Resolutions: Flourish or Die! The Choice is Ours

Fascinating chatting guys! Pretty classical topics but I really enjoyed it.

Having spent much time with financial options and all kinds of tail risk stuff my philosophy to risk taking in general is always to cut off the negative tail. Even a low probability event will materialize when time approaches infinity. However, life as a dynamic uncertain process in general wouldn't exist without existential risktaking. If we want to keep living and learning one has to dare to step out of the door. Otherwise you are already dead. Ben's "action vs inaction" is a good way to start looking at it.

Roman's question about whose values are to be incorporated and in what way is a very good one. It is also a universal question in the sense that we should be asking it even without any AGI context. My answer to that question is to work on social, political and economic systems that enable individuals' values to turn into collective action as effectively as possible. We don't explicitly define those values nor even the process of figuring them out. What we do instead is to expand our information and value systems infrastructure so that "value signaling" becomes a natural integrated part of everyday actions. They will be reflected in new products and services, investments, consuming decisions, explicit governance actions and so on. In pure terms it is about information but one could also get an intuition by thinking about them as incentive systems. You align the incentives of individuals and the collective. You steer individuals towards "dynamic collective values".

Such a society (values and preferences of individuals) becomes naturally integrated to all emerging technologies it produces. It is a part of any new cognition including all kinds of AGI systems or machine intelligences (or any decision-making system for that matter). On the other hand, multidimensional value systems become much more tractable (and scalable) with AI and self-custodized digital human twins and so on. So they will evolve in tandem at least to some extent.

To put it shortly, right now, there is absolutely not social systems suitable to govern any exponential technologies or even current digital societies. Even the simplest forms of democracy has not been upgraded into the digital era. We haven't gone from representative democracy to liquid democracy.

And btw, what Ben said about the nature of democracy is very true. If we consider a Greek word 'demos' as a collective agent and 'kratos' as decision making power we can derive democracy to mean collective decision-making. It doesn't mean any kind of majority or other proportion rule here. It means free decision making where every relevant participant and factor is taken properly into account. In fact, 'kratos' specifically refers to power or decision-making power whereas 'arche' such as anarchia, monarchia or oligarchia refers to the number of decision makers.

The creation is these reference standards on different properties, including security viewpoints, would be a valuable pursue as well. This is quite topical in the blockchain space when talking about different aspects of decentralization.

Finally I have to say that social dynamics of this chat was hilarious. I think we should all learn non-verbal communication to be able to keep up with the speed of our thinking. These back and forth argumentations indeed grow into a cambrian explosion and linear communication is frustratingly slow. In fact, it would be great to move these types of multifaceted conversations to shared personal knowledge management systems such as "shared Obsidian graphs" or other mindmaps. And actually, maybe Mindplex could, at some point, start incorporating such communication infrastructure as well.