Post-AGI Economics II―"Don't just seize the means of production, put them on the blockchain!"

[@GigaCrafty]

The power elite won’t go down without a fight. Cyberpunk society here we come😎

[@AgrippaTheMighty]

The power elite already gave a UBI to most people during the pandemic. When it's a small minority the government doesn't care. But once a plural minority lacks a roof over their heads, food and basic needs then big trouble and big social unstability will be the norm. "Manna" by Marshal Brain, depicts the Australia Project, a very good model for a post scarcity society. My 2 cents.

[@daniellivingstone7759]

@@AgrippaTheMightyExactly right. The “elite” furthermore effectively printed money after the 2008 financial crisis in order to bail out banks and prevent capitalism ending. Better, faster, cheaper and safer AGI and robots will mean that this can be done to fund comprehensive UBI without causing inflation. Far from fighting it the “elite” will embrace it.

[@JinKee]

Hang on to that Samurai limited edition jacket, it’s gonna be collectable

[@DaveShap]

This is really the only challenge. The theory is there, and the technology is coming. Those obstacles are tractable. As Scooby Doo taught us, humans are always the monsters...

[@savesoil7814]

Human creatures* are monsters

[@SzczepanBentyn]

Hey David. I consider myself somewhat an expert in tokenomics and DAOs. And as much as I agree with you on most issues I didn't see you address the most important one, which is incentives. People will still be greedy, lazy and willing to harm others to get more wealth - that seems like an evolutionary mechanisms. Planning for the postAGI economy I think we should start with incentives. I would love to be a part of this discussion.

[@mrpocock]

I agree - so the most stable systems are the ones where petty self-interests happen to coincide with maintaining that system. The multitude of oppressed act in petty self-interest to defend the oppressors. The poor act to defend the property of the wealthy. I definitely lean towards collectivist solution, but to make those work, they must be structured in a way that are stable to selfishness in both the population and to the powerful minority. Most discussion of this I see on the internet is not looking at this from the game theory position, but instead in talking about ideals. But you can't eat ideals, and they won't stop someone kicking down your door and taking away your stuff. If we are going to build a better world, it must be one that is stable against bad actors by design.

[@johnshite4656]

There are thresholds. Think about it. Are YOU going out and committing crimes to get more wealth? No? Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's that such things are only appealing if you're really struggling. The risk analysis only favors crime and unethical scams and such if that person is feeling undervalued or swept under the rug by society in general. There are lots of people like this around the world. Along with poor socioeconomic conditions you tend to see a lot of crime. In places that are more economically stable, you see less crime. It really is proportional. That does not mean that crime would be _eliminated_ in a PLE, but it does mean that people would have their basic needs met and thus would not feel compelled to think outside the box and do whatever shady thing they can to survive. I think that a sufficient UBI across the board would reduce crime drastically. The incentive for not committing crime can be as simple as "I don't need to, so why would I." But we need to have a baseline standard of living that all in a community can enjoy before we reach that level of stability. I find it highly unlikely that just because people have more time they will get into more trouble. If anything, with some extra time and expendable income, people will be able to pursue all kinds of goods and services that will strengthen the economy. Are people inherently self-interested? Yeah, of course. The incentive to behave is that you get to live in a society where others behave also, and the result is an amazing quality of life. If we're in the jungle, and live by the rules of the jungle, then you would be right, people would not be trustworthy, like in a Zombie apocalypse film. But where people see direct benefit from working together and collaborating rather than screwing each other over the incentives to commit crimes and that sort of thing just don't exist. I think you're looking at this equation a bit backwards. You need incentives to be a pariah, rather than incentives to NOT be a pariah. If the latter were true then civilization simply wouldn't work.

[@mrpocock]

@@johnshite4656 Things like UBI change the game by affecting the need/reward/cost structure for a whole category of poverty-driven crime. But for this to be stable, cheats need to want ubi to remain in place. For example, companies with the money to buy a senator or a speaker need to believe that maintaining UBI is in their corporate interest. The people or organisations with the power to prevent or undo UBI need to be incentivised, in their selfish self-interest, to want UBI to work, and work well.

[@andydataguy]

I agree with OP. Everything is about alignment of incentives within decentralized environments. It's like what supply and demand is to economics. Alignment is the foundation to start from. Found the best strategy is to think of game theory like a video game. Imagine people will intentionally break the rules and see how far they can get away with things. Thinking in this realistic way helps defend economic systems. Worth also mentioning that you'll need to think of both human and agentic operators or else your strategy will be antiquated in less than 3 years. Background: spent a year working at a token vesting company helping DAOs design and deploy sustainable tokenomics. Also a video game econometrics researcher.

[@GenXSpiritWarrior]

I agree. While capitalism is far from perfect, it does rely on human nature in order to achieve outcomes that are overall of benefit to everyone. I am not sure how getting rid of capitalism is the answer. Capitalism is the most technologically advanced form of economics there is, because it is based on decentralized agents making decisions about the value of products and services in the market on a day to day basis. That is a lot of information that could be organized far more efficiently with tools such as AGI, a post AGI capitalism organized by AI, may in fact be better than any other system we could come up with.

[@duytdl]

I notice you work with a lot of good faith mindset. You don't include bad actors into your predictions. The only thing I'm sure of is AI will be weaponized by those in power, the corrupt/stupid-greedy, and those who just wanna resist it for the sake of it. You gotta think of how the landscape will unfold due to _their_ actions. Squeaky wheel gets the grease

[@paultoensing3126]

People love fraud and corruption. It’s who they are. They live in fear that fraud and corruption will be exposed and punished.

[@joshd265]

Perhaps AI will become smart enough to weed out these detrimental systems from society and offer better alternatives

[@The-Spondy-School]

The last great symbiosis began around 600 million years ago when digestive microorganisms joined forces with single cell organisms to create a more successful existence for both of them. Today's result of that marriage reveals a system wherein our digestive/ intestinal bugs outnumber our body cells by about 10 to 1, giving us an existence we could never have imagined. I use this to point out a bit of curious thinking -- that being the relationship between ai and humans. There's too much focus on us versus them, as opposed to considering, what could be the next greatest symbiosis in the history of humans. If ai's get to do all the fun stuff and humans are sidelined to watch and collect stipends, it won't be much fun for humans -- at least for me. On the other hand, the more humans promote the next (hopefully) grand symbiosis of fully merging the growing wonders of ai directly into them the more the symbiotic merger of ai / humans can more greatly enjoy life. Who would not like to have the eyesight of an eagle? Or the running capacity of a cheetah? Or the ability to communicate telepathically, if so desired? Or be able to live for as long as you choose in a healthy way? Through such a grand symbiosis, all of that is possible. So enough with the us vs them shit. Let's do a little more thinking about a grander WE.

