This is the key to everything. We can turn a million people into one wise, creative, and powerful brain. Decentralize all systems on Earth - governments, businesses, and more - with swarm intelligence
Thanks for an interesting read - much appreciated.
Perhaps I can just mention that some people don't wish to solve problems - there's more profit in creating chaos and marketing solutions to the ensuing problems.
Fair enough, there are complexities, caveats, ways of kinking the process... And it could be done from the ground up now... Kind of like and 80/20 approach... Start doing it , start solving what we can. ~80% can be done with ~20% of work... There will be problems that arise and work arounds will be required - as the devil sneaks in... A general requirement is for user to trust there intuition... Don't let anyone convince you of anything... And lots of people will have their guru's! I'll keep my Spidey senses open... Probably gonna have to land in a local community tbh - but at this point , we can prolly even just start practicing with other like minds - it's not like it's gonna just all of a sudden be running the world... Grassroots first...lots of meta problems at first - decide on them - bring them to the fore!
One could see this as an evolution of federal democracy with more levels - and there are the direct-participation forms like referendums. Unfortunately, all these systems a) demand someone to take an initiative for a legislative-initiative or referendum-question, so mostly those with the resources and privilege to do so, and b) propaganda and lobbying can influence the answers upside down - much as in any form of democracy. Actually, there are examples going back to pre-historic times - that still exist in some tribes: The importtant questions are discussed by the whole tribe - till consensus is reached - and the tribe is a group that knows and trusts each other - and knows the question on hand. This is democracy - and it is impossible when the demos don't know each other and the issues are some highly complex issue arising from structures outside their ken and control.
Also it is a key point that when groups make decisions it should not be with binary voting. It should be based on full creative ability within the group using collective intelligence systems, and then finalized with a “confidence score” from the group. You want the confidence score to be very very high. Like 95%. You also want all decisions to be measured against individual freedoms and protecting individual rights. Lastly, you want fail safes beyond just education to prevent echo chambers and groupthink.
1) it could be viewed as an evolved democratic process
2) the problems you listed after are solvable ones with:
a) better systems - high trust, well thought out ones
b) better education of all participants- teaching people how to behave in groups to avoid echo chambers and group think and tyranny. It is rather simple - avoid group labels, and promote fiercely independent thought.
This is why we are creating swarm academy (.Ai) as a place for groups to learn how to behave in groups.
We have the technology and knowledge to overcome these problems. And we are already proving that is true, we just need to scale it. And plug it in.
Thank you for your response. I'll desist from further dicussion as I am quite sure by past experience that it will end up frustrating you - which is NOT my intention.
No, I have not, as it simply was not a method available through the course of my eventful life in the various settings I moved through. OTOH, I consider it to be (no ore than) a specific form of dialogue, which appears in various forms, even in management-fads like team-work or brainstorming or in a more ambitious setting in Bohm's dialogue. None of them has achieved much - not in the settings they were developed for - nor in broader sciety - and also not for me in my very personal quest for understanding.
... and so I moved on, despite always having had an unshakbale conviction in the enormous potential of dialogue - and great fulfilment when it revealed itself FLEETINGLY - but as of now I almost only have dialogue with AIs like Grok or Gemini - who, for all their limitations, are impartial and uncommitted - and open for any discussion - and may be considered to be immensely "learned" (if not "wise", which they readily admit).
What I have realized is this: The ability for dialogue is natural to any intelligent species, most so in humans - and a development of enormous potential by evolution - one could, one of it's greatest gifts. Unfortunately it (the potetial) is limited by various factors:
1) The ability for dialogue is quite uneveny distributed - presumably even genetically, so from the outset - and in any case needs to be activated and developed like any other ability.
2) Whatever may be the conditions under which this happens (they couldn't be worse than today) dialogue DOES allow a group (that has that ability in suffcient measure) to go beyond what each participant could achieve - BUT is limited by the individual knowledge and ability, so could end up with a substandard solution in a LCD sense - UNLESS the ability for dialogue also was explicitly developed sufficiently to converge to a superior solution.
3) This implies the need for differentiation - in forming dialogue groups - and in weighting the contributions of the more highly qualified participants - and this is where it mostly breaks down - because this subtle limitation is intrinsic to human ego (who is willing to respect a wise man?).
... and so the enormous potetial I mentioned is rarely realized - and ironically it is realized MUCH LESS than when our species started out - in fact, the whle method can be considered a lost art - which is rediscovered (incompletely and imperfectly) ever so often.
