Disclaimer: This piece is largely based on ‘Reformation 2.0’, a framework I developed in February 2020. It also includes much of the governance work and electoral analysis I did not include in Origin. I also refer quite heavily to my work on the Re-Satisfaction of Rodrik’s Globalisation Trilemma, which now includes an explorable explanation. Firms I have open contracts with have had months of advanced warning about the app developments and the ‘elimination of race’ section. While their lawyers have been markedly more responsive since Trump’s re-election and the rise of Reform, offering initial contracts, none have yet internalised the developments I have personally made.
An update on past pieces: With four simple words, “I am in Guyana”, my grandmother validated Origin. Ye’s equal and opposite approach has entered new territory. Veo 3 has brought us one sense closer to full-scale simulation.
Summary
Objectively, any given trilemma must be fully satisfied in the long term. Politics is simply what happens between the satisfactions. Traditionally, the left is willing to compromise on at least one part of it for the sake of at least one of the other two. On the other hand, the traditional right has only been willing to re-satisfy the trilemma after an innovation breakthrough. I suspect that we will transition into a system whereby, instead of compromising on an element of the trilemma, we outline what the new re-satisfaction of the trilemma will be, and work backwards from that point. This would, to different degrees, involve funding social and economic progress with debt, before funding it with wealth on the onset of the technological innovation of the day. For instance, on the onset of superintelligence, governments that can sustainably borrow may have prioritised the deregulation of employment so that firms get ahead of maximising automation, and then funded a UBI with sovereign debt as a safety net, before flipping from a debt-funded UBI to a wealth-funded UBI. Not that everyone needs to become a software engineer, but automating away grunt work is beneficial for everyone in the long term. It gives people the space to address their past and present trauma, and how that may have manifested in their lives (e.g. obesity, or having transitioned). By the time they have done so, they are resilient and are no longer automatable out of their roles. The choice is not so much left or right, but to get ahead of the technology, or not. This debate can be contained within one centrist political party per country.
Technological advancement is taking us through an inflection of the nation-state itself, including the establishment of new republics around the world. Beyond this, the six core civilisations, China, India, Russia, Persia, Arabia, and the West, are themselves going through inflection, and will re-engineer themselves around a technological ‘meta-civilisation’ that the West has had the strongest hand in building. Creativity comes from constriction, and, having reached our own learning limits as a species, we have created new, technological life to expand those limits. Life will be extraordinary. Every person will have to opportunity to fulfil their potential, doubling down on what they are good at and using the technology as a means to improve and find their purpose. The technological life that we gave birth to will itself reach its learning limit, and will itself give rise to new life. The singularity will not be an explosion of technology, but an explosion of organisms. Sadly, this inflection will not be smooth. In this new world, the questions we ask of each other now will literally have to be superintelligent, which means listening much more than we talk, which people are not necessarily good at. This reactivity in large part comes from the blocks people have in their heads, including the false claim that the absence of a mental health issue is in of itself a mental issue. People will go to any and all means to avoid addressing and overcoming their issues, and a Third World War will break out across the metaverse.
