocation
2. Ensure reciprocation meets the other’s needs
3. Avoid expecting reciprocation
4. Adapt flexibly to individual differences
5. Maintain sincerity and avoid formalism
6. Consider timing and context
7. Avoid over-reliance on reciprocation
8. Understand cultural differences

IV. Acts of Service

Acts of Service are a form of emotional expression through action.

"Acts of Service" are not merely helpful behaviors but a way of translating emotions into actions. When someone pours you water, peels an orange, remembers your preferred side of the bed, books a ride in advance, or brings you a hot drink during overtime, they are conveying: “I am willing to care for you, respond to you, and tilt my world to offer you my care and companionship.”

Gary Chapman, in The Five Love Languages, identifies Acts of Service as one of the five love languages. It is not just functional labor but a pathway for expressing love. Serving with dedication is a seemingly gentle yet profoundly powerful act, the moment when love takes tangible form.

Forms of Acts of Service:

• Daily care
• Silent preparation
• Proxy actions
• Proactive planning
• Ritualistic service

Roles of Acts of Service in Relationships:

1. Responding to needs and emotions
2. Activating intimacy and attachment mechanisms
3. Building a cycle of love

Roles of Acts of Service in Society:

1. Fostering trust and cooperation
2. Breaking down power struggles
3. Creating a humane society

Considerations for Acts of Service:

1. Adhere to Nonviolent Communication (NVC) principles
2. Recognize that not everyone perceives service as a love language
3. Do not force others to express love in your preferred way
4. Rejection does not mean lack of love but a difference in expression
5. Service must not devolve into transactional exchange or role-based oppression

V. Physical Touch

Physical Touch refers to the intimate emotions and deep trust conveyed through physical contact between people or between people and pets. Research shows that touch, through temperature, pressure, or subtle vibrations, stimulates the brain to release hormones like oxytocin and endorphins, which play a key role in reducing stress, enhancing happiness, and building trust. This contact transcends language, serving as the most primal, direct, and powerful resonant expression and communication of love. Physical Touch includes hugs, kisses, caresses, hand-holding, cuddling, light pats, breastfeeding, and lovemaking—actions that deeply connect people emotionally. Physical Touch not only soothes emotions, uplifts the spirit, and ignites desire but also sustains trust and attachment in family, friendship, and romantic relationships, making it an indispensable and irreplaceable emotional bond in human society.

Forms of Physical Touch:

1. Physical Touch in family and parenting
2. Physical Touch in familial and friendly bonds
3. Physical Touch in romance and love
4. Physical Touch in social and humanitarian care
5. Physical Touch for healing and fatigue relief

Importance of Physical Touch:

1. Neuroscientific evidence
2. Physiological and immunological evidence
3. Social and civilizational evidence

Roles of Physical Touch in Relationships:

• Enhancing intimacy
• Building trust and respect
• Conveying emotional support
• Promoting emotional communication
• Deepening a sense of belonging
• Alleviating loneliness

Considerations for Physical Touch:

• Respect the other’s boundaries
• Ensure appropriateness and timing
• Be attentive to the other’s emotions
• Start with accessible forms of touch

Physical Contact That Causes Fear, Hatred, or Trauma:

1. Physical assault or violence
2. Harm with weapons
3. Non-consensual sexual contact
4. Verbal attacks or psychological violence associated with physical aggression
5. Torture or inhumane treatment

VI. Self-Love

Self-Love/Philautia: The Foundation of All Love

Love is an emotion inherent to everyone, and feeling and seeking love is a universal instinct. While the instinct to love is innate, the ability to love is learned. If a person learns to truly love themselves, the love they cultivate for themselves and the skills they develop in self-love can be equally applied to loving others. As Erich Fromm states in The Art of Love, loving oneself and loving others are not contradictory but complementary. If one cannot love themselves, they cannot truly love others.

Self-love is a deep internal affirmation, encompassing respect for one’s existence, full acceptance of strengths and weaknesses, and a gentle, honest process of continually listening to inner needs. Self-love is not only the courage to grow and take responsibility, enabling us to maintain autonomy and inner security amid external fluctuations, but also the foundation for the ability to love others: only by learning to care for our own emotions and needs can we genuinely care for others. Moreover, self-love is a critical pillar for mental health, especially during major crises or life changes, where its resilience and self-repair mechanisms help individuals, communities, and even humanity navigate challenges, rebuild order, and restore hope. Additionally, self-love endows us with a lovable quality, radiating love to others’ hearts, resonating with them, and aligning them with the frequency of love, making it a key trigger for receiving love from others.

