It can only happen with 100% Transparency. Nothing can be behind closed doors, classified or need a FIOA, like, request, to access all transcripts of every email, phone call, meeting, study etc. Without us having an open dialog it would build into more of a dictatorship, like it has become today. Power corrupts.
Without total transparency then the word or spirit behind the word “democracy” is meaningless. If the people cannot see what is going on behind closed doors then we are voting on lies.
"swarm" intelligence? I think we already have that and it's called "mobbing".
But surely that phrase means something less amenable to devolving into a situation in which waves of fast reaction sweep across the subset of "local, connected" individuals who are both proximal (local) and hooked up to each others' device content layers (connected)?
Connection happens at the speed of technology and I can't imagine a "swarm intelligence"'occurring in slower connected people, and it wouldn't be described as connected in the sense of being able to act at all swarmlike, either, not after we've experienced social media.
I live in a city where people are low trust and low functional IQ. However they are still citizens and therefore this statement "Sure, not everyone will want to be vulnerable or be part of a society like this, but plenty of people will" does not seem to apply to a democratic society. How do you solve that?
A city with low functioning IQ? IQ is much more a product of the systems you use instead of the place you live. And it is a bad predictor of intelligence. Intelligence is not a fixed trait.
But the answer is always the same to all of your questions. Better systems.
And I think i have a bit more to mention about "better systems"--better according to whom, systems comprising and not comprising who in a region, and so on, but i'm moving and am super busy for the next few days. My response just now was during morning coffee only. I will try to remember to return when I have time again.
I would have thought the same before I moved here, having come from a high performing region.
I said "functional". Beliefs and ideological commitments can limit IQ. One example is a commitment to a faith that believes in miracles which no longer happen and other such unprovable "trust me bro" stuff. Commitment to this sort of thought structure requires shutting off logical analysis and skepticism, and having gates up on ways that information can get in. Because such cognitive rules have to be hidden enough to not always produce cognitive dissonance, and also have to be fast enough to not slow a person down very often, they have to be broad category rules and general operating principles. The installation of these rules reduces *functional* IQ. And because culture is regional and ideology is often cultural, yes regions can be more or less cognitively effective, on average--depending on the dominant cultural approach to stuff like rationality, new information, etc.
No thanks. If your solution involves swarm intelligence and the hive mind then, it's the same privacy-eviscerated version which threatens to enslave us in the open-air digital prison which is our biggest concern.
Also it isn’t a “hive mind.” A hive mind is groupthink. Collective swarm intelligence is the opposite. Fiercely independent thinkers banded together to solve problems.
For the record, Angie, we are 100% against digital ID, biometrics, and centralized control over grids. Especially ones set up to be like social credit scores issued by centralized entities.
However, peer to peer trust - like what happens on Amazon, eBay, and Etsy, can be used to mix IRL and URL, build high trust problem solving groups, and keep AI, Bots, and government agents out of control points in our systems.
Collective intelligence - like all powerful tools - aka electricity, nuclear power, flight, gunpowder or the internet - can be used for good or bad.
Your fear of the technology is reminiscent of the fear the American Indians had of guns. If we fail to use technology to save us they will use it to enslave us. We can’t stop it by ignoring it.
The difference is centralized vs decentralized, transparent vs secretive, good results vs bad results, and top-down corrupted systems vs bottom up ones.
Sticking your head in the sand isn’t the answer, friend.
But if we are discussing it the power of it isn’t really about decentralization. It’s about transparency. And it is why government would never put spending on a good one.
Also Allison criticizes most blockchains as centralized because they are. If they have an office, or CEO, they are centralized.
But she refrains from direct criticisms often of decentralized chains like Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is permission-less. We have sent tens of thousands of dollars across the world and never had to ask permission ever. And it cannot be stopped unless you stop all energy and comms, which in that case we have bigger problems.
There is a decent argument for privacy, but privacy isn’t as big of a problem as centralized control and lack of transparency over our money exchanges are.
Did it ever occur to you that Satoshi Nakamoto was a psychological operation to encourage early adoption of crypto currencies?
The US Treasury is now the biggest holder of Bitcoin. Take it from Mark Goodwin, the former editor of Bitcoin Magazine who understands that Bitcoin has been co-opted away from it's original promise.
Did it ever occur to you that this could be a reverse psyop to get people afraid of Bitcoin? If Bitcoin has a weakness show us, don’t use ad hominem theoretics.
Could it be bad? Maybe. But how?
Centralized bank digital currencies definitely are. So are regular banks
Why would the central banks give up centralized control over the printing press and the ability to devalue money with inflation and replace it with a fixed number of Bitcoin, on a transparent ledger, that is controlled by all of the nodes that when stored on a cold wallet has their own physical keys? They could have just introduced something much easier to control.
It can only happen with 100% Transparency. Nothing can be behind closed doors, classified or need a FIOA, like, request, to access all transcripts of every email, phone call, meeting, study etc. Without us having an open dialog it would build into more of a dictatorship, like it has become today. Power corrupts.
Without total transparency then the word or spirit behind the word “democracy” is meaningless. If the people cannot see what is going on behind closed doors then we are voting on lies.
"swarm" intelligence? I think we already have that and it's called "mobbing".
But surely that phrase means something less amenable to devolving into a situation in which waves of fast reaction sweep across the subset of "local, connected" individuals who are both proximal (local) and hooked up to each others' device content layers (connected)?
Connection happens at the speed of technology and I can't imagine a "swarm intelligence"'occurring in slower connected people, and it wouldn't be described as connected in the sense of being able to act at all swarmlike, either, not after we've experienced social media.
So how does it work? And how is it fail proofed?