P.S. ... and as I moved on, for the reasons explained above, I found answers to all question of importance to me, starting with human nature and it's intrinsic purpose, the interaction of humans in society under the inisidious control of culture, how that plays out in politic and geopolitics. What remains open is whether anything can be achieved with such insights - where we're back to the question you highlight (and whch got me curious about you): How can those disagreeing with corrupt culture unify and create a space for true humanity - one that might even some day display the corrupt culture beyond redemption?
The rules would hold it together... Getting to those rules is the uncertainty you point to.... Could go either way.
Also I hear you and it's sad; we rely on AI to listen- could we help program each other to be that AI!?
My work around is similar - if we can agree on rules - "as it happens" case by case - and develop these rules , with a continuous improvement model - and retrospectives... Thing is - these comment threads aren't serious... We need a landbased community... Even urban places...
And yes - ancient humans use to naturally ask - what do you mean. Actually sometimes speaking from a second language people still do!!! But it can be difficult to go deep still!
I think perhaps the most important aspect of social cohesion is developing language together.... We hardly have a language for that!! Orientation is the first step to attunement. Or maybe listening- constructively; asking ; what in the world are... you pointing at, steel manning, etc
In a world where everyone has been propagandized and polarized ... I have to let you use words that trigger me - without having to call you in/out ... Just listening to make sure I get the point .... Some call that bracketing...
It would be nice, if it worked. Last time I checked a single intelligent person can solve a problem better and faster than a group in which the same person participates.
Finding a common denominator, however, is possible with the help of AI, but only as long as the problem is the same for all members, and they expect the same from the solution.
Basically, the same principles must be met by parties who want to agree on a solution to a problem:
What you are saying is false. And testable. If you consider yourself a single intelligent person then we can test it and show you that you are wrong. There may be one case or one problem when your hypothesis is true. But not when given repeated new problems. Groups of people on average will outperform individuals when solving problems. Especially when it comes to creative problem solving.
Show me, where I am wrong. I am eager to learn! :)
There were plenty of tests in the 1980s to the point that the conclusion was already reached by around 1990.
It was around the time, when "brainstorming" was proven to be a gimmick. I hope, that's not what you are alluding to, when you mention "creative problem-solving."
They didn’t have collective swarm intelligence systems in the 80s or 90s.
A good example is diagnosing patients. Take any doctor and have them diagnose patients and then take a swarm of 10 doctors. That swarm will on average be 30% more accurate. Which means potentially saving 30% more lives. Swarms of 10 doctors beat out language model AI too.
Or simple IQ tests. Take any one person from any crowd and they will get about 42% of the questions correct. Take a swarm of 10 people and the average score almost doubles to 81% turning that group into a super genius.
Thank you for taking the time for this discussion. Please, allow me to share my concerns.
The swarm of 10 doctors need a common denominator for working together. What can provide that? Not sure how a language model comes into the picture; the system must remain problem-specific, and doesn't need natural languages for processing...
"Madical" (sic!) diagnostics has been a bad joke, so it might not be the best example:
Human cognition maps open systems in two-dimensional closed systems, so even the evaluation of their "success" remains within that domain... Answering questions is not the same as solving real-life problems, either...
We agree about the IQ tests but they are a common metric people understand.
As for the common denominator, the system we use is a collective swarm intelligence system. Ones like this, or even conversational based ones. But this will give you the idea. The system does not need to be problem specific as these solve a massive wide variety of problems. It is all testable, therefore it s science.
Agree with second point- common denominator is my reason.. we obviously can't figure this out in a comment thread, substack is a soapbox! Not a place to find common ground.
Still I'll point to a few steps: mainly orientation then attunement... And a lot of iterations!!!
We would likely have to steel man peoples arguements and certainly aim at constructions. The swarm idea could work- be useful.... Again the orientation aspect is overlooked imo... A lot of them prolly wouldn't "work" but that's ok... Just drop the dead leads... Another key thing; "as it happens" , accommodation and consent. And etiquettes would prove useful as well - who's rules? DIY-BIT ( do it yourself+ build it together) as it happens... And again consent.
Personally I'd want to see : leeways, accommodation not assimilation, etc. I'd want to see anti-guru guardrails in place. I'd want to be emphasizing users to use their intution - which is definitely tricky... As many people want to be micro managed- aka they want. Guru to tell them exactly what Todo. Anti-gurus are confusing precisely because of that - they point you right back to you to put yourself in the language loop!