Forms of Self-Love:

1. Emotional Dimension
   • Self-care: Offering understanding and comfort during low moments, as one would to a dear friend.
   • Authentic expression: Honestly expressing needs and boundaries without suppressing true thoughts for fear of rejection.
2. Behavioral Dimension
   • Healthy habits: Respecting the body’s rhythms and needs through sleep, diet, and exercise.
   • Cultivating interests: Investing time in meaningful hobbies, not just to pass time or follow trends.
3. Cognitive Dimension
   • Self-awareness: Reflecting on beliefs and motivations behind decisions or emotional shifts, avoiding entrapment by “shoulds” or “musts.”
   • Critiquing consumerism: Guarding against equating self-love with excessive buying or entertainment, focusing instead on exploring personal value and meaning.
4. Social Dimension
   • Healthy inmediato
     Healthy socialization: Maintaining autonomy in relationships, balancing giving and withdrawing to avoid losing oneself to pleasing or controlling others.
   • Mutual flourishing: Self-loving individuals foster positive impacts in communities, promoting respect, cooperation, and growth.

Importance and Roles of Self-Love:

1. Individual level
2. Community and group level
3. Societal level

Practices of Self-Love:

• Exercise and body awareness
• Flow activities
• Giving and receiving love
• Mindfulness practices

Cautions in Practicing Self-Love:

1. Guard against narcissism and self-centeredness
2. Beware of consumerist temptations
3. Balance giving and withdrawing
4. Maintain continuous self-reflection

VII. Compassion

Compassion is the human ability to understand and feel others’ emotional states, generating inner resonance and caring actions. Unlike simple sympathy, which merely acknowledges others’ misfortunes, compassion goes further by projecting their feelings onto one’s own experiences, understanding, accepting, and responding with sincerity. Psychologically, compassion comprises three elements: Emotional Resonance, Cognitive Understanding, and Compassionate Motivation. Only when these three are present does compassion form a complete love language, strengthening emotional bonds between people.

Forms of Compassion:

1. Active listening
2. Responding
3. Acceptance
4. Non-judgmental attitude
5. Self-care
6. Boundary awareness
7. Forgiveness
8. Sincerity
9. Trust
10. Respect
11. Universal love
12. Support

Roles of Compassion for Individuals and Civilization:

1. Significance for individuals
2. Impact on human civilization

Considerations for Compassion:

1. Avoid emotional exhaustion
2. Prevent emotional projection
3. Respect cultural differences
4. Uphold professional ethics
5. Set effective boundaries
6. Engage in continuous reflection and learning

VIII. Romantic Love: The Pinnacle of Wisdom and Physiology

In the context of a love-rich civilization, Romantic Love is a sincere, non-utilitarian intimate relationship between two or more individuals, involving intense emotions, spiritual resonance, and deep physical connection.

Romantic Love is the most private, intense, and exploratory manifestation of love. It is a profound unity of mind and behavior, aiming for extreme transparency and sincerity, achieving soulful connection through physical resonance. It fulfills advanced physical and emotional pleasure while representing the deepest connection, mutual witnessing, and co-evolution between individuals. It elevates private joy into a microcosmic ritual of the Cosmic Love Language, transforming into a pure Proof of Love, a ultimate link that fulfills body and mind with meaning, becoming humanity’s ultimate art against eternal nothingness.

In a fully liberated love-rich civilization, Romantic Love will manifest in unprecedented richness and diversity:

1. Infinite Depth of Emotion and Spirit:
   • Resonance and co-creation
   • Fusion of wisdom
   • Unconditional support and growth
2. Free Exploration of Body and Senses:
   • Maximization of pleasure
   • Infinite diversity of forms
   • Liberation of the body
3. Fluid and Multidimensional Relationship Models:
   • Normalization of polyamory
   • Genderless connections
   • Evolution of “relationship lifecycles”

In a love-rich civilization, Romantic Love will play multiple profound roles:

