This is a linkpost for

- Short version of How to coordinate despite our biases?


Democracy, economy and fairness can be genuine if we have all the information necessary to make choices, aware of the context and consequences. Currently, this ideal is not respected.

Of course it’s an ideal, but we should do our best to reach it. 
What to trust? How to allocate our time? 
In the ambient war of signal: how to filter noise?

Hate and partisanship are worsening the lack of clarity, triggering destructive behaviors.

(For references, definitions and ressources see the long version)

We need a clear map/graph of debates presenting the strongest version of each opinion, with references (wikidebat). And topics-hyperlinks spatially organized in a semantic/meaning sameness gradient (steelmap)

We need to find a way towards a future strongly approximately preferred by more or less everyone (it’s called a paretotopia/paretotropia, ie. supported by bridging systems)

We need to select best arguments/solutions by using a convergence of agreement throughout the inner-groups/political spectrum (, community notes) rather than through sheer numbers, likes and virality

We need citizen science and gamification, to increase incentives and learning efficiency.

Interactive design, aesthetics and narrations are proven functional in training practices (mental palace, flowstate, playfulness…)

Proof of cooperation (we need a trustless network with zk-proof):

  • Non-naive cooperation is provably optimal between rational decision makers,
  • The average of a diverse crowd’s world modeling is (generally) more accurate than any of its constituents’ perspective, and strikingly close to scientific models.
  • There is a whole argument as to why cooperation is optimal in the long-term even in asymmetric contexts

We can do encrypted contracts based on such principles and the ones previously introduced.

We can construct our platforms through a formal system of coordination, agreeing on the rules of our deliberative system. We need ecosystemic synergy;
-> “Is this option really giving more options to the highest number/diversity of beings”

We can precise further our values, meaning and convergences (ie. with compatibility matching for constructive social synergies), through several methods involving AI, LLM, and latent spaces, such as Human universals, Moral graphs, Autonomy and Capacity approach to human welfare, as well as broad (worldwide/life/universal) empowerment.

Crowds are not always wise, so the dynamics leading to either good or bad ends have been studied (we need to deepen our researches due to dual use). The ingredients of wisdom are in Surowiecki’s recipe: Independence, Diversity and Aggregation.

People need to be able to think independently, have diverse origins (see Scott Page diversity theorem), and a system gathering perspectives (to enable an unfolding of the two other ingredients).

The optimality of cooperation has its own ingredients as well, based on reciprocity and altruism, we need to be: Nice, Forgiving, Retaliatory, Clear.

We can create encrypted ‘synergy’ contract (ie. using zk-stark)
-> You know that other players are not going to defect

(Within a deliberate margin of conflict/noise; necessary because of uncertainty/errors/consent)

-> You may hide some sensible/dangerous (hazard-prone) details of some tech, while still allowing their decentralized governance, sharing key data

(And we can use the technology of blockchain without cryptocurrency)

Lack of anonymity/privacy has heavy consequences : social incentives and pressure turn crowd wisdom into mindless/biased mobs, because they destroy independence and diversity. Moreover, assigning value to concepts because of who holds them rather than what they mean is really dangerous (fanaticism, power asymmetry, misinformation superspreaders etc.).

I need help for the technical implementation,

We have plans to leverage super-coordination and enable more prosaic flux of convergence/information; interfacing democracy:

So please contact me if you are interested in discussing these subjects, organizing the next steps together.

Ideal (synergity) :

Agency through awareness about our real needs, in optimal synergy with the real needs of others.

We need knowledge : we should incentivize (unbiased) research (cf adversarial collaboration)

We need infrastructure : practical means to reinforce our lucidity and cooperation


What is well-being? Often hard to define; a tractable way to formalize its reaching is ‘optionality’,

We need tools to nurture our intuition and leverage sustainable long-term possibilities,

The aim is to contribute to the craft of a new space of interaction

In order to actively refine our belief temperance, and ask better questions

We need reasons to be in and stay in this process-zone (cf stigmergy)

Playfulness is to system literacy what reading is to literacy. 
= Efficiency + Longing

The inverse of alterity (otherness) is ipseity (selfness).
We’re talking about the in-between : “synergity”.

We need to test strategies to achieve paretotopia [in a complex environment with irrational players]
(cf Cliodynamics)

// Cheaper and cheaper means of destruction (homemade societal-scale impact like AI, DIY biology/labs)

/// Open-sourced traction (is a threat) [while] Locked-in authoritarianism (is a threat)

= > How to make a global immune system faster than bad actors’ awareness?

New Comment
2 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I've seen links to that video before (even before your previous post today).  Is there a text or short argument that justifies "Non-naive cooperation is provably optimal between rational decision makers" ALONG WITH "All or any humans are rational enough for this to apply"? 

I'm not sure who the "we" is in your thesis.  If something requires full agreement and goodwill, it cannot happen, as there will always be bad actors and incompatibly-aligned agents.  

[-]Ryo 10

The point of this post is to say that we can use a formal protocol to create an interface leveraging the elements that make cooperation optimal. Those elements can be found, for exemple, in studies about crowd wisdom and bridging systems (, computational democracy etc.)

So "we" is large, and more or less direct, I say "we" because I am not alone to think this is a good idea, although the specific setting that I propose is more intimately bound to my thoughts. Some people are already engaged in things at least greatly overlapping with what I exposed, or interested to see where my plan is going