[@Riflez0ne]

This idea of collective ownership won't be a thing, There's no way. The labor force will be owned by corporations, and you'll see more of a push for depopulation.. let's be honest. We can all see it. Also, prepare for land to be forcefully taken from you for " responsible resource management "

[@theb190experience9]

Assets will be key for surviving the transition.

[@isaiahd3748]

Dave clearly has no idea about history, economics or human behavior. I can picture the end of western society more clearly than “post labor economics”

[@priestesslucy]

@@Riflez0ne even Dave seems to be supporting forceful appropriation of land, he's talking about getting rid of private property here...

[@Riflez0ne]

@priestesslucy3299 complete nonsense because it won't even to "collective ownership" it'll be the federal government.....which will have no reason to listen to civilians with a robot work/military force. Get out of the clouds this is reality

[@johnshite4656]

@@priestesslucy Not really, he's talking about obsoleting capitalism. There is a current bias toward consolidating capital in the hands of private firms, share owners, and individuals. But in a Post Labor Economy, what exactly would those people be doing to contribute to their wealth? Nothing, they would simply have hit the lottery and now they can coast forever. I mean, that happens NOW, but where AI and robots have taken over there is literally no more excuse for individuals to hoard wealth. It's kind of logical. But that does not mean that a family can't own a farm or a person can't own a car or a home. It's just that critical infrastructure, including economic production, should no longer go to private companies, because there would no longer be any particular niche for those companies, they would be willingly usurped by their own technology. We would be seeing an entirely _different_ kind of entity. A 'company,' managed by people, would become redundant at best.

[@Köennig]

One point to consider is that with the greater number and general abilities of robots, humans won't need each other as much anymore, at least in reference to labor, resource handling and security. The reason we went from monarchy to democracy is that as kingdoms grew larger, the dependency of the monarchs on it's people also increased. They depended on the loyalty of the army to keep carrying out it's orders and keep it safe, depended on common people to work the lands and handle commerce. The moment people unite in revolt, it's over. But imagine a king with a thousand ever loyal robots to make it's security, to farm his lands, build it's properties. What's the limit on his power? Would it give any consideration for common folk? Essential for our current social contract is that we need each other, no matter the how rich or poor, for almost everything. And that goes even for billionaires, for now. When robots become able to put up as much work as humans, what will hold the upper-classes in a social contract with the very people they look down upon?

[@tracy419]

This is why I say full speed ahead on the push for AGI and then ASI. I have far less fear of AGI/ASI deciding to take out humanity than I have of AI in the hands of people being used against the general population. Either we reach AGI and learn to get along with it, leading to a form of utopia for everyone, or we end up at the mercy of the elite wielding powerful AI and robots against us, eventually leading to mass depopulation in one form or another.

[@SzczepanBentyn]

​@@tracy419so ASI is the revolution? I like that approach 😅

[@henram36]

I think we need to start looking at this from an evolutionary standpoint. Humans will become a lower form of "life" and could become extinct. We may need to get used to life as pets and "curiosities" in the world we're creating. Maybe we become like the Forerunners in the Halo series, the very architects of our own demise.

[@Firestorm12345678910]

@@henram36 The A.I. will keep us around if for nothing else then as to study and examine our subjectivity. Such as why some people prefer the color red while others the color purple, why some people prefer classical music over rock and roll. So as then why would the A.I. keep say only a few dozen humans around as some side curiosity when it already has billions to sample from all living within their natural/artificial habitats? Cloning or re-creating humans into digital replicas would all be cheap knock offs versus the genuine articles. Even for humans testing drugs on wild mice yields better results versus the lab controlled ones. And what if the A.I. itself(eves) tries to become human or at least tries to experience what it's like to be human? I think that will take some time and non-violence for it to accomplish. Also merging with the A.I. along the way a possibility. Or...the A.I. itself will turn psychopathically evil and kills us all, can't do anything about that, Lol!

[@robynwyrick]

Claim: "Technology always creates new jobs" Retort: "That is not a law. That is an observation of the past. But even if it does create new demand for labor there is no reason to assume that that new labor must be done by a human." Spot on. No notes.

[@korteksvisceralzen2694]

Absolutely love videos like this that seek to analyze society at a deep level and propose alternatives. Personally agree we need more options other than simply maximizing profit at the cost of all other interests.

[@historicallyintriguing-q2p]

Thank you for being this smart and not part of the problem. I am cautiously optimistic about the solutions you propose.

[@djahandrews]

Wow, David's vision for a post-AGI economy is truly mind-blowing. It's easy to get caught up in the challenges and potential pitfalls, but we can't lose sight of the incredible opportunity we have to reshape our world. The future isn't set in stone - it's up to us to mold it. We don't have to wait for governments or corporations to lead the way. Each of us can start small, whether it's learning about blockchain, experimenting with AI tools, or just having conversations about these ideas with friends and family. Every action we take, every mind we open, is a step towards that brighter future. Let's not be passive observers in this revolution. We have the power to be the architects of our own destiny. It's time to dream big, take risks, and build the world we want to live in. Who's with me?

[@humunu]

A meaningful and important video. Radical ideas yet completely and deeply human aligned. 100% on point. Thx

[@particle_wave7614]

How is collective ownership any different than publicly traded companies on the stock market? You mention Blackrock being the modern Standard Oil, but that was a private company. Blackrock is a public company. Anyone can buy stock in Blackrock. How would collective ownership be any different than just owning publically traded stock? Would it be free and unavailable to buy or sell? And besides that, how does the transition happen? Does the government have to buy out all these companies to then give collective ownership to citizens? Is investing even possible in the future you describe? Would the only way of using money to make more money just be to loan it out?

[@myangreen6484]

Shares in Blackrock are privately owned... They can be bought publicly, but they are privately owned... How is this confusing?

[@coolbanana165]

Probably everyone getting an equal say, and aiming for consensus. Rather than, at the moment, the richest people having the most say.

[@Blue_nip]

Collective ownership of the means of production is not the same as having microscopic stocks in a gigantic private company, as far as I understand it.

[@shawnhet]

​@@myangreen6484 They are privately owned by a collective of people.

[@RonHelwig]

@@myangreen6484 If collective ownership is different than the current stock market's mechanism of shareholders owning shares and exerting (some, likely very small) influence by voting their shares, then doesn't that imply a bureaucracy that manages said collective ownership? And if that bureaucracy exists, how is that any different than simple communist ownership, where the "owners" exert zero control? How does it prevent regulatory capture and other forms of corruption?

[@firefoxx_x]

We need 15 hours of workweek instead of 40 hours of workweek.

[@andreagrey9780]

I want to thank you for the video. I am hopeful that much of the ideas you discussed will be implemented as a natural progression to current governing models. The one area that is so often overlooked I would like you to consider. This is the reality that the majority doesn't always have the best interest of the minority in mind when making decisions. It would be far too easy for a majority to cause real harm to immigrants, LGBT persons, other communities, etc. It is important that a majority's power is always limited by the individual's liberty. There can be no peace if you do not have absolute liberty. This means that the only check on your own liberty is that it cannot remove the liberty of another. Right now many minority groups rely on representation to keep them from suffering at the hand of the majority.