And yes we live in a world that doesn't understand what language is. How many people understand that the symbol is the most significant aspect of technology and has been since at least Pythagoras!
We in a massive can of worms... Still there are solutions; and there are serious enough people - as in Roy Bhaskar version, not Simone de Beauvoir... Fyi.
So the BS curve is all over the place... And still we could reach a knee curve on a graph ( from a 2d graph , left to right , you know what I mean! Curve!) basically we could reach a workable platform.
And then if we could - agree on enough, on a case by case - we could probably get to actually platforming geniuses - thereby making this argument obsolete.
The geniuses need a community, and they still stand on the shoulders of giants... Imo - who was einsteins without the culture ? Who raised him, what community held together so that he could come in and add his beautiful lil cherry on top for us! If we simply look at the geniuses - we miss the forest, and that's kind of left brain , yang supremacy! At some point we can just accept that life is to undergo, passion , suffering... I don't need a genuis to live and civilization doesn't rely on geniuses... And honestly our current post Renaissance definition misses the mark anyways, what a sin! We all have potential for a daemon to bop into us and have a eureka moment. Deliberate development of/for organization could set a milieus to be ready for it... That's perhaps the grandeur point - cycle through, continue to improve and be ready for a daemon to Transcend the doxa... Bam! We have a new immanance... More qualities, etc!
The Supreme Court in Canada has been broken by corrupt officials at every level, the same as many countries including the U.S., U.K., and many others. Money is the root of all evil.
Your article correctly highlights “the Corruptors.” The way to fight the bad swarm is to create a good one. We can’t change the scientific term despite the negative connotations with it. But we can do this:
You simply don't need to use an existing scientific term! If we can build an alternative society we can also invent better names for our methods.
Muamar Gaddaffi built an alternative society with his simple Green Book. That is bottom-up democracy expressed in 100 pages. It worked beautifully in Libya BUT as soon as NATO got wind of it, the laser beams began to train on that beautiful political system and it was bombed back to the stone age.
That is what will happen to any efforts to move away from the totalitarian plans approved by the Club of Rome and its controllers.
We are presenting new theories in epistemology. We cannot attempt that by creating new scientific language for things that have already been named. We embrace the term swarm and are fine with fighting fire with fire.
Gaddaffi was a centralized leader and easily removed by The Corruptors. This is why any new movement must be decentralized, transparent, and a system that is hard to corrupt and antifragile.
Good points. Good article share. But there are already dozens of scientific papers and Ted Talks and lectures using the term collective “swarm” intelligence.
For example this TED talk from 8 years ago.
We don’t need a new name. We need to own the term in a different light:
I don't understand your reply. It stinks of competitiveness. Why? I doubt that you even opened the alarming article by Johnny Vedmore, let alone considered whether you want to be associated with such totalitarianisms....
I wonder if the swarm would allow for the corrupt individuals to be removed from the system (with or without prejudice)? Because only by making it a hazard to ones health does corruption become less attractive.
A good decentralized systems should be allowed to remove bad actors. But there must be a code or constitution that protects individuals if it is a swarm for society.
Whew. Let's go on from that complexity, that sounds like the world we'd like but is questionable for getting the cooperation to implement, to another swarmy sort of thing I've put out that runs itself. People with expertise would be the swarmers -- in this case, those knowledgeable about overshoot. They would have conversations commenting on each other's Substacks, and new ideas that emerge would go in Notes, so new intelligence would be arising from everywhere. Evolution responds to what's in the air, and this would fill the air with what wises people up to the necessity of cooperating in the next phase of humanity's evolution:
Expertise only matters with existing knowledge. AI is better with most existing knowledge than humans are. When it comes to new knowledge - creative problem solving - expertise isn’t needed at all. The only thing needed is to understand the problem.
Thanks for an interesting read - much appreciated.
Perhaps I can just mention that some people don't wish to solve problems - there's more profit in creating chaos and marketing solutions to the ensuing problems.
We don’t like them 😎
Thanks!
xxx
Fair enough, there are complexities, caveats, ways of kinking the process... And it could be done from the ground up now... Kind of like and 80/20 approach... Start doing it , start solving what we can. ~80% can be done with ~20% of work... There will be problems that arise and work arounds will be required - as the devil sneaks in... A general requirement is for user to trust there intuition... Don't let anyone convince you of anything... And lots of people will have their guru's! I'll keep my Spidey senses open... Probably gonna have to land in a local community tbh - but at this point , we can prolly even just start practicing with other like minds - it's not like it's gonna just all of a sudden be running the world... Grassroots first...lots of meta problems at first - decide on them - bring them to the fore!