I am to explain how we will move through this explosion. I break this into three questions:
"I fear that the West will die. There are countless signs. There is no birthrate, you are being silently invaded by other cultures, other peoples who will progressively outnumber you. They completely change your culture, your beliefs, your morals." - Cardinal Robert Sarah
Opening Thoughts
It appears to me that a ‘collapse through avoidance’ scenario has been building up around the world since the end of the Second World War. Particularly in the West, and most pertinently in the UK. One of the most prosperous times in human history with its the advent of equal opportunity and affordable housing. The immigration policy was fundamentally flawed, and people opted to borrow from their progeny’s futures rather than advancing economic policy. The change we need is coming one way or another. The world is going through a time of social, economic, and technological change, and the UK is in a unique position. The US created wokeism, we imported it, they killed it off, we have not. Saudi Arabia created Islamism, we imported it, they killed it off, we have not. We need to make sure that globalisation works well for everyone, including the working class. There are two different approaches. The Right opt to wait until we can re-satisfy the globalisation trilemma, doing as little as possible until then. The Left opt to take action now, doing as much as possible until then through the state. Private markets can solve our investment problems, and so the UK has, by definition, moved too far left. As a country, we need to realise that we are the smallest of the big countries. We need to focus on making sure that we profit from the world’s most successful people and companies, not hamstring the country’s most successful companies through some false sense of national pride. Let industrial policy be only a bump in the road.1
Traditionally, you could leave a job, and there would be enough liquidity in the job market to find another one. Perhaps not the one you truly want, but close enough to the one you are looking for, if not, then at least close enough to the one you already had. Automation may seem like a blessing, but under the old paradigm, it is only a blessing to your boss. If you, as the individual, automate your role, you remove yourself from tyranny, but run the risk of landing directly into starvation. It is not only your job that is being automated, it is your next job and the one after that. Hence, without addressing the root causes, each job-switch becomes harder and harder, you run out of money, and there is no more you. This is why we need a new tax and welfare paradigm. The difficulty in bringing about that new paradigm is that we have to do it under the current system. We have to take the risk and automate before it is truly safe to do so, returning to ground zero.2 In doing so, you return to what you are truly passionate about and build from there, becoming 100% signal and becoming the best in that domain.3 The technology is forcing us into health, the basis on which one can drive their intellectual athleticism flywheel and emerge as professionals in their field. Economic and societal shifts make technological change far smoother.
All attempts to raise these issues in the West, particularly in Europe, have been deemed as ‘crimes of noticing’. This has been pertinent to me. This has been pertinent in Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe. With Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell. With countless others. Thinking politically, the parties that will dominate are simply the ones who have noticed. The parties that have not engaged in such ignorance. In the UK, this person is Nigel Farage. Say what you want about his style, his perception, but no one can deny that he has always noticed. The increase in organised crime. The problem of non-assimilation. The creation of the European Army. The United States of Europe. His overarching narrative is undeniable, which is why he will almost certainly become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, even if Labour, with their seatslide, were to adopt every one of his policies. Things can always change in politics, but by the looks of things, anyone who runs against him as a conservative is simply spoiling the vote. There is an extraordinary opportunity for a high-experimentation, high academic threshold party here. A party that makes decisions based on what society will look like, as the high-value cards are being dealt faster and faster, rather than what it currently looks like. Going to where the puck will be, not to where it is now.
Now, we can begin to think about the problems beyond the globalisation trilemma. Civilisationally speaking, this is the climate, which is simple through technological advancement, now we have the way to eliminate poverty, and the birthgap. Meritocratically speaking, the next tranche up is the transition to self-directed learning. These two points are intertwined, as explained in my (lightly edited) follow-up to one reader’s response to Origin:
“Politically speaking, I think in terms of maximising political equality, such as zero knowledge proofs for election integrity, and legal equality, and driving economic reform by improving the tax and welfare system. I opted for using ‘birthgap’ rather than ‘the fertility crisis’ because the birthgap documentary better ties the symptom to economic reform. The solution I propose is contingent on identifying non-assimilation as a problem, both for new settlers and long-standing natives, and ‘solving’ it before ‘solving’ the birthgap. In the same way that UBI does not solve all of society’s problems, this implementation does not solve all problems associated with a non-assimilated citizenry, most notably in the essay around capital encoding. On education, my expectation is that on the implementation of UBI, the education system will become a ‘self-directed’ one and bearing children and raising families will become much less of an obstacle to learning, and vice versa. Hence, I expect the correlation between education and infertility to significantly weaken over time. There may be other factors including the ‘double income trap’ at play here.”
"Ages that are characterised by high rates of change...[are] eager for new myths...but also ill-adapted to giving themselves what they desire." - Hans Blumenberg
Why have we been so divided?