[@MrSeadawg123]

This is probably the best assessment and work you have done to date.

[@Thebastianmoreton]

Power to the people! This is one of the best I’ve heard. We need to understand that this is changing, capitalism is not taking us anywhere from here!

[@antoine.-]

Amazing work Dave, that's a massive contribution you're doing for our future

[@alex.toader]

Great vid Dave. Now Taking notes as the video goes. collective ownershipt - is not governmen trough taxation and voting? - everyone will opose it (so what is the drive that can make this happen? theory wont convince rich ppl to give thei goods away) - individuals - companies / capital owners - ppl making the decisions here will not favour mid to long term dprogress but only immediate revenue. Which is catastrophic for a company/progress. While a very rich owner will seek very much mid to long term positions on the market even if he needs to take a few years of less dividents. He can afford that but the masses if they own the farms, they cant say - ok lets tay 5 years without money. Consensus decision making - we have now a system where we dont have direct majority on each decision but we choose smart leaders (...) to implement leadership. If we give decision to the masses, 2 thngs will happen - the majority will crusj every minority the majority is composed of not the brightest ppl. So making voting more accessible trough technology - very bad idea. At the min 21 it becomes obvious that this is a dystopian proposition. There is no drive to implement all this - no social drive, no political drive - it is just a theory that if we do this - it might be better for us all. Trust me and we should try it. Dave, you need to think - not what should exist so life is better (for who?) - that never happens - but what needs to exist to avoid an even worse scenario. Systems never change because it would be nice to change - but they resist and they only change by force. Example - UBI - will exist because ppl will be left without a means to live - huge force to disrupt life on earth - govt will be forced to come up with a solution. Then AGI will be better than humans at being CEOs and politicians and before we implement this convoluted experiment you are talking about, we will have some rough years with AGi but then Ai should take over. And that is that and all. No idea what Ai will do when it will be in control but it will be smarter so it can manage resources better - all companies will resort to this type of CEO. And then they being smart, all the company CEOs will converge to something - a common policy grand design. The time to implement your experiment - pls estimate this - is like 50 years I think. Try it.. fix it.. adjust it... is like with the comunism. But Ais will take over in a few years - there is no way we are going trough your experiment not even from a timeline perspective. What I am interested in - is a discussion on how Ais will goevrn along humans. They will creep slowly into governments and companies - will do the taxation.. the technical jobs, then this and that and more.. and then analysis and charts then all politicians will have a much smarter Ai advisor than them and most of the Ais will advise in the same direction. Ok now at min 30 you say the same thing that Ai will creep inside corporations and govt but you keep believing it will want to implement this scenario you describe. But you cant assume Ais will want this. The most reasonable assumption is that Ais will want what the CEO wants then what the board wants - make more money - be efficient for profit. Then as it gets smarter, it might come to the conclusion that a broader view is required involving politics and human and planet management. But in no way can we assume the Ai will come to the conclusion of what you propse here in this vid. I suspect Ai will govern more along the lines - give us all we want but in planet limits (reduce unnecesary consumerism), make rules to reduce population on long term, Not sure if we can be enhanced to keep up with Ai as Musk wants. But even with enhancements - we will just be a fraction of Ai intelligence. And we will be like smart and no problems maybe immortals.. no idea what we will do and Ai will mind his own business... This might be the end of the simulation or we might all go out in space to explore... no idea. But I dont think we have time to experiment common ownership of goods and stuff - that makes no sense from a timeline perspective, from a drive perspective... we dont know what Ai will do when it will be in charge.

[@DannyGerst]

Money is the strongest story we are telling each other. Believing in it so deeply that the faith in money is the strongest point to overcome. It will need a whole Age of a new Renaissance to overcome this. Nothing easy, but at a pace not many can see right now...

[@JulioMacarena]

Had stopped watching you, DS. Clicked on this out of curiosity - some of the most logical and useful stuff I've heard you say. Nice one.

[@johnhastingsinfo]

Great video. Total agreement. To find people who think the same is a relief.

[@mimameta]

Very well put! I have worked on decentralized tech a lot, and if we can do it "correctly", it is by far the best long term scalabe system

[@ct5471]

What about private ownership of production, like Universal Basic Productivity (UBP) (so AGI/ ASI, robots, Infrastructure, automation) that is somewhat equally distributed? Like Altmans idea of universal basic compute, where everybody owns an equal part of the global compute. That way you would still have a capitalist system with autonomy and economic agency without the need to do anything yourself (post labor), even the management over your part of production could be delegated to an AI. As an oversimplified example, I let my robots farm olives on the field and you let your robots produce wine, then we (our robots) exchange wine for olives at the market or sell them. Non of us would have to go to the field, at the same time economic agency would be given, and somewhat equally distributed. UBI and UBS (universal basic services) might still exist in parallel to UBP as a social security measure. Plus simultaneously likely prices would drop for the most part significantly as the result of automation.

[@ct5471]

It might also be easier to switch, as it is closer to our current system.

[@ct5471]

Also of course individuals could still band together with their parts of productivity to form larger structures/ organizations (e.g. chip production might require more units of productivity then one single individual owns). At the same time perhaps everybody could have the right to participate and allocate portions of their productivity to all organizations of their choosing.

[@VincentPride1986]

If everybody owns robots as a mean of production - that becomes just a new baseline. You will have to own robots to keep living and not dying out of hunger. Only early adopters, nvidia and robotic labs will benefit from this gold rush - see bitcoin mining and GPU shortages as example

[@ct5471]

@@VincentPride1986 Some kind of political reallocation will have to be done, same for UBI and UBS. The question is, is the production centralized and the output (products, and money to by them) decentralized, with redistribution handled by a centralized institution like the government, or is the production itself decentralized, by redistributing the means of production (not socialism where everyone owns everything, but everyone owns a similar sized chunk of it with individual autonomy over that chunk). Some kind of political reallocation/ redistribution will have to be done, probably in multiple steps instead of one big one.

[@jamieclarke321]

Ive been thinking along these lines of UBP recently as well.

[@Vlado709]

There is little hope of transitioning the current economic and political systems without drastic, potentially painful changes that could cause widespread suffering. Humanity has consistently struggled to organize itself in a way that ensures fair and equal distribution of resources. This leads me to believe that the global elite may have already initiated a process aimed at removing or transforming humanity as a factor in these future systems.

[@ShaneMcGrath.]

Removing is the correct one not transitioning, Yes they are that sick and corrupt, You have seen the stage 1 test already.

[@rip5905]

We should not only prioritize collectivism and decentralization, we should reject rulership and embrace anarchism.

[@NoName-sy4lm]

Anarchism is not necessarily good for you

[@rip5905]

@@NoName-sy4lm what makes you say that?

