Organic, Glutton Free, AI Free
In October 2024 I developed a social network, organic, strictly without AI or any suggestion system. And here I want to describe the philosophy of it and relation to what I researched in AI.
I am puzzled, by all technology that we developed, and that still, we do not have a public platform, with public stakes, to organize ourselves politically and geographically. Technology cannot encompass all aspects of reality, and that is clear, and debatable but undeniable.
Technology, is organization of our rational mind, to summerize, experience in words, or pixels, in terms of perception, and in terms of action, is to pave the path between imagination and realization, will and reality. But at the end, technology is described by finite number of letters, in any book. The scope of it is a reduction of continuum of reality to finitude of description. And that is the clarity about its position in the wonders of “All and Everything". Its infinitely assumptuous ( I use this word a lot i.e. containing assumptions ) to think, that entirety of being can be summarized within finite letters of books.
Now here we are. We have something called an almost deterministic computer. Reality is stored in 0s or 1s, voltages and capacitors and transistors. And now, beside the stale talking point on definition of humanity for curiosity and futurism, we have a solid problem in our hands. We are 8 billion verbal beings, governed by theories of economics and politics, highly idealogical and maybe suitable for a population of 300 million or even less. Now here we are, with a unprecedented in scale, communicative and interactive complexity. With this reality, I think its time to be serious and solve this once and for all: The Issue of Self Governance. And I acknowledge, that technology is not complete for self governance, but as I learnt to say, be in bed with your lover and play chess with Winston Churchill. Here I am going to talk about the Chess Part, the rational, and the white board and how to use the robot and epistemic thinking toward harmony. In this section, I will describe the current political system, while the complexity of the current systems is beyond my knowledge, but I will describe what is inside the scope of my expertise, the backbone schema of the decision making.
The Current Political Structure:
lets talk about USA as a test case and a thought experiment. Think about US senate. 100 senators sit in the chambers and decide on how to vote for 400 million and possibly define the fate of the globe in voting. I have to ask everyone this question. Does the 100 senators, and their advisors, and their polls, and their technology, complex enough to observe, the complexity of 400 million people and their pace of change? can they represent the will of public sufficiently? Simply, is the number of neurons in 100 multiplied by whatever the average number of neurons that exist in a senator’s brain, enough neurons, to represent the condition of 400 million of the average brain neurons of USA? whether the answer is true or false, there is no golden number called 100. maybe the optimal number is 400. maybe 1 million. Same goes with the number of years for a senator to be in senate, the interval between polls and voting. Does 4 years or 8 years or 20 years, or any of these numbers truly represent, the optimal time, that reflect average change of public attitude toward their decision making process? maybe we now change on monthly basis, and maybe we change on a yearly basis. 4 is not a universal constant. We simply do not know what is the optimal number. But as research in AI taught me, instead of finding the senator number for year 2026 or the measure of optimality, or the optimal interval, in a focus group, or a think tank, we can try to build a mechanism that is expressive enough to represent any complexity of the public. And now here is my proposal
Dynamic Democracy
Simply lets start from Polling. Polling has two parts, what is the question, and what is the answer. To represent public digitally ( by digitally I mean in terms of verbal/numerical description) our model needs to allow public to propose the questions relevant to them, themselves, and to answer these questions freely. And why not at any time? why not anytime you can change your vote and propose a new poll. This idea is not the new part of the proposal, direct and online democracy, but seriously, consider why we do not have this already. It is infinitely puzzling to me.
Now so far, we have a flat organization for polling and voting, each person can propose a question and each can vote on the proposed question. Now lets talk about hierarchical structures.
Dynamic Democracy versus Static Representational Democracy:
In the example of US senate, 100 placeholder decision makers, are defined as representatives. This is the example of a hierarchy of decision making, with two layers. The public choose the top layer, of 100 representatives, and those 100 decide on what goes on in the senate.
Now Imagine, that for every propose question proposed by public, a citizen or an individual could delegate their vote to any other individual. The delegate has two votes on the question, and the delegate has the same choice, either vote directly or delegate the two votes to another. In this mechanism, In addition to the online aspect of the voting, where the votes can change at any time, the representation hierarchy can take any possible form in time. I call this Dynamic Democracy, vs the Static Representational Democracy. The structure of representation, is another aspect of representation of the political condition of the public.
I suspect that voter turn out, and the decline of the turn out globally, is reflective, of the incapability of the static representational democracy to catch up with accelerated increase, in population and complexity of the connectivity of society itself. Mathematicians and physicist have a trick in their pocket for proposing new theories, its called generalization. We say, a theory “A” is a generalization of theory “B”, if theory “B” is a special case of theory “A”. In this case, theory “A” is preferable to theory “B”, as theory “A” can explain theory “B” or what theory “B” explains, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
In our case, it is easy to show that Dynamic Democracy is a generalization of Static Representational Democracy. In the case of senate, in dynamic democracy, the public is able to delegate their vote, for all questions, to 100 senators, and change their vote once every 4 years, and except the delegates, nobody proposes questions.
Now what I am proposing is not a particularly complex, or out of reach of the mind concept, and that is why I am puzzled, that we don’t already have a platform since 2008, or government infrastructures to support this type of political system or a variation.