Hi all!
I’m new here. I represent a little movement out of Africa, but I am myself Scandinavian.
Currently I’m working on a video exploring the role of technology in shaping a radically different society aligned much more broadly with solarpunk ideas. I’m specifically interested in how blockchain, DAOs and AI could potentially revolutionize the future of consensus making, but I’m also acutely aware that this is a polarizing issue. What are your views on this?
You might like the book https://plurality.net/ , especially chapter 2-2 The Life of a Digital Democracy
Ai is intransparent to nearly everyone, and as such should not be used for voting or similar.
Blockchain is a way to ensure no one can tamper with the history of some data undetected, which might be used for keeping a count of the votes, but for most normal people it is also intransparent, so it should only be used with caution if simpler methods are not an option.
I never heard of DAOs before, but seeing the start of the wikipedia entry, it looks like an interesting way to use technology. But it suffers the same problem as the two other technologies: it is intransparent for a lot of people. Also if there is a bug in the software (which will happen at some point in time), it will be hard to fix it.
There are numerous issues with all of these technologies, and currently hyped AI technologies such as LLMs are completely distorting any meaningful debate.
DAOs are an interesting concept, but I have yet to see a current implementation which works in a way that would encourage me to use it for anything meaningful. Doesn’t mean the concept is not worthy of further study and development though.
Anyways, thank you so much for your input! It means a lot!
Welcome! :D
I’m specifically interested in how blockchain, DAOs and AI could potentially revolutionize the future of consensus making
I would highly suggest viewing Folding Ideas video on that topic, which offers an extremely compelling argument as to why those Blockchain, NFTs, and DAOs would, in fact, do the opposite of what you are hoping for.
As an alternative, I would suggest exploring the topic of Cybernetics, which is a more promising field of study for improving humanities’ lot, such as how Chile attempted with Project Cybersyn.
Thank you! 🙏
I am myself quite skeptical of those technologies to be honest, and I don’t necessarily mean revolutionize in a good way. I worded my post specifically that way to spark debate, and it has worked 😃
I will certainly be taking a closer look at the links you provided. Thank you for sharing!
I am biased as I work in AI but the reason I do so is because I think a lot of its applications are hugely beneficial, the last part talks about AI as enablers of democracy but the other paragraphs are essential to see how we keep it in control.
I usually don’t engage in discussions about the blockchain because 99% of the time it is about the promotion of a scam. I used to like these tech that enable some new kind of decentralization but I totally moved away from them when I realized that bitcoin’s main usage now is to dodge taxes and international sanctions.
In general I am interested in cryptoanarchism (from which blockchains and DAO come from) without really being a proponent of it: I feel like it is a solution looking for a problem. But then, I live in a relatively free country where I can open easily a bank account, make a non profit, associate with who I want. The whole cryptoanarchism thing shines more in cases where you consider governments to be an enemy but this is a double edged sword: going this way means you don’t mind enabling criminal groups in the process.
When I talk about it to people from more authoritarian countries or from countries where inflation is very high, their perspective in a parallel system is different.
I don’t see a place for them in a functional, cooperative society. They can be useful but to me, their existence is the indication of a problem. In an utopia, they can be useful as a backup system: “we can always revert to a cryptocurrency if you fuck up your currency policy” but ideally we should do better than them.
And let me just add that I agree with what you say in your linked post about open source AI models as an enabler for democracy. There are a lot of things to consider of course, but it aligns well with my own positive take on the future of coexisting with AI. Still the leaves the problem of how we effectively counter the corporatocracy that seems to be steering all of us toward a very dystopian future, but that is another headache altogether
“Model alignment seems like an easier problem than corporate alignment” :-)
I have been dreaming about the AI era for 20+ years and I must say that we are currently in one of the most positive timeline I could hope for. Yes, we talk a lot about the companies because clueless journalism has a hard time measuring innovation but prefers to look at market cap, but for once the open source community in the field is incredibly active and reactive and we have reached a point where several big companies have understood that they can’t keep the pace up if they don’t play the openness game.
Open source is the way to go. I’m still concerned with the amount of corporate influence though and the lack of transparency. I will certainly be stressing the importance of openness and collective ownership when communicating to the general public.