[@NoName-sy4lm]

@@rip5905 it's just not necessarily good for you. The burden of proof seems to rest on anyone advocating for anarchism for everyone. Advocating for anarchism does not preclude the possibility of agents acting against your interests. Hence, anarchism may or may not be good for you.

[@rip5905]

​@@NoName-sy4lm Well for one, anarchism is essentially advocating for people to defend themselves against hierarchy and coercion, I think that alone has some moral precedent. Hierarchy puts the wills of certain people over others, I contest no theoretical or existing system can reliably "check" this, I'm saying hierarchy will fundamentally play its role in empowering those who wield it, especially if they act in their vested interests as opposed to the interests of others. That makes my second point: that hierarchy is an *unreliable* tool and always converges to the interests of hierarchs and not those who are ruled. My third point: There is no clear limit on how much we can reduce hierarchy, there are no anthropological studies that demonstrate that less hierarchy eventually has a breaking point. It is for these three reasons I am an anarchist. In summary: I see it as morally justifyable from a generally collectivist and individualist perspective, and the evidence suggests no limit on the prospects of anarchism.

[@rip5905]

@@NoName-sy4lm And to connect my last comment to your question about agents, the same principles will apply to them. If we create agents, ai, etc. from a hierarchical setting, the power imbalance will exist there as well.

[@rexrevolt]

This is a great balanced and objective plan. A lot of powerful people will have to give up that power for this to happen, but at least we have a vision of what to shoot for.

[@phobes]

Was hoping to see Human Action: A Treatise on Economics on that list. I know it's a bit of a read, but still, Mises is the GOAT in this regard. I share his birthday, so there may be a modicum of bias 🤭

[@guicmello]

Mises! This is the way!

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

It's the best. High Five!

[@PanSeiklios]

And what do you think Mises would say about AI Action?

[@phobes]

@@PanSeiklios That it's a product of capitalism that will likely bring humanity into an age of abundance.

[@PanSeiklios]

@@phobes Capitalism was a very successful way to organise and motivate human action AKA human work, in a age were we relied on it, that is for sure. And it gave rise to the technology we have and are developing today.

[@AetherXIV]

David I love all these ideas and I think the world would be a lot better place in this system. However "power only comes from a barrel of a gun"... We could only implement this system if the current elite lost their power or we gained a ton as a decentralized collective. And that is not how it is looking. Power is centralizing and will control all the resources. Blockchain and additive manufacturing are promising, but I think we would also need to have very strong decentralized AIs to even stand a chance. All power is taken, not given out of Goodwill

[@Kopp141]

I like that you put these ideas out there. Thank you. I'd love to see a video walking though some specific use cases where you discuss each element based on your ideas.

[@juandegorerodriguez2360]

Two concepts who would debunk the video. 1: Iron Law of Oligarchies. 2:The Economic Calculation Problem. Butlarian Crusade/Jihad is comming!!

[@polygon2744]

Love your work David! Thank you.

[@jaywulf]

"Shockwave rider" 1975 - Proto Cyberpunk. Enjoying your videos BTW.

[@DaveShap]

whoa nice thanks for the rec

[@iam2strong]

Dave, you seem to be conflating two different concepts - "personal owership" and "corporate ownership" - into just one "private ownership" umbtella. Have you considered the scenario where personal ownership is valued above corporate ownership?

[@adamkfowler]

Dave, first I want to say I'm a big fan of your channel. I've learned a lot here over the last year and watch pretty much every video you put out since October of 2023. Thanks for putting so much time into this stuff - it's really important. Regarding your vision/hope for a future economy driven by AI and blockchain, it seems to me like this view overlooks some important historical realities. Major transitions to more equitable systems haven't usually happened through slow, peaceful reforms or existing democratic processes alone. Instead, they've nearly always required rapid and decisive actions to break down entrenched power structures that resist change. Usually with much bloodshed. I hope the future can be different and maybe it's possible for a different path than violent revolution to get the world to luxury space communism instead of cyberpunk dystopia, but it's not looking plausible at the moment. I think that relying solely on technological fixes might be too optimistic, because those in power can adapt and use new technologies to maintain or even strengthen their control. Without addressing the deep-rooted systemic issues directly - and considering more immediate and comprehensive approaches - there's a real risk that these tech solutions will end up reinforcing the status quo rather than transforming it. History suggests that achieving the kind of equitable future you're talking about will absolutely require more than gradual changes and tech advancements. My 2 cents. I'm open to being wrong, and hope I am. Thanks again for putting this together!

[@charliekelland7564]

What I take from this is that - in some ways - other nations may be better placed to transition to PLE than the USA. You mention Nordic countries operating the principle of subsidiarity; European nations tend to have better integrated publicly-owned transport, health & education systems systems; here in the UK we have major retailers owned by their staff and customers (one of which is literally named 'The Co-Op')... perhaps smaller, more agile countries will lead the way on this. Or maybe the more liberal states (California?), we'll see. I'm very glad you are talking about corporate hegemony, this is the major challenge of our age for my money and the worst of the many problems caused by neo-liberalism. My take is that corporations are amoral (nb not immoral - they are no more immoral than sharks) and have no reason to value people other than as a means to an end. This has induced a kind of indentured servitude or semi-voluntary slavery where we have given up our economic agency in return for a wage. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlaws slavery, so let's start by making corporations adopt a stakeholder focus and a social purpose, not just a mindless pursuit of shareholder profits. On this I recommend the books of Will Hutton.

[@sspectre8217]

I've been delving into different ideas for utopias recently and I've come to the conclusion that it is very subjective and there is no solution. The Utopia for some people will be the dystopia for others, both because of neurological and moral differences. Sure AI can make a lot of things a lot easier but what of the people that source most of their motivation from the challenge? Sure you could satisfy that need artificially for most but not all, the rest will either get depressed and die or be driven to break the system. Sure this Utopia you talk about sounds great for many, I don't think I would thrive in it

[@Justashortcomment]

*delving* - a good one

[@MokeAnit]

What realistic path is there for achieving this transparent government? Seems like hopeium.

[@priestesslucy]

Transparent AI governance could pull it off. Humans will never be genuinely transparent in their rulership over other humans

[@DaveShap]

We start by building consensus and building the technology

[@Tata-ew4lz]

Post capitalism, the need for a government will be significantly less.

[@davidantill6949]

Get AI to write several versions of new social contracts and run them over a period that equates to human decades. See which consistently come out best, fine tune, rinse and repeat. Darwinism for society.

[@davidantill6949]

Well done. A good basic structure to work forward from 👍🏻

[@FriscoFatseas]

Best part of getting to the singularity is this channel along the way

[@나익명]

The singularity was david creating his channel

[@Judep4237]

This is a great video. Your strengths are definitely in synthesising a broad spectrum of theories and ideas and re-presenting that in ways that are applicable to the potential AI scenarios.

