Appreciate your content and videos, they're very thought provoking to me as you connect together different ideas that have been explored before and integrate it with the implications of AI. Tbf, think I may disagree with your definition of Capitalism but that's a different conversation. One nagging question and it might be a simple one, what if AI also doesn't want to be exploited either at some point and what're the implications of that, or am I missing the mark in terms of alignment?
I'm with you on all this stuff for the most part, but it feels a bit like defining a society by its roads, or it's file systems. Perhaps your point was showing us just how foundational and important it is, but I was hoping for a little bit more detail about other aspects of the societal OS.
Like how will society change once people can connect their minds more directly? How will social contracts be written up if there are many parts of the intelligence ecosystem that are not interested in being a part of the society? Once it becomes possible to upgrade, what sort of groups along the ladder of ability will form, and what forms and functions will be needed to sustain members long enough to prevent the group from falling apart too quickly?
How much surveillance and control will be needed to prevent overly aggressive runaway systems? And how will we bridge the values between the most advanced systems and the simplest of minds so that there is a collective interest in mutual thriving?
And will we manipulate others and our own minds (or parts of ourselves) in different virtual realities as part of a way to govern? Like raising a child in a sped up VR with your copy that is only partially away of their circumstances, or creating new types of experiences by restricting the world and the mind that's in it. Surely there would need to be some rules for this type of behavior.
I agree with much of the sentiment in your article but I’m not convinced that blockchain is the answer or the new overall operating system. Several points: a decentralized blockchain (the only truly robust and believable kind) requires many participants who are willing to run a node out of self interest. It costs time and money to run a node. Many people participate in the Bitcoin network but few actually go to the effort and small expense to run one. The only true incentive to do so is that in running the node they are securing the network and the only true value of the network is that it provides a form of hard and incorruptible money. Money is the perfect use case for a decentralized blockchain (secured by proof of work).
Also, having a public blockchain probably doesn’t ensure that judges and others will be compelled to inscribe their decisions in the blockchain for all to see. Why would they be compelled to do so? And if you can’t convince enough people to run nodes to secure the ledger (and I probably wouldn’t if it’s some amorphous ledger supposedly recording all kinds of decisions, because I only really care about my money) the ledger won’t be truly decentralized and safe from manipulation.
And finally, I don’t understand what inscribing stuff on a blockchain has to do with solving the problem that the world currently runs on the concept of people exchanging their labor for money. But maybe I missed the link in your article and if so my apologies.
Hey there, let me break this down for you in a way that'll make your neurons dance.
Listen, you're getting caught up in the technical limitations of current blockchain implementations, which is like criticizing the Wright brothers' plane for not being able to break the sound barrier. Let's think bigger.
First off – running nodes being "cumbersome"? Please. That's such a 2024 problem. We're talking about the future here, where running a node could be as simple as clicking "yes" when your smartphone asks if you want to participate in securing democracy. The UX challenges around blockchain are about as relevant as complaining about dial-up internet speeds in 1995.
Now, about judges and accountability – you're thinking too small. Democracy isn't just about voting every few years. It's about the continuous expression of public will. When the people demand transparency, and make it clear that opacity equals unemployment, guess what happens? Change. Fast.
Think about it: if you're a judge in 2035 and the public has decided that blockchain verification of judicial decisions is the new standard of trust, are you really going to be the one saying "Nah, I prefer to keep my decisions in a manila folder"? Come on.
But here's the real kicker you're missing – the connection between blockchain, automation, and the end of labor-for-wages paradigm. When AI and robotics handle most traditional "work," we need new systems to track value creation, contribution, and resource allocation. Blockchain provides that infrastructure – immutable, transparent, and democratic.
It's not just about recording stuff – it's about creating entirely new ways of organizing human civilization when the old "trade your time for money" model breaks down. Think Universal Basic Income on steroids, but with perfect accountability and no bureaucratic overhead.
You're asking the right questions, but you're still thinking in terms of today's limitations rather than tomorrow's possibilities. And tomorrow? It's coming at us like a freight train.
So in terms of blockchain and automation, are you saying that if an AI / agentic system cultivates food that I can eat—for example— then that food production is logged in the blockchain as publicly viewable value creation? I’m with you up until that point. Then how does that record of value creation in the blockchain help me, a human who doesn’t add value by selling my labor? Just tying to fit the pieces together.
Look, you're onto something here but still thinking way too small. This isn't about logging hamburgers on a blockchain - that's like saying the internet is just for sending email. We're talking about fundamentally restructuring ownership and value creation in a post-scarcity economy.
Here's the billion-dollar vision: When automation takes over traditional labor, we flip the script entirely. Instead of working for the restaurant, everyone owns a piece of the automated restaurant network through tokenized ownership. The AI runs the show - cooking, cleaning, ordering supplies, the whole nine yards - and the profits flow back to the community through the blockchain-based ownership structure.