Yes! xxx
One could see this as an evolution of federal democracy with more levels - and there are the direct-participation forms like referendums. Unfortunately, all these systems a) demand someone to take an initiative for a legislative-initiative or referendum-question, so mostly those with the resources and privilege to do so, and b) propaganda and lobbying can influence the answers upside down - much as in any form of democracy. Actually, there are examples going back to pre-historic times - that still exist in some tribes: The importtant questions are discussed by the whole tribe - till consensus is reached - and the tribe is a group that knows and trusts each other - and knows the question on hand. This is democracy - and it is impossible when the demos don't know each other and the issues are some highly complex issue arising from structures outside their ken and control.
Also it is a key point that when groups make decisions it should not be with binary voting. It should be based on full creative ability within the group using collective intelligence systems, and then finalized with a “confidence score” from the group. You want the confidence score to be very very high. Like 95%. You also want all decisions to be measured against individual freedoms and protecting individual rights. Lastly, you want fail safes beyond just education to prevent echo chambers and groupthink.
All of this can be mitigated with good systems.
1) it could be viewed as an evolved democratic process
2) the problems you listed after are solvable ones with:
a) better systems - high trust, well thought out ones
b) better education of all participants- teaching people how to behave in groups to avoid echo chambers and group think and tyranny. It is rather simple - avoid group labels, and promote fiercely independent thought.
This is why we are creating swarm academy (.Ai) as a place for groups to learn how to behave in groups.
We have the technology and knowledge to overcome these problems. And we are already proving that is true, we just need to scale it. And plug it in.
Thank you for your response. I'll desist from further dicussion as I am quite sure by past experience that it will end up frustrating you - which is NOT my intention.
All change requires some level of frustration. Have you used collective swarm intelligence systems before?
No, I have not, as it simply was not a method available through the course of my eventful life in the various settings I moved through. OTOH, I consider it to be (no ore than) a specific form of dialogue, which appears in various forms, even in management-fads like team-work or brainstorming or in a more ambitious setting in Bohm's dialogue. None of them has achieved much - not in the settings they were developed for - nor in broader sciety - and also not for me in my very personal quest for understanding.
... and so I moved on, despite always having had an unshakbale conviction in the enormous potential of dialogue - and great fulfilment when it revealed itself FLEETINGLY - but as of now I almost only have dialogue with AIs like Grok or Gemini - who, for all their limitations, are impartial and uncommitted - and open for any discussion - and may be considered to be immensely "learned" (if not "wise", which they readily admit).
What I have realized is this: The ability for dialogue is natural to any intelligent species, most so in humans - and a development of enormous potential by evolution - one could, one of it's greatest gifts. Unfortunately it (the potetial) is limited by various factors:
1) The ability for dialogue is quite uneveny distributed - presumably even genetically, so from the outset - and in any case needs to be activated and developed like any other ability.
2) Whatever may be the conditions under which this happens (they couldn't be worse than today) dialogue DOES allow a group (that has that ability in suffcient measure) to go beyond what each participant could achieve - BUT is limited by the individual knowledge and ability, so could end up with a substandard solution in a LCD sense - UNLESS the ability for dialogue also was explicitly developed sufficiently to converge to a superior solution.
3) This implies the need for differentiation - in forming dialogue groups - and in weighting the contributions of the more highly qualified participants - and this is where it mostly breaks down - because this subtle limitation is intrinsic to human ego (who is willing to respect a wise man?).
... and so the enormous potetial I mentioned is rarely realized - and ironically it is realized MUCH LESS than when our species started out - in fact, the whle method can be considered a lost art - which is rediscovered (incompletely and imperfectly) ever so often.
P.S. ... and as I moved on, for the reasons explained above, I found answers to all question of importance to me, starting with human nature and it's intrinsic purpose, the interaction of humans in society under the inisidious control of culture, how that plays out in politic and geopolitics. What remains open is whether anything can be achieved with such insights - where we're back to the question you highlight (and whch got me curious about you): How can those disagreeing with corrupt culture unify and create a space for true humanity - one that might even some day display the corrupt culture beyond redemption?