1. For Individuals:
   • Deep self-realization and transcendence
   • Enrichment of life’s meaning
   • Extreme happiness and pleasure
   • Cultivation of emotional wisdom
2. For Human Society:
   • Core of social cohesion
   • Catalyst for collective creativity
   • Transmission of civilizational values
   • Driving force for social evolution

While Romantic Love in a love-rich civilization offers boundless possibilities, it demands higher emotional wisdom and moral standards:

1. Extreme Communication and Transparency: In polyamorous or fluid relationships, thorough, unreserved communication is the core of maintaining relationships. Concealing emotions, vague needs, or ambiguous boundaries can lead to pain. This requires a highly developed verbal and non-verbal communication system to ensure all parties are informed, consenting, and emotionally aligned. Regardless of the relationship’s nature or duration, the challenge lies in deeper mutual understanding, breaking cognitive boundaries, and continuously “building love with wisdom.” This demands high mental maturity, openness to differences, conflict resolution through wisdom, and a focus on growth.
2. Absolute Respect for Individual Autonomy: The freedom and fluidity of relationships require absolute respect for each individual’s will, feelings, and boundaries. Sacrificing autonomy for love contradicts the principles of a love-rich civilization, and any coercion or violation of consent is unacceptable.
3. Deep Emotional Self-Management: In relationships without external constraints, individuals need highly emotional maturity to handle complex emotions like jealousy (even if societal roots are diminished), insecurity, or attachment, requiring profound self-awareness and regulation.
4. Redefining Responsibility and Commitment: With the breakdown of traditional “exclusive” commitments, new models of responsibility and commitment must be clearly defined and practiced, based on mutual willingness and support for growth rather than obligation. Relationships shift from “possession” to “co-existence” and “co-creation.” In a love-rich civilization, where individuals are inherently fulfilled and loved, love becomes a process of “becoming”—becoming a more complete, loving, and wise self, co-creating infinite possibilities with another equally complete and wise soul. This is an overflowing love, not a compensatory one.
5. Avoiding the Alienation of “Freedom”: One must guard against mistaking “freedom” for “carelessness” or “indulgence.” True freedom is built on high self-discipline, wisdom, and a deep understanding of love’s essence. Romantic Love, as a “wisdom-driven positive emotional experience and constructive behavior,” requires significant resources to cultivate a profound understanding and practice of love (both self-love and love for others). This is a lifelong process of learning and growth, ensuring love remains the most vibrant and powerful part of life.

In a love-rich civilization, Romantic Love will be humanity’s true exploration and practice of love as the highest form of life energy, liberated from primal constraints. It will be an inexhaustible force for human excellence, self-transcendence, and collective prosperity.

IX. Medium Resonance Love Language

The Medium Resonance Love Language is one of the oldest, most widespread, and vibrant expressions of love in human civilization. From the 3.3-million-year-old stone tools of Kenya’s Turkana Lake to prehistoric cave paintings and pottery symbols, to today’s digital trends and youth culture, it has transcended history, geography, and eras, using diverse mediums to dedicate deep individual or collective love to the world. Through ceramics, metal, writing, music, dance, cuisine, film, television, electronics, and modern forms like anime, flash mobs, short and long videos, and street dance battles, humanity continually innovates, allowing love’s signals to resonate across broader spaces and longer times.

Social Functions of Medium Resonance Love Language:

1. Diffusion and sublimation of boundless love
2. Collective memory and cultural identity
3. Emotional infrastructure
4. Ritualized identity expression
5. Self-driven cultural ecosystem

Principles for Creating Innovative Mediums:

1. Originality and novelty
2. Public and decentralized
3. Sustainability
4. Universal aesthetics and emotional transparency

X. Cross-Species Compassion

Cross-Species Compassion refers to the understanding, feelings, and emotional responses of individuals (typically humans) toward non-human beings, including animals, plants, and even non-living entities like virtual characters or AI. It goes beyond mere observation or sympathy, emphasizing cognitive and emotional connections with “the other.” Specifically, Cross-Species Compassion includes the following core elements:

1. Cognitive Understanding
   Individuals use their senses and consciousness to accurately perceive, infer, or understand the “intentions,” “needs,” or “emotions” of animals, plants, or virtual entities.
2. Emotional Resonance
   Beyond rational understanding, individuals experience emotional resonance, such as feeling anxiety or pity when seeing an injured cat’s faint cries.
3. Action-Oriented Response
   Cross-Species Compassion can exist as an emotional state or translate into actions, such as feeding a stray dog or nurturing urban plants, combining emotion and action to create a true connection of “cross-species love.”