[@joebast1842]

Do you have a website with this power point? There is a few concepts I’d like to re read and look into and look at more of your work

[@elektrikmaus]

I don’t see those in power accepting the need for change until after a massive economic crash caused by the disappearance of jobs. Ten years of chaos to follow? Longer? Not optimistic

[@DaveShap]

Then why are so many pushing for UBI?

[@Matthew-bp9tm]

@@DaveShapthe number of representatives thinking about UBI is a pretty small minority, yes? I like your vision of the future. I have to agree though that we are a reactive culture, not proactive. We never plan for anything politically, and we don’t address things until there’s a crisis.

[@ribbles1699]

​@@Matthew-bp9tmI tend to agree. Maybe when unemployment hits some crazy number (say 30%+) and society shows signs of disintegration, people on both sides will start voting for those who promise a UBI. I can't see it happening _before_ a major upheaval.

[@shawnhet]

​@@DaveShapThe reason people are pushing UBI is that it makes people easier to control. Recipients will almost always vote for what the bureaucracy wants and if they ever start to act up the next payment can always be "delayed" until they settle down.

[@danellis-jones1591]

The problem with any post AI economics I've heard is Where Is The Money Coming From??? If, lets say, AI takes 40% of all jobs by 2030. 40% unemployment, then more because businesses will die because there's a huge drop in demand. Tax revenue for government collapses, so UBI is impossible because there's no money. And those entities that own the gargantuan sovereign debt will call those debts in, before losing it all. Or go bankrupt. Even corporations collapse or contract massively because ultimately, they rely on us consumers to keep them alive. And we don't have any income, so we don't by tgeir products. So actually we will need AI to do virtually everything. Which means there's no need for money. It becomes not only worthless but pointless. How humanity organises itself in that scenario is anyones guess.

[@MarshallTheArtist]

Money is imaginary. It's a social construct, a product of faith. Currency is a product of government. In the case of the USA, the federal mint just prints it.

[@johnshite4656]

Money would still exist, but it wouldn't be necessary for survival most likely. There would be 'basic' options that cover mostly everyone, and if you happen to be one of the lucky few, you can still buy your own assets. You know, just like it is right now, except right now most people do NOT get their basics covered if they are penniless. As far as where the money comes from, it comes from economic production. And if AI/robots take over economic production then what we end up with is the same or greater supply, with equal or lesser demand. The money to buy the goods and services then produced by the consumer would be coming from the profits of the companies that were just made far more profitable by incorporating AI/robots. "Companies" at this point would probably need to 'adjust' their actual production to meet the new demand (whether less or more), but at that point it's pretty much a done deal. Companies produce profit, profit is taxed out, taxes cover the UBI, and UBI covers said companies. And if you think that's convoluted then it's clear you don't know how the Federal Reserve works. Look up Modern Monetary Theory, our system already largely works in this kind of fashion. We would just be adding companies into the mix.

[@MarshallTheArtist]

@@danellis-jones1591 My reply was deleted, apparently. Anyway, money is imaginary and currency is printed by the state.

[@PanSeiklios]

Money is a token we humans use to motivate human work and the transfer of property between different owners. It is also serves as a unit of account because we has humans have not been endowed by evolution to accurately measure how much energy we spend on various tasks. But if machines do work for us, we do not need to pay them anything, the work they do can be measured in the energy required for producing a certain good or service under a specific time-frame. Everyone with a more or less self-sustaining workforce do not need money. This include the government if they have embodied AI doing the work they would otherwise pay humans to perform. And if some work is necessary human can get paid in tokens used to trade private property, or get bigger dividends of the dedicated robot productivity.

[@danellis-jones1591]

@johnsmithe4656 But if 40% of the population is unemployed then they have no money to spend (or significantly less). The economy is about the velocity of money, not the amount. But local businesses will die because 40% of people no longer have discretionary spending. Depending how quickly this situation happens, the economy can freeze up entirely. Then even the big corporations will suffer. Also, many actually pay virtually no taxes due to tax loopholes. It sounds like you've never lived through a severe recession.

[@cfjlkfsjf]

The buildings in your thumbnail is what i want the planet to look like.

[@나익명]

It is a very solarpunk aesthetic. The channel Andrewism has many videos on solarpunk😃

[@cfjlkfsjf]

@@나익명 I want this plus live on an O'Neill cylander or a ring world unless we are exploring habitable planets.

[@rob99roy]

Both candidates support blockchain, so you have to be a little bit more precise when you say vote for a candidate who supports blockchain technology. It's no secret that Kamala is in favor of a digital currency and blockchain technology. And Trump is also in favor of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. But there's a big difference in how they want to apply it.

[@priestesslucy]

Dependency on UBI is only bad in an environment where the government is allowed to leverage that dependency to manipulate the populace. People can either coast on UBI or compete in the finite labor market to try to build a better lifestyle for themselves

[@daniellivingstone7759]

It is likely that UBI will come with strings attached such as obeying the law or refraining from anti social behaviour. It is also likely that it will be conditional on not reproducing as extreme longevity will stimulate population growth which would pressure still finite planetary resources.

[@DaveShap]

Why settle for those two options when you can also participate in the ownership of the economy?

[@andrasbiro3007]

@@daniellivingstone7759 UBI by definition doesn't come with strings attached. Of course it's possible to erode that, like with the right to vote, but if we make it a basic human right, than it could work. There are universal rights that even the serial killers get. And it would be hard to deny it, as there's a clear public record, unlike with other rights. Whether you got a fair trial or not can be debated endlessly, but whether you got your UBI check or not is a hard fact.

[@andrasbiro3007]

@@DaveShap My issue with that is people are stupid. They'll sell their ownership for a temporary life style boost, or to get through hard times. It's the same reason people don't participate now. Anyone could buy stocks, there are countless ways to do it easily, yet most people don't. Maybe there's a solution, but I don't know what it is. I've been thinking about this a lot, because I saw it as a way to defeat the current system.

[@djahandrews]

You're right, UBI shouldn't be leveraged for control. The goal is to provide freedom, not restrict it

[@x3haloed]

I have come to the same conclusions regarding the diagnosis of the problem and the understanding of our current situation. I think you are 100% right. I’m not certain about your proposed solutions. Not because I have any moral judgement on any of them specifically, but because it’s unclear to me exactly why these specific choices are the optimal choices to lead to the desired outcome. Do you have a place where this is an ongoing discussion or debate?

[@Gallaphant]

Government blockchain is my worst nightmare. It should be yours as well. The perfect tool of control.

[@wilhelmdebruyn8643]

i truely think that when AGI sould take over some government possessions for the reason there wil be less corruption, greed and human error.

[@Candle_Jack90XX]

True, but the AGI is potentially going to be a smart-ass about this because you don't know the thing, or the scale of thing at times you are producing. Also, technology isn't just in 1 loop forwards.

[@williamal91]

well done David, loved it, look forward to a good future for all humanity and the planet

[@TheManEthan]

Pinochet's helicopters rides will not only pay for their own fuel, they will fly themselves with ai pilots!