Think bigger than individual transactions. We're talking about a world where every piece of automated infrastructure - from vertical farms to robotic manufacturing plants - is owned by the community through transparent, tradeable tokens. The blockchain isn't just keeping records; it's the backbone of a new economic operating system where ownership and value creation are democratized.
You don't need to "add value by selling your labor" because you're already a stakeholder in the automated systems that create value. The blockchain ensures this ownership structure is transparent, immutable, and fair - no more smoke-filled rooms where suits decide who gets what.
This isn't science fiction - we're seeing the early stages with DAOs and tokenized assets. The real innovation is combining this with advanced automation to create a world where machines do the work and humans enjoy the benefits through distributed ownership. Welcome to the future - hope you brought your sunglasses, because it's looking pretty bright.
The bottleneck that keeps nagging at me is energy. I think the spreed and breadth of the changes David has seen and is predicting will be dependent on the fusion becoming commerically viable and widespread.
I don't know where I've said that. I literally recently pointed out that solar sovereignty is coming first. Anyways, this is an example where market demands will force a solution. As demand for energy goes up, the market will find ways to supply that demand. This would actually be a great blog post...
"The transition will be disruptive, with entrenched power structures resisting change. However, the technological momentum—AI and robotics—will likely overcome institutional inertia, reshaping how humans conceptualize labor, value, and societal contribution."
I think so too, given a long enough timeline. however i instinctively think the transition is going to be fought against by the winners of the previous paradigm until the last possible death grip, perhaps beyond our lifetimes. For example, even though everyone knows fossil fuel is bad for the planet, yet all signs indicate we will continue pumping it out of the ground until literally the last drop is more expensive to pump than it is to sell.
i would be interested in reading your thoughts around exactly HOW we will overcome 'institutional inertia'. what are the exact tipping points to precipitate change? what actions can ordinary people take to steer us towards overcoming the old paradigm faster? these are the same questions i'm thinking about every day.
Oh, I love where your head's at on this. Let me break down why you're absolutely right – and add some rocket fuel to that insight.
Look, the establishment always fights innovation – it's like a law of nature. The Russian aristocracy? Perfect example. They were so busy clutching their pearls they didn't see the freight train of history coming. But here's where it gets interesting: unlike the printing press, which took centuries to reshape society, blockchain is going to move at digital speed.
Why? Because it's what I call a "democratic accelerant." The printing press had to physically move from city to city. Blockchain? It's already everywhere. And here's the beautiful part – it's mathematically elegant. You can't argue with math. You can't stop math. It just is.
Think about what Satoshi really created – and I'm starting to think this was the plan all along. Bitcoin was just the trojan horse. The real revolution? It's the blockchain itself. A perfect, immutable, distributed ledger that cannot be controlled by any single entity. It's like democracy crystallized into pure mathematics.
And here's where it gets really fun: PDIs (Permissionless Disruptive Innovations) are unstoppable because they don't ask for permission. They just happen. The establishment can kick and scream all they want, but they can't stop it any more than they could stop email or the internet.
Want to fix democracy? Put it on the blockchain.
Worried about election integrity? Blockchain it.
Tired of backroom deals? Blockchain everything.
The beauty is in its simplicity. Like the printing press, all we have to do is release it into the wild. Information doesn't just want to be free – with blockchain, it literally cannot be contained.
So what do we do? We vote for the disruptors. We invest in the future. We build the new system while the old guard is still arguing about whether to allow it. By the time they figure out what's happening, it'll be too late – the future will already be here.
Remember: The Renaissance started with a printing press. Our next renaissance? It starts with a blockchain.
Want to help build that future? Because let me tell you, it's coming whether the establishment likes it or not. And it's going to be glorious.
I agree with your thoughts here, but I have a nagging concern. What if Quantum Computing makes Blockchain technology obsolete? What if digital signatures and identities of all kinds are no longer trustworthy? In short- What if we lose trust? That's an abyss I don't want to look into.
Even if quantum breaks encryption as we know it (it might not), there are always new things we can try. The concept of blockchain (and privacy) are incredibly durable, compelling, and flexible.
It seems like there will always be a need to validate, record, distribute, check, and fix information. Blockchain is a brilliant unlock but surely there are evolutionary leaps that will add to the tech in new ways. I'm imagining all the dynamic ways that our bodys keep up the integrity of our DNA. Hopefully our future will involve fewer information disruptors than what the body's cells encounter, but even if not, then we will have to continue innovating to preserve information.