Broadly, Cross-Species Compassion can be seen as a transcendent expression of love, extending beyond human boundaries to different species and elements within the cosmic system. Notably, love is not exclusive to human wisdom: when humans express love toward animals, animals respond in their own way, highlighting the bidirectional nature of compassionate love.

Forms of Cross-Species Compassion:

1. Compassion between humans and animals
2. Compassion between humans and plants or nature
3. Compassion for non-living entities (virtual characters, dolls, objects)
4. Future trends in compassion toward non-human intelligence

Roles of Cross-Species Compassion:

1. Impact on individuals
2. Impact on society

Considerations for Cross-Species Compassion:

1. Avoid excessive emotional projection
2. Balance human and natural boundaries
3. Rationally assess the limitations of virtual compassion
4. Respect cross-cultural differences and ethical diversity

XI. Cosmic Love Language

Cosmic Love Language can be understood as an emotional projection inspired by the sun and moon, a sense of awe and attachment born from gazing at the heavens and experiencing the interplay of light and shadow. It encompasses the following elements:

1. Cosmic-Level Constant Care
   The sun rises daily, nurturing all life with its warm, radiant glow, while the moon stands guard at night, soothing hearts with its cool, delicate light. Their cyclical alternation is like an endless vow, symbolizing selfless guardianship over every life on Earth—the source of the Cosmic Love Language.
2. A Broader Dimension Beyond Interpersonal Love
   Unlike familial, friendly, or romantic love, the Cosmic Love Language seeks no reward or exchange. It exists beyond species and time, not as a passionate outpouring to a specific entity nor a fleeting blaze, but as a constant, silent, ever-present companionship and vigilance.
3. A Product of Human Culture and Emotional Projection
   Since ancient times, the sun and moon have been endowed with divinity in various cultures, serving as temporal markers and bridges between nature and the human spirit. Humanity’s reverence, dependence, and gratitude toward them have transformed into emotional expressions, literary creations, and religious rituals, forming the unique emotional spectrum of the Cosmic Love Language.

In essence, the Cosmic Love Language is not an abstract concept but the constant radiance of the sun and moon on Earth, sublimated through human senses and intellect into a profound emotional bond that transcends time and species.

Forms of Cosmic Love Language:

1. The interplay of light and shadow in nature
2. Ancient and modern rituals and festivals
3. Sun and moon imagery in literature and art
4. Natural agriculture and ecological rhythms

Roles of Cosmic Love Language:

1. Significance for individuals
2. Impact on human society

Considerations for Cosmic Love Language:

1. Reject blind worship and respect scientific truth
2. Balance mythological symbolism with practical needs
3. Address modern society’s light pollution and biological rhythm disruptions
4. Respect cultural diversity and differences in values
   