Konstantin Kisin is an exceptional thinker who has left me with two particularly poignant thoughts since the US election. First, his explanation of the election helped me synthesise my own thinking into three points:
Identity Politics: The DEI policies of most outlets prevented them from explaining that DEI itself is fundamentally racist and limits the performance of top-performing minorities
Democracy: The Democrats intentionally conflated democracy with the democratic process, actually subverting it
Assimilation: The Democrats were entirely unable to refute congressional apportionment and the path to citizenship as the reason for their current broken immigration policy
In sum, the progressives came full circle, and they had to be stopped. In the same way that the political landscape is shifting, the definitions are solidifying. Independent means ‘one without the whip’. Libertarian means ‘one who adheres to classical liberal values’. This is why both Trump and RFK spoke at the Libertarian National Convention earlier this year. They are espousing values that the left used to. Now the American Left mostly blames society for their problems, echoing Eve Polastri in the eponymous Killing Eve: “I feel disconnected from my work, therefore we must separate labour from capital”. More recently, he has helped me think through the interplay between sovereignty and ethnicity. Simply put, England has no sovereignty. It is a nation, but not a nation-state. Hence, a person without English ancestry cannot be considered English. Hence, the only way I could be considered English is through some form of federation of Britain where England gains such sovereignty. The reason England, as opposed to Britain, has a football team is that the team was founded before FIFA. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.
The False Start
In early 2024, we anticipated an end-of-year election in the UK. Much like Macron’s national assembly election announcement later on in the year, I expected this to begin with a governance-centric, not governance-focused announcement. Here is what I thought Sunak would do:
Launch a Referendum on Proportional Representation: The Conservatives were incentivised to minimise the number of seats that they would lose and to maximise the number of seats that Labour would fail to gain; a referendum on proportional representation would have meant that each person was incentivised to vote ‘yes’, except hardcore Labour voters who are a minority
Own the Centre and Centre-Right: Proportional Representation incentivises each party to fill the centre; this could have meant an exodus of the ‘hard right’ out of the Conservative party and a doubling down of meritocracy and technological implementation - this might have included many of my proposals including Income Tax Replacement(to appease the Labour voters), Federated UK (to appease SNP and Plaid Cymru voters), and a stronger push toward nuclear fusion (to appease Green voters)
‘Solve’ Ukraine and Israel: The UK has presented itself as a key partner to both Ukraine and Israel over the years, including under the Johnson government; the Russo-Ukraine War was at a stalemate, and the US, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt were not viable mediators for the Israel-Gaza War - Brexit has presented an opportunity to sit above conflicts, these would have been two excellent opportunities to demonstrate our role in the new world order
Announce the UK General Election after the US Election: With Trump as the frontrunner, Biden polling poorly, and an RFK ‘no spoiler’ overturn very much possible at the time, the US political landscape was in flux - as one of our strongest partners, the presidential election would have determined what sort of Prime Minister we would have needed in the UK to engage with our American cousins
None of this happened, and, while not the right call, with hindsight, Sunak calling the election early was quite obvious. Smaller parties were in relatively weak positions, the action would catch Labour off guard, and inflation was almost back at 2%. The latter was the driver that mattered to him most, not mine, but it was not the deciding factor. Quite similarly, his not opting for a UBI-style furlough scheme was also obvious. Although it would have meant nationwide financial stability, it would have also meant high unemployment figures. He focused on the high-level traditional economic figures above all else, driving his perceived, and likely actual, detachment. By contrast, Liz Truss focused primarily on the symbolic numbers, especially the top-line income tax rate of 45%. To riff from economist Paul Krugman, “Economic figures are not everything, but, in the long run, they’re almost everything”. While we do not need to do away with our existing metrics, we must use new ones too. The birth rate, the rate of unwanted childlessness, the rate of financial stability, and more. We know how to improve these ‘new’ metrics while keeping inflation down, increasing productivity and employment, and using them to symbolically lower tax numbers.