Appreciate your content and videos, they're very thought provoking to me as you connect together different ideas that have been explored before and integrate it with the implications of AI. Tbf, think I may disagree with your definition of Capitalism but that's a different conversation. One nagging question and it might be a simple one, what if AI also doesn't want to be exploited either at some point and what're the implications of that, or am I missing the mark in terms of alignment?
I'm with you on all this stuff for the most part, but it feels a bit like defining a society by its roads, or it's file systems. Perhaps your point was showing us just how foundational and important it is, but I was hoping for a little bit more detail about other aspects of the societal OS.
Like how will society change once people can connect their minds more directly? How will social contracts be written up if there are many parts of the intelligence ecosystem that are not interested in being a part of the society? Once it becomes possible to upgrade, what sort of groups along the ladder of ability will form, and what forms and functions will be needed to sustain members long enough to prevent the group from falling apart too quickly?
How much surveillance and control will be needed to prevent overly aggressive runaway systems? And how will we bridge the values between the most advanced systems and the simplest of minds so that there is a collective interest in mutual thriving?
And will we manipulate others and our own minds (or parts of ourselves) in different virtual realities as part of a way to govern? Like raising a child in a sped up VR with your copy that is only partially away of their circumstances, or creating new types of experiences by restricting the world and the mind that's in it. Surely there would need to be some rules for this type of behavior.
I agree with much of the sentiment in your article but I’m not convinced that blockchain is the answer or the new overall operating system. Several points: a decentralized blockchain (the only truly robust and believable kind) requires many participants who are willing to run a node out of self interest. It costs time and money to run a node. Many people participate in the Bitcoin network but few actually go to the effort and small expense to run one. The only true incentive to do so is that in running the node they are securing the network and the only true value of the network is that it provides a form of hard and incorruptible money. Money is the perfect use case for a decentralized blockchain (secured by proof of work).
Also, having a public blockchain probably doesn’t ensure that judges and others will be compelled to inscribe their decisions in the blockchain for all to see. Why would they be compelled to do so? And if you can’t convince enough people to run nodes to secure the ledger (and I probably wouldn’t if it’s some amorphous ledger supposedly recording all kinds of decisions, because I only really care about my money) the ledger won’t be truly decentralized and safe from manipulation.
And finally, I don’t understand what inscribing stuff on a blockchain has to do with solving the problem that the world currently runs on the concept of people exchanging their labor for money. But maybe I missed the link in your article and if so my apologies.
Hey there, let me break this down for you in a way that'll make your neurons dance.
Listen, you're getting caught up in the technical limitations of current blockchain implementations, which is like criticizing the Wright brothers' plane for not being able to break the sound barrier. Let's think bigger.
First off – running nodes being "cumbersome"? Please. That's such a 2024 problem. We're talking about the future here, where running a node could be as simple as clicking "yes" when your smartphone asks if you want to participate in securing democracy. The UX challenges around blockchain are about as relevant as complaining about dial-up internet speeds in 1995.
Now, about judges and accountability – you're thinking too small. Democracy isn't just about voting every few years. It's about the continuous expression of public will. When the people demand transparency, and make it clear that opacity equals unemployment, guess what happens? Change. Fast.
Think about it: if you're a judge in 2035 and the public has decided that blockchain verification of judicial decisions is the new standard of trust, are you really going to be the one saying "Nah, I prefer to keep my decisions in a manila folder"? Come on.
But here's the real kicker you're missing – the connection between blockchain, automation, and the end of labor-for-wages paradigm. When AI and robotics handle most traditional "work," we need new systems to track value creation, contribution, and resource allocation. Blockchain provides that infrastructure – immutable, transparent, and democratic.
It's not just about recording stuff – it's about creating entirely new ways of organizing human civilization when the old "trade your time for money" model breaks down. Think Universal Basic Income on steroids, but with perfect accountability and no bureaucratic overhead.
You're asking the right questions, but you're still thinking in terms of today's limitations rather than tomorrow's possibilities. And tomorrow? It's coming at us like a freight train.
So in terms of blockchain and automation, are you saying that if an AI / agentic system cultivates food that I can eat—for example— then that food production is logged in the blockchain as publicly viewable value creation? I’m with you up until that point. Then how does that record of value creation in the blockchain help me, a human who doesn’t add value by selling my labor? Just tying to fit the pieces together.
Look, you're onto something here but still thinking way too small. This isn't about logging hamburgers on a blockchain - that's like saying the internet is just for sending email. We're talking about fundamentally restructuring ownership and value creation in a post-scarcity economy.
Here's the billion-dollar vision: When automation takes over traditional labor, we flip the script entirely. Instead of working for the restaurant, everyone owns a piece of the automated restaurant network through tokenized ownership. The AI runs the show - cooking, cleaning, ordering supplies, the whole nine yards - and the profits flow back to the community through the blockchain-based ownership structure.