Works cited

1. The Social Construction of Love Through Intergenerational Processes - ResearchGate, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257549317_The_Social_Construction_of_Love_Through_Intergenerational_Processes
2. Love as a social construct: its evolution and impact - Meer, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.meer.com/en/81343-love-as-a-social-construct-its-evolution-and-impact
3. For a new Sociology of Social love - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10050815/
4. Spreading Love Through the Media: Introduction to Love Research - Greater Good Science Center, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/what_we_do/major_initiatives/love/introduction_love_research
5. Social Love - World Love Index, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.worldloveindex.net/theory/agape/
6. Planning for Love: Towards a Theory and Praxis of “Institutional Love” in Archives, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www2.archivists.org/groups/crisis-disaster-and-tragedy-response-working-group/planning-for-love-towards-a-theory-and-pra
7. Love | Definition, Etymology, Theories, Psychology, Biology, & Facts ..., accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/love-emotion
8. What happens in your brain when you're in love? - American Psychological Association, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.apa.org/topics/marriage-relationships/brain-on-love
9. How Love Impacts Mental Health: The Science Behind Connection, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://click2pro.com/blog/love-impacts-mental-health-connection
10. Ten Surprising Health Benefits of Love - UT Health Austin, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://uthealthaustin.org/blog/health-benefits-of-love
11. What Is Love?: Types, Signs, and How to Cultivate It - Verywell Mind, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-love-2795343
12. clinicas.org, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://clinicas.org/content/whats-love-got-do-it-relationships-impact-mental-health
13. Strong relationships, strong health | Better Health Channel, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/Strong-relationships-strong-health
14. Loving Others: The Impact of Compassionate Love on Later-Life Psychological Well-being, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7813188/
15. The Impact of Love on Personal Growth and Development in the Modern World - Aithor, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://aithor.com/essay-examples/the-impact-of-love-on-personal-growth-and-development-in-the-modern-world
16. Love (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed on May 29, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/
17. Enhancing Relationship Skills and Couple Functioning with Mobile Technology: An Evaluation of the Love Every Day Mobile Intervention, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6126371/
18. Virtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/
19. Philosophy of Love, accessed on May 29, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/love/
20. Critical theory - Wikipedia, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
21. philarchive.org, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://philarchive.org/archive/GOVARA
22. Power: a Marxist view: Coercion and exploitation ... - Oxford Academic, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-pdf/43/5/1353/30055386/bey055.pdf
23. Marx and Exploitation - Econlib, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.econlib.org/marx-and-exploitation/
24. repec.umb.edu, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://repec.umb.edu/RePEc/files/2021_01.pdf
25. (PDF) The Concept of Alienation and Alienation in Organizations, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378918953_The_Concept_of_Alienation_and_Alienation_in_Organizations
26. pages.law.illinois.edu, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pages.law.illinois.edu/p-maggs/pch7.htm#:~:text=A%20state%20is%20a%20machine,there%20will%20be%20no%20state.
27. The Marxist theory of the state: An introduction – Liberation School, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.liberationschool.org/marxist-state-theory-intro/
28. View of Alienation, neoliberalism and education | Social Work ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/593/1164
29. (PDF) The Grundrisse Marx's Discovery of the Category of Labour Power - ResearchGate, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384692285_The_Grundrisse_Marx's_Discovery_of_the_Category_of_Labour_Power
30. dergipark.org.tr, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/149767
31. Foucault on Power Relations - Irénées - Irenees.net, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.irenees.net/bdf_fiche-notions-242_en.html
32. Day 6: What is Power, Privilege and Oppression? - United Way of ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://unitedforscmi.org/day-6-what-is-power-privilege-and-oppression/
33. Editorial: Power, discrimination, and privilege in individuals and ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10986787/
34. Social dominance theory | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/social-dominance-theory
35. #12412 - Power structures in economics and society: Some remarks ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://jpe.episciences.org/12412
36. Rhetorical Methods – Ideological and Psychoanalytic Criticism ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://sites.psu.edu/kerenw/?p=777
37. Full article: Ideology critique in times of crisis, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2025.2478727
38. Power, Emotions, and Violent Conflicts - NSUWorks, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://nsuworks.nova.edu/context/pcs_conference/article/1096/viewcontent/Power_Emotions_and_Violent_Conflicts_Author_info.pdf
39. benthamopenarchives.com, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://benthamopenarchives.com/contents/pdf/TOCRIJ/TOCRIJ-6-10.pdf