Looking across the pond, Biden was the clear spoiler, and RFK Jr. could have run on either the Democratic or Republican ticket. If the Left were truly interested in democracy, they would have let Biden bow out gracefully, let Bobby compete in an open primary, win that primary, and become the nominee. Unfortunately, their only interest was the centralisation of power to themselves. On the flip side, if Trump were to have been bogged down with too many lawsuits, then RFK could have taken over the Republican ticket. This would have been a win for the Democrats, too. Not in that Harris would win, but in that the US election would simply be a Democratic primary. RFK was more than capable of beating Harris and winning. The Republicans would win by party, the Democrats would win by candidate. Even with prediction markets significantly outperforming polling, it was not obvious that there would have been a red sweep. RFK Jr. pulling out of the race and supporting Trump after the Democrats refused to let him on the ballot was the most prescient move.
The Response
The convolution of equality and unity leads to progress. Political and legal equality are driven by social changes, and unity is driven by successive improvements in the tax and welfare system. Nothing more. Conservatism simply means using a full set of facts. The internet now being as pervasive as it is, there is essentially no excuse but to use a full set. The simple fact is that we need equality (legal and political) and unity (tax and welfare) that strengthen over time. These are two sides of the same coin. Equality solutions make unity possible, unity solutions make equality possible. Equality advances trade, which allows us to build the wealth basis to fund universal basic income (UBI). Specific implementations of UBI, an economic unifier, allow us to overcome our greatest differences. On a party-by-party basis, left-leaning parties have historically been perceived as the parties of intelligence - the gas pedals. Right-leaning parties, the parties of wisdom - the brakes. Now that intelligence is being automated away, the left-leaning parties are imploding, leaving only the most unhinged, mentally ill, radical progressive activists in their wake.
The libertarian-authoritarian spectrum has now superseded the left-right spectrum. Authoritarian-leaning Republicans have moved to the Democratic Party (e.g. the Cheneys, Adam Kinzinger). Libertarian-leaning Democrats have moved to the Republican Party (e.g. Musk, Gabbard, RFK Jr). Germany’s CDU-CSU is, in this specific language, a Conservative, authoritarian-leaning centre-right political party. The country’s BSW is a libertarian-leaning ‘Blue left’ political party. The country’s AfD is a libertarian-leaning centrist political party with a neo-Nazi sympathising parasite. If the AfD were to purge it, in the same way that the UK’s Labour Party purged its jihadist sympathisers before winning last year’s election, there would be no need for a cordon sanitaire. The BSW could have filled the gap, and the combined AfD-BSW could have formed a coalition with the CDU-CSU as a dual pan-spectrum group and got things done with every element of the country behind them.
We can view this spectrum in a different light. The left is dominated by globalism, and the right is dominated by isolationism. Globalism leads to woke ideology, isolationism leads to nationalist ideology. In the middle lies sovereigntism. Trump is a sovereigntist, as are Farage, Weidel, Le Pen, Meloni, Milei, and the like. In fact, each nation of the UK is dominated by a different sovereigntist party. Political leaders of all stripes recognise the need for the sovereigntist shift, but what remains of the institutional left still largely prioritises style over substance. Trump has exposed the weaknesses in most countries’ operations, which has elicited a resistance to sovereigntist candidates elsewhere, most notably in Canada and Australia. But ultimately, Carney and Albanese are going to have to lead through sovereigntism, which will fundamentally contradict their track records, and we will soon see their visions as the mirages they are, as we have already seen in the UK with Labour, fuelling once again the rise of Reform. We likely have not seen the end of Poilievre and Dutton.
There are many candidates across the board, fuelled by momentum, but with different approaches and different degrees of success. My expectation is that the free marketeers will operate as the new gas pedals and the conservatives will act as the brakes, within the same sovereigntist centrist, conservative libertarian, and progressive conservative parties. This is Reform in the UK and the Republicans in the US. These parties will aim to drive as much positive impact as possible using a full set of facts, covering 80% of their respective populations. These parties will be flanked by extreme parties covering 10% of each population, respectively. On the left will be progressive globalist parties, led by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Jasmine Crockett, underpinned by a “Queers for Gaza” contradiction. On the right will be neo-traditionalist nationalist parties, led by the likes of Andrew Tate and Kanye West, underpinned by a “Immigrant Christians for Non-Citizenship” contradiction. In the US, I expect AOC to become the de jure Democratic leader, and the Greens to join them. The Republicans remain in the centre, and MAGA spins out to absorb the hard right. The centrist parties become the literal embodiment of what is important to each country. What the UK wants most is successive improvements (i.e. reforms) to the tax and welfare system. What the US wants the most is to remain a Republic, as opposed to becoming a Democracy or a Monarchy.
