I might be missing something, but the "soloware" project seems very likely to escalate misuse of AI by human beings and make things far less transparent (b/c now everything is custom-made and it's harder to track the cause-effect chains of how anything was created, and imo we want a drastic increase in accountability for every action taken by human and machine). 

It's going to take all the bad parts of individualist capitalist patterns / competition-seeking and turn the dial up, which is basically what happens anytime anyone applies collective-optimization pressure to a technology. 

I see a lot of risk and am unclear on the benefits. 

But let me try to articulate why one might see soloware as a good idea... 

If I believed that the issue with machines was this emphasis on 'replacing humans' by automating stuff, rather than empowering humans, then I might get what was better about this approach. <-- This is VERY succinct. But hopefully enough. 

However: 
There's nothing inherently 'robust' about human beings' alignment, at any scale. The alignment issue isn't just about artificial intelligences; it extends to human intelligence also, and in fact extends to just "intelligence" generally. Intelligence doesn't have any way to align itself, at any scale. (It needs 'wisdom' which is in some sense the "opposite" of intelligence.) 

You seem to point at this yourself with point #2 RE: humans and indifference risks. The problem isn't rooted in the AI's agency; it's also in the human's own agency. You won't solve one without solving both. 

So I guess it raises a Question:

Does one believe human intelligence or empowerment is somehow anchored to an alignment solution in some special way? 

FTR, I agree with the points made about the chatbot interface being problematic, for the reasons expressed. But my solutional direction would not be soloware, at least not as I understand or am seeing it implemented (i.e. by inviting some ppl to start trying it out more). 

My solutional direction might be something I'd call "Sacredware." 

In all likelihood, Sacredware would be designed by a small group of "only-corrigible-to-the-inconceivable" (Bodhi-corrigible) for "Everyone". This might end up looking like soloware, or something similarly flexible. And yet, it would also need to, at scale, rigorously avoid red queen dynamics, tragedy of the commons, and unnecessary killing of life. It would not be designed to cater to human preferences or comfort, but rather their collective spiritual development and ability to steward life on Earth. (In other words, it constantly affirms or upholds a set of virtues that transcends human societies or particular time&place, without major deviation, while being extremely adaptable for specific time&place.)

It would not be possible to get to Sacredware by starting with the soloware project, as far as I understand it. But that is difficult for me to explain here. 

(I'm not sure what term would be appropriate to encompass both soloware and groupware.)

fitware? 

I benefited greatly from my CFAR experience, as a participant, a volunteer mentor, and as full-time staff. 

The main early benefit was a boost to my self-confidence and agency, the realization that I could endlessly work to resolve my own problems (physical, emotional, and mental) and that there is no end to self-improvement and overcoming one's own obstacles. I was deeply inspired by CFAR instructors as role models. 

As a mentor, I realized I could also help others with their problems, and often this meant getting out of the way and simply acting as a mirror. 

As staff, I gained some much-needed common sense and the ability to work with physical objects and places. I learned to merge with tools and the venue itself, in order to do operations. I became better at time (like being on time and learning how long it takes to do things). I learned to value my voice and became more openly disagreeable. And a lot more that I won't list. 

I believe I also gained deep insights and new ways of being that bolstered my path of truth-seeking with CFAR, which then led me to even clearer truth-seeking paths. 

If there's a piece of curriculum that I think would be a helpful addition, it's how to escape all forms of victim mentality. All the benefit of a place like CFAR seems like it could come crashing down with victim mentality in the water. The "drama triangle" is a helpful framework here. 

You are speaking from a materialist, consequentialist worldview. I do not buy into this worldview. 

It has caused massive suffering and existential crises on the planet and is deeply deluded about what 'beneficial' is. 

• Any good reading on circling, spiral dynamics, or chakras off the top of your head?

No, none come to mind. 

This is like asking about reading how to ride a horse. Find someone who can teach you to ride a horse with real horses, and you'll learn 100x more, with less error. 

• How do you think about impact when going for arahantship, or do you reject the frame? I'd love to do this too but think I could do an (actually) impactful startup

Truly beneficial impact is only possible with Awakening. Everything is still based in delusion until realization, and stream entry is not sufficient. 

That does not mean you shouldn't do anything until then. We can use everything for the path of letting go. 

But simply telling yourself you are using everything for the path is not sufficient, and you are probably deceiving yourself in some way. Therefore find a true spiritual teacher, and a good spiritual community, who can keep you on track. 

Until then, you are going to be making decisions based on liking and disliking, grasping and avoiding, and none of that really works. It only creates more, bigger problems. 

You can check out the Buddhism for AI course online. Might be of interest. 

Any chance you could rattle off the next half dozen things that come to mind?

Connection Theory Charting (Leverage Research framework), Core Transformation, Tai Chi / Qi Gong, Bio-Emotive Processing (Doug Tataryn), Shaolin practice (Shi Heng Yi on YouTube), TWIM, Gendlin's Focusing, Immunity to Change (Kegan process), Improv Theater (see book Impro), Perri Chase (spiritual teacher online). 

I haven't done this one but I hear Alexander Technique is quite powerful. Also heard good things about Landmark. 

I'm even considering training at a monastery.

Well if you are seeking, you can try visiting MAPLE for a week or so. Or try the 1-3 month program. It's not very traditional, but it is a good training system that supports deep practice. If you seek tradition, which has many benefits, I recommend going to Asia. 

The benefit of fixing on the release/dissolve as a way of being is that it will release/dissolve itself, and that's what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesn't have an 'expiration date' as it were. 

I think the confusion on this is that

We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because 'process' is more change-y than something static. 

But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. We're not in a process. To say 'process' is trying to 'thing-ify' or 'reify' something that does not have a property called 'existence' nor 'non-existence'. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense. 

A "universe" cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of 'universe' is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now we're actually more ignorant / deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math. 

I'm pointing to something more extreme than this, but I'd say this is a good direction.

I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above. 

I say 'badly' because I'm not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and that's what I'm training in. 

So my re-write of this: 

An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them. 

You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns 'integrated' and come back into structure. 

But the thing around 'flow' and 'faster' and such—all of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isn't to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose. 

This takes sufficient letting go to see, but it's also logically sound even if you can't buy it experientially. 

Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that it's possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.