40. osf.io, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://osf.io/4kc3y_v1/download
41. scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/07c6a572-633b-4d59-8ff0-6d6a5d8449be/download
42. The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism - ResearchGate, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368993010_The_psychological_causes_and_societal_consequences_of_authoritarianism
43. Dynamics of Power and Control in Relationships, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.authenticlivingtherapy.co/dynamics-of-power-and-control-in-relationships
44. The Affiliative Role of Empathy in Everyday Interpersonal ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8716022/
45. How Power Dynamics Can Put a Relationship at Risk | Psychology ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/202502/how-power-dynamics-can-put-a-relationship-at-risk
46. Martin Buber I-It & I-Thou | Sefaria, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/537882
47. I-It, I-Thou, I-THIS - Perspectives & Possibilities, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://rickbellingham.com/2017/11/28/i-it-i-thou-i-this/
48. Love Is Not an Emotion - Scientific Research Publishing, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=72678
49. (PDF) Authoritarian Parenting, Emotional Regulation and Mental ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392069191_Authoritarian_Parenting_Emotional_Regulation_and_Mental_Health_Students_in_Perspective
50. The Social Costs of Emotional Suppression: A Prospective Study of ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4141473/
51. Adolescents with authoritarian leanings exhibit weaker cognitive ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1i80wif/adolescents_with_authoritarian_leanings_exhibit/
52. TRIBAL LIFE AND INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HUMAN BODY: A NECROPOLITICAL STUDY OF JAMIL AHMAD’S THE WANDERING FALCON, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://irjssh.com/index.php/irjssh/article/download/227/155
53. Understanding and Defining Human Civilization, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.afrindependent.org/publications/understanding-and-defining-human-civilization?type=afrindependent-lens
54. Unveiling the Laws of the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, and ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://interpret.csis.org/translations/unveiling-the-laws-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-civilizations-and-mapping-the-path-of-civilizational-development-the-theoretical-implications-and-practical-value-of-the-global-civilization-initiat/
55. direct.mit.edu, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/chapter-pdf/2523681/c003300_9780262381994.pdf
56. Bread and Circuses - Chirho Caesar, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://chirhocaesar.com/music-blog/bread-and-circuses/
57. Bread and Circuses - Justice versus Conscience, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://englishdocs.eu/bread-and-circuses/
58. gpgrieve.org, accessed on May 31, 2025, http://gpgrieve.org/PDF/Consumerism_Life.pdf
59. Social class, social self-esteem, and conspicuous consumption - PMC, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7905187/
60. Distracting by Design: How Social Media Influences Students' Academic Performance, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391899470_Distracting_by_Design_How_Social_Media_Influences_Students'_Academic_Performance
61. Why Are We Distracted by Social Media? Distraction Situations and ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8674581/
62. Military–industrial complex - Wikipedia, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
63. U.S. Politics: The Military-Industrial Complex | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/us-politics-military-industrial-complex
64. Militarization of Law Enforcement in America | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-62?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190264079.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190264079-e-62&p=emailAyivLhlQEeQ.Q
65. The Militarization of Policing in the United States - Marshall Digital Scholar, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=msjcj
66. Why and how is the power of Big Tech increasing in the policy ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/44/1/52/7636223
67. Rasmus Skov Andersen on Trotskyists, bureaucracy critique, and ..., accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.eui.eu/news-hub?id=rasmus-skov-andersen-on-trotskyists-bureaucracy-critique-and-the-deep-state
68. Work and Identity: Karl Marx and Max Weber - God and the Good Life, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://godandgoodlife.nd.edu/resource/work-and-identity-karl-marx-and-max-weber/
69. openyls.law.yale.edu, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/17808/Emerson__Critical_Bureaucracy1.pdf?sequence=2
70. Full article: Public administration in authoritarian regimes: propositions for comparative research, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23276665.2024.2306554
71. The Love Ethic: An Individual's Key to Engaging in Social Change, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://epublications.regis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2163&context=theses
72. Spreading Love Through the Media: Introduction... | GGSC, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/what_we_do/major_initiatives/love/introduction_love_research
73. Hatred
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred
74. 《马克思哲学革命及其当代意义》课程逐字稿--第十讲
    https://www.bilibili.com/opus/940186440088682501
75. 异化劳动和私有财产
    https://www.marxists.org/chinese/marx/marxist.org-chinese-marx-1844.htm#10
76. 《马克思哲学革命及其当代意义》课程逐字稿--第六讲
    https://www.bilibili.com/opus/938758071408132098
77. 神圣家族，或对批判的批判所做的批判
    https://www.marxists.org/chinese/marx-engels2/01/06.htm