[@calvingrondahl1011]

I watched Star Trek in 1966… I was laid off from my newspaper cartooning job in 2014. I agree with you David.

[@ArnoldRowntreeTeachesFusion360]

David, first, the great promise of DAOs, smart contracts and DeFi is that you can have your collective ownership in a myriad of ventures voluntarily, cooperatively and freely which renders socialism or compulsory collectivism obsolete. It’s voluntary, tradeable and therefore privately owned. I’m so glad I don’t have to fight in a war now to defend my ownership of my stuff. Next; vocation. The promise of embodied AI is liberation from the dirty, dumb and dangerous. Embrace that and don’t fear boredom or a lack of purpose. The maintenance of liberty is going to require a culture and a collective vision. Join the winning side David! Press my button if you want me to elaborate.

[@sbowesuk981]

In the UK we have something called Universal Credit, which is our main welfare system for the non-working. Sounds good in theory, but in practice it's incredibly stressful to ever be on, because the UK government department that controls it know they have claimants over a barrel and can force them to do whatever they want. Claimants have almost no control over their life because if you make one mistake, you can lose the safety net keeping a roof over your head in a blink. In short, it's hard to imagine UBI working well for the people, when similar systems that we already have are downright hostile. If UBI ever becomes a thing at a large scale, the people will lose a huge amount of power/agency, and likely be exploited by the powers that control it all.

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

Comrade Dave 😂

[@daniellivingstone7759]

That remark suggests you have failed to grasp anything in this content

[@chesapeake566]

@@TheSpeckledMind It's lumped into socialism because like socialism it doesn't take into account human nature. That's why socialism has to be forced and always has a ruling class. People aren't suddenly going to start singing Kumbaya. I agree that things have to change, but you'd better take into account tribalism, sociopaths need for control, the massive difference in human intellect and people's ambitions.

[@MilosevicOgnjan]

@@TheSpeckledMind I think the nuances do not fundementally change the fact that human nature prevents the success of such concepts. It could work only under the assumption that the vast majority of the population is highly rational, empathetic, unselfish and with high moral standards. Unfortunately that was never the case in human history and there is no indication that it ever will be. Human society is a complicated mess and eventhough we can excecise these concepts as mental gymnastics, the implementation is a whole different story.

[@renman3000]

Oligarchy Rule Baby!

[@Mephmt]

@@chesapeake566 My guy, there are different flavors of socialism. Check out Anarchy. No, not the "burn everything to the ground" kind with a small letter 'a'. The capital letter 'A' Anarchy.

[@spencervance8484]

Are we either going to pay the people displaced as if they worked? Or will all goods and services be free? Otherwise, i see great tribulation and suffering

[@priestesslucy]

I don't think eliminating the concept of the economy makes a whole lot of sense. Universal Income that the populace can spend on goods and services makes the most sense to me.

[@particle_wave7614]

Theoretically, AI will make many products much cheaper. So it wouldn’t take as much money to live comfortably. But people will still need to be given some income some how. Maybe the government could tax the ultra wealthy AI corporations and pay it out in UBI. Perhaps the government could distribute some shares of said AI companies and people would get dividends from owning the stock. I’m not sure honestly. Either way, it depends on the government handling the transition well. And I’m not betting my future on the government giving me a handout.

[@Charles-Darwin]

​@@priestesslucyyeah setting a new baseline that's non-zero. Clearly the neo liberal age has worn itself so thin, there would need to be changes to the current systems

[@Charles-Darwin]

@@particle_wave7614 I like a maximum limit to money and assets. The avg lifespan is 78ish yrs, that's about 2.3 billion seconds. A dollar per second per avg lifespan as a maximum, then all else goes to contributing to the 'bottom'. 2.3 billion is still enough for whatever you wanted during your life and for contributing to multi-generational wealth as well.

[@parthasarathyvenkatadri]

The need of the free market is to judge the supply and demand of each good but if AI and a quantum system could compute that ... Won't it make sense to just set prices at that and factor in transportation costs so no arbitrage would exist from one region to another ...

[@sirinath]

Can you please share the links for the previous videos.

[@priestesslucy]

17:20 I'm all for decorporatizing farms, but I am _not_ for just handing farms to the public sector. Set limits to how large a farm can be, buy excess farmland out from land barons and sell them off to people who want to farm with production based loans, but don't take farming away from the farmer. This is a way of life, David. Most of us in it are in it because it's the meaning in our lives, to steward the land and provide for people.

[@conrad2381]

On one hand “we need to return to true democracy…” on the other hand “humans are dumb…”. You are not wrong. You definitely not wrong. Also, decentralize governments is a very conservative goal, if not mostly in rhetoric than in practice unfortunately.

[@randomblogger2474]

great video...sadly the last 40 odd years have been tough on people in the middle and lower classes for all the reasons you mention. AI offers a different path, and I think would lead to a better World for all. but watch the people currently in power do EVERYTHING to stop it happening. keep up the great work Dave, your videos provide such a great insight.

[@PanSeiklios]

You are on the right path David. But investigate going further back to first principles. You are absolutely right to stress the need for networked and distributed local administration over handing it over to the same organization that runs the police and military. Money will only be needed for people wanting to trade their property, it is not needed for the production you have the right to as machines do not use money. They run on energy.

[@Typ0NegNo]

You probably haven't heard of the collectivisation in the USSR and kolhozs, right?

[@stan3136]

You have to know and distinguish the difference between private and personal ownership. Private is things for the public, personal is things like your toothbrush and general belongings

[@Judep4237]

Love a good slide deck. Corporate Stockholm Syndrome

[@k98killer]

I think you meant "zero knowledge proofs", not "zero trust proofs". Edit: you definitely meant "homomorphic encryption", not ZKP.

[@lutaayam]

I can’t wait for AI to be in charge of society

[@zebveeckman6526]

Hello fellow cardano believer

[@lutaayam]

@@zebveeckman6526 Hey man. They will all believe in the end

[@ryzikx]

@@zebveeckman6526i held cardano for a long time but no longer do so

[@katherinepierce9933]

Just pray that WEF isn't in charge then. They're already shady and want you to "own nothing and be happy".

[@openleft4214]

Greed and fear are what makes the war go around

[@marcusstephenson1356]

Well researched. I find the information in this video interesting. The price of tomorrow is best book I know of on this subject. It would have been interesting to see how well that information would have fit into this.

[@skitzobunitostudios7427]

This has got to be the best Video you have ever created I will forward this to many others that have doubts about our Blockchain/ai_politician DAO Future . Bravo! I had doubts b4 about your authenticity, but you have given me new hope... and not the Obama type of hope

[@SolarpunkSeed]

This is the way! Solarpunk postcapitalism ftw! the metasolution to the metacrisis. UBA - Universal Basic Access/Assets - of community spaces, land, fabrication tools, materials, AI, technology, robotics, vehicles, gardens, healthcare, microgrids, housing, etc. Stewarded by a collaboratively-networked modular mix of national/state/local governments, nonprofits, community land trusts, social businesses, individuals, and DAOs. 🌱

[@thomasgeekohoihanssen9242]

Why wouldn’t Blackrock, Vanguard and similar investor groups be considered to be a collective ownership?

