artk42
Joined 3 years ago
Joined 3 years ago
So all in all, small communities do not fail because online participation is impossible. They fail because obstruction is cheap and accountability is absent: one person can repeatedly delay a decision, while everyone who supported a controversial decision simply moves on. I think we are in that point in history where participation could be dramatically improved by LLM in pipeline (and there are real works behind it https://github.com/AIObjectives/tttc-light-js https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2852)
- Chat and voice messages becomes a source-linked with signed summaries (llm definitely can help most ppl structure their thoughts into words)
- disputes are classified as factual, distributive, value-based, procedural, or rights-related
- it becomes more real to agree on explicit success (or dealbreaking) criteria for every decision
- votes and objections also accounted as "prediction market" bets of their voting power.
- evidence is more reviewable with LLM
- and what's most important the outcome updates domain-specific reputation that weakens future vote weights of those who sabotaged, or joined to crowd for populist decisions proved to be failure.
If a blinded LLM assessment and the community votes agree, the decision proceeds. If they disagree, at least it is much rare occasion and interesting to consider the causes. The key innovation is an auditable path from messy discussion to decisions, evidence, outcomes, and consequences. Reputation becomes the non-monetary cost of being confidently wrong or strategically obstructive. I hope to see more of such platforms and survive experiments. Current situation feels like desperation
Isn't that compromises the whole purpose of the project immediatly?
Moreover, any reasonably adequate dev would work on expansion of syncthing ecosystem, not inventing a rasclet instead of a wheel
P.S. but these chinese robots are really scary
Oh! That's exactly what we all needed - 16 banks suggest their own "system", even more crude and clumsy imitation of the surveillance standards of payment systems and marketplaces, which shielded banks from snitching clients' consumption patterns.
They don't need anything advanced like Apple Pay layered tokenizations that at least respects a little of privacy. Everything is linked to a single phone (the article states that the focus is on Bizum and those pathetic peer-to-peer payment systems). The banks are in good shape to capture data, the tax authorities have a clear picture of how to squeeze the plebs even more - nice.
How about stablecoins with native yield from ECB treasuries? It solves everything and costs nothing. But we see what happens in US - "treasuries spread is not for plebs", - banks say.
That led me to quite radical thoughts, that childless people shouldn't have the same voting power as active parents, just because they simply do not and _can not_ understand the generational mechanics of society and nations survival. They just lack this critical extremum of life experience and can not contribute consciously.