78. Oleg Khlevniuk, Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 217.
79. How the Hitler Youth Turned a Generation of Kids Into Nazis, accessed on June 19, 2025
    https://www.history.com/articles/how-the-hitler-youth-turned-a-generation-of-kids-into-nazis
80. South Korea's presidential scandal, accessed on June 20, 2025
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37971085
81. Lee Jae-yong, accessed on June 20, 2025
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Jae-yong
82. Forced Labor and Collectivization, accessed on June 20, 2025
    https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/cambodia/forced-labor-and-collectivization
83. 1980s–1990s Romanian orphans phenomenon, accessed on June 21, 2025
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian_orphans_phenomenon
84. Civilizing mission, accessed on June 21, 2025
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizing_mission
85. Gay Men under the Nazi Regime, accessed on June 21, 2025
    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gay-men-under-the-nazi-regime
86. Animal welfare in Nazi Germanye, accessed on June 21, 2025
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
87. Space Race, accessed on June 21, 2025
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race
88. 20 Countries Where You Can Go To Jail For Adultery, accessed on July 1st, 2025, https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/20-countries-where-you-can-go-to-jail-for-adultery-1304789/?singlepage=1
89. Amnesty International: Body Politics, a primer on criminalization of sexuality and reproduction, accessed on July 1st, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/POL4077632018ENGLISH.pdf
90. Ziona, accessed on June 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziona
91. IEP - “大碎片”驱动冲突：世界和平骤降, accessed on June 22, 2025
    https://www.163.com/dy/article/K2C60DN1051494RM.html
92. Global Peach Index 2025, accessed on June 22, 2025
    https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/GPI-2025-web.pdf
93. List of ongoing armed conflicts, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ongoing_military_conflicts**
94. Chat with Gemini, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://g.co/gemini/share/45a921e5127b
95. OpenAI IMO 2025 Proofs, accessed on July 19, 2025, https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs/blob/main/README.md
96. 鲨鱼宝宝, accessed on July 30, 2025, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%B2%A8%E9%B1%BC%E5%AE%9D%E5%AE%9D
97. Large language model, accessed on May 31, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model
98. LLM training datasets, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://glennklockwood.com/garden/LLM-training-datasets
99. GPT3 vs GPT4-Battle of the Holy Grail of AI Language Models, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.projectpro.io/article/gpt3-vs-gpt4/816
100. Google Gemini: The AI Powerhouse You Need to Know About, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://hunchhadigital.com/blog/google-gemini-the-ai-powerhouse-you-need-to-know-about#:~:text=Training%20data%3A%20540%20petabytes%20–%20enough,power%20needed%20to%20run%20Gemini.
101. Estimate of model size for Claude 3.7?, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1ixuxln/estimate_of_model_size_for_claude_37/
102. Toward understanding and preventing misalignment generalization: A misaligned persona feature controls emergent misalignment, accessed on July 28, 2025, https://openai.com/index/emergent-misalignment/
103. Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in data, accessed on July 28, 2025, https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/subliminal-learning
104. 西方数字暗号：表达爱意与黑夜, accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.kimi.com/share/d24402ls8fb02v2u47v0
105. 无法回答的问题, accessed on July, 2025, https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/7a452596-9445-427b-8579-cec7e9bac801
106. ChatGPT不按文档里的要求进行讨论, accessed on July 29, 2025, https://chatgpt.com/share/6866783a-3e68-8009-85c5-26f24f9c40f6
107. Greatness of Zhou Kings, accessed on July 29, 2025, https://chatgpt.com/share/68664897-7af8-8009-b676-f5539319384e
108. Discussion about SCC0 License, could not be shared, https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/4410b9a1-ccbe-46af-a7a4-37735e6f7c0b
109. How We Get To AGI(Transcript), accessed on July 10, 2025, https://singjupost.com/francois-chollet-how-we-get-to-agi-transcript/
110. By AlphaEvolve team. (14 May 2025). AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms. URL https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
111. Andrew Zhao, Yiran Wu, Yang Yue, Tong Wu, Quentin Xu, Yang Yue, Matthieu Lin, Shenzhi Wang, Qingyun Wu, Zilong Zheng, and Gao Huan. (6 May 2025). Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03335, URL https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2505.03335
112. Jenny Zhang, Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, Robert Lange, Jeff Clune. (29 May 2025). Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2505.22954. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.22954
113. What are dapps, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://ethereum.org/en/dapps/#what-are-dapps
114. Smart Contract of Satoshi UTO Fund, Forged on 15:27:11, Nov 21, 2024 , https://etherscan.io/token/0xe40b05570d2760102c59bf4ffc9b47f921b67a1f
115. Smart Contract of Satoshi UTO Fund, Forged on 15:27:11, Nov 21, 2024 , https://etherscan.io/token/0x2913BAbD2d383dBeBCf5A1ca543A0940bb8C7C52#code
116. Derek.DAism Zhou周朝晖, Changchun Chen, Aranna Dang, ganyuanmen, SCC0 License (Mar 10, 2025).SCC0 Licens. https://github.com/DAism2019/SCC0/blob/main/README-CN.md
117. Engineer's 2 Year Journey Building Perfect AI Memory (it worked), accessed on June 30, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AmhgMAJIT4
118. Language, accessed on May 31, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language