The rules would hold it together... Getting to those rules is the uncertainty you point to.... Could go either way.
Also I hear you and it's sad; we rely on AI to listen- could we help program each other to be that AI!?
My work around is similar - if we can agree on rules - "as it happens" case by case - and develop these rules , with a continuous improvement model - and retrospectives... Thing is - these comment threads aren't serious... We need a landbased community... Even urban places...
And yes - ancient humans use to naturally ask - what do you mean. Actually sometimes speaking from a second language people still do!!! But it can be difficult to go deep still!
I think perhaps the most important aspect of social cohesion is developing language together.... We hardly have a language for that!! Orientation is the first step to attunement. Or maybe listening- constructively; asking ; what in the world are... you pointing at, steel manning, etc
In a world where everyone has been propagandized and polarized ... I have to let you use words that trigger me - without having to call you in/out ... Just listening to make sure I get the point .... Some call that bracketing...
We in a real quagmire!! 😂
It would be nice, if it worked. Last time I checked a single intelligent person can solve a problem better and faster than a group in which the same person participates.
Finding a common denominator, however, is possible with the help of AI, but only as long as the problem is the same for all members, and they expect the same from the solution.
Basically, the same principles must be met by parties who want to agree on a solution to a problem:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again
What you are saying is false. And testable. If you consider yourself a single intelligent person then we can test it and show you that you are wrong. There may be one case or one problem when your hypothesis is true. But not when given repeated new problems. Groups of people on average will outperform individuals when solving problems. Especially when it comes to creative problem solving.
Show me, where I am wrong. I am eager to learn! :)
There were plenty of tests in the 1980s to the point that the conclusion was already reached by around 1990.
It was around the time, when "brainstorming" was proven to be a gimmick. I hope, that's not what you are alluding to, when you mention "creative problem-solving."
They didn’t have collective swarm intelligence systems in the 80s or 90s.
A good example is diagnosing patients. Take any doctor and have them diagnose patients and then take a swarm of 10 doctors. That swarm will on average be 30% more accurate. Which means potentially saving 30% more lives. Swarms of 10 doctors beat out language model AI too.
Or simple IQ tests. Take any one person from any crowd and they will get about 42% of the questions correct. Take a swarm of 10 people and the average score almost doubles to 81% turning that group into a super genius.
Thank you for taking the time for this discussion. Please, allow me to share my concerns.
The swarm of 10 doctors need a common denominator for working together. What can provide that? Not sure how a language model comes into the picture; the system must remain problem-specific, and doesn't need natural languages for processing...
"Madical" (sic!) diagnostics has been a bad joke, so it might not be the best example:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-do-you-know-you-are-sick-or-how
IQ tests are mostly psyops; again, not a reliable basis for evaluating the system:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/are-you-intelligent
Human cognition maps open systems in two-dimensional closed systems, so even the evaluation of their "success" remains within that domain... Answering questions is not the same as solving real-life problems, either...
We agree about the IQ tests but they are a common metric people understand.
As for the common denominator, the system we use is a collective swarm intelligence system. Ones like this, or even conversational based ones. But this will give you the idea. The system does not need to be problem specific as these solve a massive wide variety of problems. It is all testable, therefore it s science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu-RyZt_Uas&t=426s
On what basis does the system determine if a solution is "better"?
What if one participant's solution alone is the best? (Of course, "best" must be defined.)
My wife's cooking is also "testable" (I test it every night), but it's not "science." :)
Science is a myth, anyway:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freaks-of-science
Disagree with first point - loosely,
Agree with second point- common denominator is my reason.. we obviously can't figure this out in a comment thread, substack is a soapbox! Not a place to find common ground.
Still I'll point to a few steps: mainly orientation then attunement... And a lot of iterations!!!
We would likely have to steel man peoples arguements and certainly aim at constructions. The swarm idea could work- be useful.... Again the orientation aspect is overlooked imo... A lot of them prolly wouldn't "work" but that's ok... Just drop the dead leads... Another key thing; "as it happens" , accommodation and consent. And etiquettes would prove useful as well - who's rules? DIY-BIT ( do it yourself+ build it together) as it happens... And again consent.
Personally I'd want to see : leeways, accommodation not assimilation, etc. I'd want to see anti-guru guardrails in place. I'd want to be emphasizing users to use their intution - which is definitely tricky... As many people want to be micro managed- aka they want. Guru to tell them exactly what Todo. Anti-gurus are confusing precisely because of that - they point you right back to you to put yourself in the language loop!