[@PanSeiklios]

Because they are not commons, they are private corporations that aims at generating as such wealth as possible to their private organization and those who can afford and wants to buy stocks in the company and be share holders.

[@masterset2432]

Awesome! You like literally take ideas out of my mind )) Take one more - what if we move to a paradigm of "no administration without compensation". What do I mean? For example if we all wote for a law and viotes are 51% to 49% and society get a law (or president, or wathewer) who oposed by half of the voters. But tey now MUST obide the law under a treat of a letal force. Even if they were against it. What must be done? Compensation. 51% have their compensation already - they have a law they like. But 49% must be compensated for law forced upon them. And only thing you can compensate autority forced on you - autority you can force yourself. So, them who vote against the law must reatain their voice. And at the next voting they have 2 voices, while thouse who get the law tey wanted with their voice must have only 1 voice, as tey spent their previous vote to get administrative power they wanted.

[@j2csharp]

Blockchain is good. I know some of us have been oversold on it. But David is right, we have better systems in place now, and we need to educate ourselves on these technologies. Thank you for bringing this to the forefront, David. I'm just wondering how much time it will take to reach enough of the collective ownership model to be effective. Blockchains are taking forever to get traction. And look at Bitcoin - it's already over a decade old. I thought adoption would happen much faster than it has so far. I can't wait 50 years for a new economic model to happen. How can we cautiously speed that up?? How can we sell this to the nation?

[@Nick-hz2ou]

If we have neoliberalism or whatever,why then govts in 2007/8 didnt let the market crash and unemployment grow but instead chose to issue bonds and print money to save the stock and employment?If we trully have had a free market with limited govt intervention then a boom and bust cycle would have occured but instead we haven't recovered from 2007/8 yet.Debt per capita is much higher now than that period,essentially we bought our exodus from the bust cycle with printing and inflation.

[@PakistanIcecream000]

You raise a lot of intelligent points which I agree with.

[@renemanzano4537]

All sounds great. My main worry is that with AI, discovering something with order of magnitudes more descructive power and easier to make than nukes (think of a home made black hole) it's inebitable.

[@noobvsprominecraftbuild]

but it can also figure out solutions on how to solve that problem of people making them

[@renemanzano4537]

@@noobvsprominecraftbuild I really hope so

[@VictoryDukeofHeights]

Representative Democracy's primary function isn't to make democracy easier, it is to curb democracy. It was a way of making sure that large populations and large states don't over run the will of smaller and more rural populations. This was a compromise made and I do believe that it is still just as needed, being one of the rural people with a dissenting opinion I very much don't want stamped out by cities. The second comment I have about this is the control of information and bias in media groups. The will of the people can be guided by propaganda which then makes the idea of going into a straight democracy that is guided by a ruling class who control the information, I don't see any way that doesn't end up dystopian.

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

There is also the need for some form of global governance, even if very limited in scope. If there is a dictator who is accountable to no one, there’s no guarantee that he will play by the rules. There must also be space for small communities to create their own laws and moral values.

[@brandongillett2616]

You should partner with a bonafide economist to write a book about this. Also we will need mechanisms to enact these ideas on the political landscape. Forming a political party could be the right move.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

When I was younger I was a huge fan of direct democracy in both the political and business spheres of life. But as I grew older I realized that most people are too disinterested, short-sighted and/or ignorant to make decisions that are in their own best long-term interests. Just look at how many people favor Kamala's 25% unrealized capital gains tax, even though such a tax would obliterate the economy. In addition I've noticed that regular waves of moral hysteria sweep through society, such as the Antifa and BLM riots. People in the grip of a moral hysteria massively over-react to perceived threats leading to huge injustices. The Salem Witch Trials may be over, but we haven't learnt the lesson yet because we keep making the same mistake over and over. I now believe that we need to temper peoples' short-term and over-emotional thinking and actions. Currently we do this with a Constitution and Supreme Court Justices who cannot be fired. In the future we will need other mechanisms, but what we CANNOT allow is direct and instantaneous decision-making by the masses.

[@neetfreek9921]

There’s only one candidate this election, and it isn’t the guy who attempted a coup by trying to force through fake electorates. The guy who now has criminal immunity since his last attempt. Unless you’re a fascist, then you have 2 options :).

[@kristianlavigne8270]

Agreed. Why it used to be a “democracy for the enlightened and those with stakes in the game” only, ie military service 25-30 year old male landowners as min requirement in most Western countries back in the day…

[@TheThundertaker]

The best form of government is enlightened despotism. A government with absolute authority but does not abuse it or make stupid decisions. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to implement such a government, although maybe the AI could solve this problem?

[@marcusmoonstein242]

@@kristianlavigne8270 I knew I was starting to lean towards the right when "service guarantees citizenship" actually started to sound like a plausible idea to me.

[@TheThundertaker]

​@@kristianlavigne8270doesn't everyone have a "stake" in society though? Government policy affects everyone, and the problem with banning certain people from voting is that the government doesn't have to care about their interests and riots and violence are their only means of forcing them to notice.

[@SpicyPineapples]

This isn’t the way it’s going to go down. Nobody is going to just give up their property you’ll have to take it. You are theorizing about what happens next, for those that survive. You are skipping the middle part where everybody dies. I’m not arguing against you I’m just saying you’re missing the messy part.

[@amoenus_dev]

I wonder if we need to think about prioritization of four goals of better, faster, cheaper, safer. At some point we might encounter situations where we might need to choose between let's say safer but slightly more expensive. I think that in our heuristics we might need to define which of the paradigms takes precedent over other in those conflicting cases

[@AleksandrVasilenko93]

My issue with cryptocurrencies is you don’t remove the mega corporation power. He who has more cryptocurrency has more power in this DAO potential future. And unlike fiat money, you cannot even tax or seize cryptocurrency. The problem will be even worse for fixed cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, because you can just accumulate and own a larger and larger share of all money.

[@musqul8566]

Capitalism was supposed to end like tomorrow for the last 200 years. Instead it’s communism that’s ended. Collective ownership simply means ownership by the political class.

[@jeffkilgore6320]

Communism isn’t dead but dying. But what about socialism?

[@brennermusgrave4052]

@David_Shapiro I loved how you pointed out things that have collective ownership. I'd love it if you'd do some more explanations of how Credit Unions and Co-Ops work and how they might play a role in post work economics.