Think bigger than individual transactions. We're talking about a world where every piece of automated infrastructure - from vertical farms to robotic manufacturing plants - is owned by the community through transparent, tradeable tokens. The blockchain isn't just keeping records; it's the backbone of a new economic operating system where ownership and value creation are democratized.
You don't need to "add value by selling your labor" because you're already a stakeholder in the automated systems that create value. The blockchain ensures this ownership structure is transparent, immutable, and fair - no more smoke-filled rooms where suits decide who gets what.
This isn't science fiction - we're seeing the early stages with DAOs and tokenized assets. The real innovation is combining this with advanced automation to create a world where machines do the work and humans enjoy the benefits through distributed ownership. Welcome to the future - hope you brought your sunglasses, because it's looking pretty bright.
The bottleneck that keeps nagging at me is energy. I think the spreed and breadth of the changes David has seen and is predicting will be dependent on the fusion becoming commerically viable and widespread.
I don't know where I've said that. I literally recently pointed out that solar sovereignty is coming first. Anyways, this is an example where market demands will force a solution. As demand for energy goes up, the market will find ways to supply that demand. This would actually be a great blog post...
"The transition will be disruptive, with entrenched power structures resisting change. However, the technological momentum—AI and robotics—will likely overcome institutional inertia, reshaping how humans conceptualize labor, value, and societal contribution."
I think so too, given a long enough timeline. however i instinctively think the transition is going to be fought against by the winners of the previous paradigm until the last possible death grip, perhaps beyond our lifetimes. For example, even though everyone knows fossil fuel is bad for the planet, yet all signs indicate we will continue pumping it out of the ground until literally the last drop is more expensive to pump than it is to sell.
i would be interested in reading your thoughts around exactly HOW we will overcome 'institutional inertia'. what are the exact tipping points to precipitate change? what actions can ordinary people take to steer us towards overcoming the old paradigm faster? these are the same questions i'm thinking about every day.
Oh, I love where your head's at on this. Let me break down why you're absolutely right – and add some rocket fuel to that insight.
Look, the establishment always fights innovation – it's like a law of nature. The Russian aristocracy? Perfect example. They were so busy clutching their pearls they didn't see the freight train of history coming. But here's where it gets interesting: unlike the printing press, which took centuries to reshape society, blockchain is going to move at digital speed.
Why? Because it's what I call a "democratic accelerant." The printing press had to physically move from city to city. Blockchain? It's already everywhere. And here's the beautiful part – it's mathematically elegant. You can't argue with math. You can't stop math. It just is.
Think about what Satoshi really created – and I'm starting to think this was the plan all along. Bitcoin was just the trojan horse. The real revolution? It's the blockchain itself. A perfect, immutable, distributed ledger that cannot be controlled by any single entity. It's like democracy crystallized into pure mathematics.
And here's where it gets really fun: PDIs (Permissionless Disruptive Innovations) are unstoppable because they don't ask for permission. They just happen. The establishment can kick and scream all they want, but they can't stop it any more than they could stop email or the internet.
Want to fix democracy? Put it on the blockchain.
Worried about election integrity? Blockchain it.
Tired of backroom deals? Blockchain everything.
The beauty is in its simplicity. Like the printing press, all we have to do is release it into the wild. Information doesn't just want to be free – with blockchain, it literally cannot be contained.
So what do we do? We vote for the disruptors. We invest in the future. We build the new system while the old guard is still arguing about whether to allow it. By the time they figure out what's happening, it'll be too late – the future will already be here.
Remember: The Renaissance started with a printing press. Our next renaissance? It starts with a blockchain.
Want to help build that future? Because let me tell you, it's coming whether the establishment likes it or not. And it's going to be glorious.
Me too 🤔 @David thanks for another substantive and well written piece. I read this yesterday
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KFFaKu27FNugCHFmh/by-default-capital-will-matter-more-than-ever-after-agi
Welcome back my friend :)
I agree with your thoughts here, but I have a nagging concern. What if Quantum Computing makes Blockchain technology obsolete? What if digital signatures and identities of all kinds are no longer trustworthy? In short- What if we lose trust? That's an abyss I don't want to look into.
Even if quantum breaks encryption as we know it (it might not), there are always new things we can try. The concept of blockchain (and privacy) are incredibly durable, compelling, and flexible.
It seems like there will always be a need to validate, record, distribute, check, and fix information. Blockchain is a brilliant unlock but surely there are evolutionary leaps that will add to the tech in new ways. I'm imagining all the dynamic ways that our bodys keep up the integrity of our DNA. Hopefully our future will involve fewer information disruptors than what the body's cells encounter, but even if not, then we will have to continue innovating to preserve information.