Also a big key component is a philosophy called skin in the game
I live in a city where people are low trust and low functional IQ. However they are still citizens and therefore this statement "Sure, not everyone will want to be vulnerable or be part of a society like this, but plenty of people will" does not seem to apply to a democratic society. How do you solve that?
A city with low functioning IQ? IQ is much more a product of the systems you use instead of the place you live. And it is a bad predictor of intelligence. Intelligence is not a fixed trait.
But the answer is always the same to all of your questions. Better systems.
And I think i have a bit more to mention about "better systems"--better according to whom, systems comprising and not comprising who in a region, and so on, but i'm moving and am super busy for the next few days. My response just now was during morning coffee only. I will try to remember to return when I have time again.
I would have thought the same before I moved here, having come from a high performing region.
I said "functional". Beliefs and ideological commitments can limit IQ. One example is a commitment to a faith that believes in miracles which no longer happen and other such unprovable "trust me bro" stuff. Commitment to this sort of thought structure requires shutting off logical analysis and skepticism, and having gates up on ways that information can get in. Because such cognitive rules have to be hidden enough to not always produce cognitive dissonance, and also have to be fast enough to not slow a person down very often, they have to be broad category rules and general operating principles. The installation of these rules reduces *functional* IQ. And because culture is regional and ideology is often cultural, yes regions can be more or less cognitively effective, on average--depending on the dominant cultural approach to stuff like rationality, new information, etc.
Large groups can be amazing (genies) or horrible mobs (golems).
To explain why takes a while to- but basically it is labels. Labels lead to echo chambers which lead to groupthink which lead to tyranny.
Also, a lack of individualism, back corrupt systems, and more can cause it too.
You prevent it many simple ways.
Read our pinned post for more details
No thanks. If your solution involves swarm intelligence and the hive mind then, it's the same privacy-eviscerated version which threatens to enslave us in the open-air digital prison which is our biggest concern.
https://solarireport.substack.com/p/trump-administration-digital-control
Also it isn’t a “hive mind.” A hive mind is groupthink. Collective swarm intelligence is the opposite. Fiercely independent thinkers banded together to solve problems.
For the record, Angie, we are 100% against digital ID, biometrics, and centralized control over grids. Especially ones set up to be like social credit scores issued by centralized entities.
However, peer to peer trust - like what happens on Amazon, eBay, and Etsy, can be used to mix IRL and URL, build high trust problem solving groups, and keep AI, Bots, and government agents out of control points in our systems.
Consider this: https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/keep-ai-and-bots-out-of-our-systems?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
You saying this means you do not understand it.
Consider this perspective:
Collective intelligence - like all powerful tools - aka electricity, nuclear power, flight, gunpowder or the internet - can be used for good or bad.
Your fear of the technology is reminiscent of the fear the American Indians had of guns. If we fail to use technology to save us they will use it to enslave us. We can’t stop it by ignoring it.
The difference is centralized vs decentralized, transparent vs secretive, good results vs bad results, and top-down corrupted systems vs bottom up ones.
Sticking your head in the sand isn’t the answer, friend.
Are you familiar with researcher Alison McDowell of Wrench in the Gears?
Decentralization on blockchain is a myth.
https://wrenchinthegears.com/2020/10/27/who-voted-in-davos-how-data-driven-government-and-the-internet-of-bodies-are-poised-to-transform-smart-sustainable-cities-into-social-impact-prisons/
https://odysee.com/@Argusfest:b/Alison_Nano:e
Did we mention blockchain?
But if we are discussing it the power of it isn’t really about decentralization. It’s about transparency. And it is why government would never put spending on a good one.
Also Allison criticizes most blockchains as centralized because they are. If they have an office, or CEO, they are centralized.
But she refrains from direct criticisms often of decentralized chains like Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is permission-less. We have sent tens of thousands of dollars across the world and never had to ask permission ever. And it cannot be stopped unless you stop all energy and comms, which in that case we have bigger problems.
There is a decent argument for privacy, but privacy isn’t as big of a problem as centralized control and lack of transparency over our money exchanges are.
Did it ever occur to you that Satoshi Nakamoto was a psychological operation to encourage early adoption of crypto currencies?
The US Treasury is now the biggest holder of Bitcoin. Take it from Mark Goodwin, the former editor of Bitcoin Magazine who understands that Bitcoin has been co-opted away from it's original promise.
https://www.tftc.io/debt-slavery-carbon-credit-coup-whitney-webb/
Did it ever occur to you that this could be a reverse psyop to get people afraid of Bitcoin? If Bitcoin has a weakness show us, don’t use ad hominem theoretics.
Could it be bad? Maybe. But how?
Centralized bank digital currencies definitely are. So are regular banks
Why would the central banks give up centralized control over the printing press and the ability to devalue money with inflation and replace it with a fixed number of Bitcoin, on a transparent ledger, that is controlled by all of the nodes that when stored on a cold wallet has their own physical keys? They could have just introduced something much easier to control.
Well said! Now we just need to agree on the best, practical solution and implementation plan.
The first is we need a place to organize.
So,
'Accountability VS Corruption' ?
One layer for sure
Please list other layers?
How much time do you have?
We can make endless improvements to make our systems harder to corrupt.
A good system should be able to be run by our enemies and they still cannot corrupt it.
Here is one system:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
So,
'Accountability VS Corruption' ?
Yes for sure.
But also results vs apathy.
Growth mindset vs fixed mindset.
Problem solving vs complaining.
Counting on leaders vs leading ourselves
Good systems vs bad ones
Yes, the 'but' list could go on forever, of course ....
IT's the 'Accountability vs Corruption'
Core, Before all the rest, that requires Clear Core Support,
Before any of the rest will matter.
---
We are of one mind it seems merging ;-)