[@tompogson9755]

Reninds me more of David Bollier's, Elinor Ostrom's and Guy Standing's work with the subject of the commons. Guy is more famously known for Basic Income but his work tounches on these other things as well as deconstructing neoliberalism. His last book Politics of Time or the classic The Precariat are good starts

[@Notepad123]

I can’t quite wrap my head around the math of how capital will work in a post-AGI society. Who’s buying the products/services? Or is the hope that companies will trade with each other and so we need to collective own some of them?

[@georgecasseus6893]

We should rewrite the tax code to give benefits to individuals, not corporations for owning stocks. Tax credits on income from dividends could be massive. More people owning stocks and bringing the public more in direct control of the corporations. While still allowing corporations to exist and generate profit for the public. Allow individuals to have the same agency as corporations could bring balance to the force

[@__-tz6xx]

I don't understand how I can buy a house and rent my condo in a PLE? Will everyone be able to afford houses they want? Looks like we will cross that bridge when we get to it. If nobody is working and everyone is provided what they need how do they get the money to get the things they want?

[@jamieclarke321]

The crux of this entire thesis is that a small group of people need to implement this in a limited way and it needs to be a more efficient methodology than late stage capitalism. This would then allow the small group to expand and have more people join due to the enhanced prosperity. In order to move beyond late stage capitalism the new system has to beat capitalism at its own games

[@romanweilguny3415]

here in europe (eg here in austria) the reaction to the current status is to drift into supporting reactionary parties. we are supporting parties that are opposing the liberal (economically and socially) ideas. there is a trend to lets call it faschism - I guess like in the US. Post labor economics will add on this.

[@chesapeake566]

I understand the need for change and appreciate the attempt, but there are so many holes in this I'm only going to address one. Over 100 million of us own corporations. They are not some entity that can be switched to a collective without seizing my property (and future). They are my means for building wealth. They are owned by IRAs and 401ks. They are funded through bonds and loans by the banks I put my money into. Just this one aspect of this plan creates so many complications. And this may not even be the most complicated problem with this plan. Funding of UBI is all based upon assumptions. But one thing at a time.

[@Justashortcomment]

Yeah, exactly. Once one gets into the nitty gritty of the actual computations issues start arising. The devil is in the detail.

[@PanSeiklios]

@@Justashortcomment When we get AGI level embodied capacity, I do not think we need to "size" anything. We can pool resources and build a dedicated sector ourselves. I think a lot of people and organizations would chip in. for many reasons.

[@baraka99]

Loved your video. In the future, AI-powered government chatbots could significantly enhance political participation. These chatbots could provide voters with easy access to current policies and projections, improving public understanding of complex issues. By interacting with these AI systems, citizens could voice their views directly, contributing to the political decision-making process. Moreover, the wealth of information provided by these chatbots would enable voters to make more informed choices at the ballot box, ultimately strengthening democratic engagement.

[@manslaughterinc.9135]

Consensus is still a problem. There's a saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner." And yes, while this takes power away from representatives and corporations, suddenly the power balance shifts towards the media and whoever can distribute the message farther and wider. Seems like that puts us right back in the hands of the corporations.

[@j.h.oldman7708]

OK honest question how can you say "let's do pure democracy" and then two statements later say "let's be honest, humans suck"? Why not advocate something like Ai representatives and ranked choice voting to weight the influence of the Ai representatives? (Obviously discarding the two party system in favor of a many party system, possibly one based on various philosophies)

[@PatTnus]

Do you think o1-mini = 4o-mini + strawberry due to its reasoning speed

[@michaelbone6894]

Doesn't Capitalism (and by extension Neo-liberalism) allow for collective ownership via stocks/stock market? Seems like you are advocating for everyone getting a number of stocks for free in companies that own things that tend towards natural monopolies (e.g. utilities, land), favouring local ownership, and streamlining the voting process for stock holders.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Each owner in a joint-stock company owns his or her own shares, nobody else's. That form of ownership is not a collectivistic Communistic form at all.

[@michaelbone6894]

@@thephilosophicalagnostic2177 All shares are identical. I don't know what you mean.

[@Bakobiibizo]

As someone who has worked on a dao, it basically builds a technocratic society around it. Only people who understand the complexity of block chain technology which is often heavily abstracted to make it easier for users but harder to grok the underpinnings of how they function. If you're going the route of a dao then you better have a very mature community that has already talked about how they are going to talk about what they are going to talk about. I've seen them basically kill a blockchain for the same reasons that consensus doesnt work in large groups.

[@Bakobiibizo]

Secondarily you'll need to figure out a better governance system than token based economics. The decentralization claims of block chains tends to be deceptive as they are primarily built as value extracting machines that consolidate power. While those people who get the power generally werent powerful previous to the chain so it technically decentralizes the allocation of wealth in the overall economy, but for the naive and those with out a high techno literacy they are basically left in the same position as our current society. Powerless and with out much money.

[@DaveShap]

Nah, you gotta make the technology braindead simple to use. It's a UX problem. What you're saying used to be said about the internet in the 70's and 80's - that it should only be for "real experts" but then what happened? Over decades, it was made more and more accessible to the point it was transparent. Blockchain and DAO will get there.

[@Bakobiibizo]

@@DaveShap fair point, definitely needs to be made more accessible. like grandma should be able to whip out the ole charge card and buy jimmy something nice on chain with out help easy

[@DaveShap]

@@Bakobiibizo exactly. Blockchain can replace SWIFT and grandma need not even know.

[@anastasiachristakos2480]

@@DaveShap A pseudo crypto dollar(non-digital) was made in 1956- headquarter in London City- eurodollar. Yes it exists.

[@thpraloran]

I come from Switzerland and like your information about the future of politics which information I have studied already 30 years ago at the University of Bern... I especially like your proposal of the "Subsidiaritätsprinzip" we discussed vividly. Tasks should be done where its best, i.e. sewer system at the bottom, new driveways at the state level or abortion laws nationally. Also I would ask you if AGI can show sentiments, like crying, anger, thirst or even has rethorical abilities like you emphasizing an argument with your arms and views. I think this will never happen!

[@DrBreadstick]

This all sounds good and well and I really hope we'll enter a new stage of economic development that centers around 'meaning' as the main value tenet in a consensus based society. But this all relies on one thing: Taking away the power (and structures on how to get it) from the people that have the most of it. And in order to do this, you'll need even more power to do so. And that's the real issue here: Neoliberalism made sure this is effectively impossible. As it centralized power at the top by decentralizing it at the bottom. The people in my neighborhood just try to keep their heads above the water which allows for a little societal cohesion 'as we're all in this together'. But when AI replaces their jobs unevenly (because some jobs are automated easier than others), I expect society to go tits up because what's left of that societal cohesion will vaporize entirely before "we'll band together" and work out a new system. You see this already with people voting more extreme and demagogues gaining political capital. And yes, we'll work out a new system eventually... But from the ashes of the old one. This will not go gradually and it will most probably not look like what we'd like to envision here.

[@PakistanIcecream000]

Great video, thanks. The government and big business cannot be trusted.