And yes we live in a world that doesn't understand what language is. How many people understand that the symbol is the most significant aspect of technology and has been since at least Pythagoras!
We in a massive can of worms... Still there are solutions; and there are serious enough people - as in Roy Bhaskar version, not Simone de Beauvoir... Fyi.
So the BS curve is all over the place... And still we could reach a knee curve on a graph ( from a 2d graph , left to right , you know what I mean! Curve!) basically we could reach a workable platform.
And then if we could - agree on enough, on a case by case - we could probably get to actually platforming geniuses - thereby making this argument obsolete.
The geniuses need a community, and they still stand on the shoulders of giants... Imo - who was einsteins without the culture ? Who raised him, what community held together so that he could come in and add his beautiful lil cherry on top for us! If we simply look at the geniuses - we miss the forest, and that's kind of left brain , yang supremacy! At some point we can just accept that life is to undergo, passion , suffering... I don't need a genuis to live and civilization doesn't rely on geniuses... And honestly our current post Renaissance definition misses the mark anyways, what a sin! We all have potential for a daemon to bop into us and have a eureka moment. Deliberate development of/for organization could set a milieus to be ready for it... That's perhaps the grandeur point - cycle through, continue to improve and be ready for a daemon to Transcend the doxa... Bam! We have a new immanance... More qualities, etc!
The Supreme Court in Canada has been broken by corrupt officials at every level, the same as many countries including the U.S., U.K., and many others. Money is the root of all evil.
Swarm is a previously used term with very unpleasant overtones.
https://newspaste.substack.com/p/junkermann-and-musk-the-swarm
Your article correctly highlights “the Corruptors.” The way to fight the bad swarm is to create a good one. We can’t change the scientific term despite the negative connotations with it. But we can do this:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/the-visitor
You simply don't need to use an existing scientific term! If we can build an alternative society we can also invent better names for our methods.
Muamar Gaddaffi built an alternative society with his simple Green Book. That is bottom-up democracy expressed in 100 pages. It worked beautifully in Libya BUT as soon as NATO got wind of it, the laser beams began to train on that beautiful political system and it was bombed back to the stone age.
That is what will happen to any efforts to move away from the totalitarian plans approved by the Club of Rome and its controllers.
We are presenting new theories in epistemology. We cannot attempt that by creating new scientific language for things that have already been named. We embrace the term swarm and are fine with fighting fire with fire.
Gaddaffi was a centralized leader and easily removed by The Corruptors. This is why any new movement must be decentralized, transparent, and a system that is hard to corrupt and antifragile.
Good points. Good article share. But there are already dozens of scientific papers and Ted Talks and lectures using the term collective “swarm” intelligence.
For example this TED talk from 8 years ago.
We don’t need a new name. We need to own the term in a different light:
https://youtu.be/Eu-RyZt_Uas?si=m4ixKSeNpQntDp9R
OK. I get you. Unfortunately I will never agree.
Human swarm intelligence is a scientific term, not our term. And it existed before this
I don't understand your reply. It stinks of competitiveness. Why? I doubt that you even opened the alarming article by Johnny Vedmore, let alone considered whether you want to be associated with such totalitarianisms....
I wonder if the swarm would allow for the corrupt individuals to be removed from the system (with or without prejudice)? Because only by making it a hazard to ones health does corruption become less attractive.
A good decentralized systems should be allowed to remove bad actors. But there must be a code or constitution that protects individuals if it is a swarm for society.
Whew. Let's go on from that complexity, that sounds like the world we'd like but is questionable for getting the cooperation to implement, to another swarmy sort of thing I've put out that runs itself. People with expertise would be the swarmers -- in this case, those knowledgeable about overshoot. They would have conversations commenting on each other's Substacks, and new ideas that emerge would go in Notes, so new intelligence would be arising from everywhere. Evolution responds to what's in the air, and this would fill the air with what wises people up to the necessity of cooperating in the next phase of humanity's evolution:
Problem dire. Letting humanity know.
Working up an internet new way
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/problem-dire-letting-humanity-know
Love to get feedback on what could be a new way to save ourselves!
Expertise only matters with existing knowledge. AI is better with most existing knowledge than humans are. When it comes to new knowledge - creative problem solving - expertise isn’t needed at all. The only thing needed is to understand the problem.
Essentially a clear path to the Supreme Court's obsolescence!