The mainstream crypto space with all its scams has also lost all meaning to me, but I do still feel like meaningful innovation is taking place on the fringes. From the perspective of a lot of Africans though (and I’m the only non-African member of our little movement) crypto is a very useful tool for hedging against inflation and avoiding centralized overreach. And yes, the downside of that is certainly that these technologies can also be used to nefarious ends, but so can hammers and the global fiat currency system 🤷🏻♂️
I agree with you regarding AI, and I think that these days people tend to perceived AI as synonymous with LLMs, which is of course not the case. There are countless dangers to be very aware of, but AI is here to stay and “opting out” is simply not an option. Being mindful about the role it plays in your life, now that’s a totally different story.
Yes and cryptocurrencies are here to stay too (though we should move away from proof-of-work because of the environmental impact) but I am not sure if utopians should support them because of the use they have in the third world or fight them because of the mostly negative aspect they have in the rich countries. Unless you go full-anarchist with no state whatsoever, you want taxes to be paid and tax evasion becomes really easy with crypto.
To be honest, I am kind of hopeful of DAOs because I feel there is no good tool for small international businesses, and staying non-profit is too often very limiting. The ability to have a working coop where no one can rip each other and without having to rely on a court is really enticing. I think it is very limited in its potential applications though but I’d like that model to grow. Unfortunately, if it grows it will go through the whole ICO-scam bubble again…
The debate about proof-of-work (PoW) vs. proof-of-stake (PoS) is a complicated one. Whilst I cannot argue against the environmental damage done by PoW, it is simultaneously (when done right) a far more fair and inclusive way of reaching consensus than PoS. I think we have to keep looking for better solutions. As far as tax evasion is concerned, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves if that would be quite as much of a concern if people felt like they were truly getting value for their tax money 🤔
I like the concept of the DAO, but I’m far from convinced by current implementations. I try to think in concepts more than in how things are currently implemented. It frees me from getting bogged down by the current limitations when plotting my course. Not that we should ignore the shortcomings mind you, but things can easily get overly academic and whilst we discuss the best solution, the powers-that-be will continue full steam ahead toward the abyss
Whilst I cannot argue against the environmental damage done by PoW, it is simultaneously (when done right) a far more fair and inclusive way of reaching consensus than PoS.
I don’t really think so. PoW is actually a PoS in disguise: it just shows how much GPU/ASIC money and electricity you are ready to invest. PoS just skips the electricity consumption by asking the just show the money directly. Richer participant using their money to get a bigger share will actually get a similar one under both systems. And unless we have a reliable way to uniquely identify people (a holy grail against sybil attacks) I think they are going to remain similar.
we should instead ask ourselves if that would be quite as much of a concern if people felt like they were truly getting value for their tax money 🤔
I know some of these people. They don’t see it as a fair exchange, they see it as “if I can get away with it, then it is your fault for not preventing me”. Offer them more service without forcing them to pay, they think they are winning more and you are a loser. They are not in a cooperative mode.
About DAO, the thing is that it is promising in theory, but I feel that in practice it breaks down at many simple obstacles and technicalities. It works when you have managed to fully dematerialize your cashflow from final clients to individual contributors. But you still need some interface with a regular banking system at one point, you need points of trust and you need the majority of people along your chain to not be malicious. Under these conditions, usually a DAO is not even needed.
Though one day once a threshold in usability and effectiveness is crossed, I can imagine a DAO behemoth taking almost overnight over the world.
None of those things are remotely associated with any future I wish to exist in.
Machine learning has actual use cases, protein folding/alphafold or automated research/experimenting. But “AI” as the hype machine behind natural language processing is not the future of machine learning.
If anything, it will be a driving force behind massive loss of jobs and further entrenching wealth disparity.
I largely agree, but I also think that each of those technologies are merely tools, and what truly matters is the ideals in the service of which we deploy any tools we build. The path our global society is currently on leads straight to dystopia, and I don’t want to live there either.
You might like a book I’m reading rn that validates and discusses your fears in depth: This chapter (‘Information Technology and Democracy: a Widening Gulf’) is particularly relevant.