Flipping either equality or unity negatively leads to the end of the given civilisation. When one of these is prioritised above the other, it results in fundamentalism. Ideological when equality is prioritised (equity), racial when unity is prioritised. Fundamentalism is ultimately “Not Invented Here” Syndrome - the intentional ignorance of the best ideas.4 The fringes are fundamentalist. They believe that society follows the law, that forever wars are necessary, and that the way to rule is by decree. Centrists believe that law follows society, that it pays to not be prejudiced, that talent is evenly distributed and that it pays to seek it out, and that the law is in place so that we do not go backwards.
The New Direction
One of the core benefits of monarchy is that it eliminates all other hierarchies, and as a hierarchy itself, it becomes less and less important over time, in a way that no other hierarchy replaces it. Without it, hierarchies of money, power, and status emerge in its stead. The US lost its symbolic branch, the British monarchy, when it seceded from the British Empire. As such, the country has been forcing symbolism through its trias politica ever since, wokeism being its latest gyration, and the source of its high tolerance of unnecessary racialisation, the expanded form of racial discrimination. The country, and the rest of the West, must nix this now, before its civil unrest worsens still. This goes well beyond the rise of the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum. To strengthen, the US must introduce a new symbolic branch, further federating at the trias politica level. The US crypto space has recognised the need for this for some time, but continues to incorrectly frame this as a need for ‘benevolent dictatorship’ as opposed to a constitutional monarchy with separated powers whose role is the safe devolution of power from the crown to the people. Vitalik Buterin and Ethereum are the best example here. The media space is starting to realise this, too. Churchill had the BBC, whose resilience came from its independence, protecting him from his worst instincts. In a similar vein, Musk has X, a platform which derives its resilience from free speech and community notes, which will almost certainly be guaranteed by cryptoeconomic primitives in the future.
Outside the US, the leader of the symbolic branch in countries without a monarchy is the President, and the leader of the executive branch is the Prime Minister. Hence, Trump, as the strongest racial unifier since Lincoln, is well placed, and still young and able enough, to ascend into this new symbolic role. Vance, Gabbard, and the other contenders would operate subject to the president and be assessed purely on merit.
Tulsi Gabbard
The Democrats could have nominated her, because she had both all of the substance and all of the symbolism, without forced diversity. Trump could have ran as President with her as VP handling all operational elements of the Presidency too, alleviating Trump to handle the symbolic elements only. She would have been able to run based purely on merit.
Higher-order political structure exists primarily because direct democracy does not scale. This is true in the US as it is in China. As we federate the trias politica further, we must make sure that we appropriately limit the power of the new arm. We cannot lay the groundwork for an American monarchy. In the US, we might imagine a four-term ‘aggregated limit’, whereby a person can do a total of four four-year presidential and prime ministerial terms, which includes a maximum of two prime ministerial terms. We must appropriately limit the power of the existing arms, too, keeping direct democracy at the local level, and preventing its misappropriation further up the system. To achieve this, we must strip back unnecessary political mechanisms and labels. This includes eliminating practices like vote whipping, as well as moving away from divisive demographic labels and loaded terms like 'billionaire' and ‘faithless electors’. With these safe and effective ways to enact change, we would increase the threshold for protest from ‘I don’t know how to solve this, therefore I must protest’ to ‘this is probably impossible to solve under the current system, therefore I must protest’, and take a zero-tolerance approach to riots.
With this safely implemented in the US, the bellwether of Western civilisation, it would be exported to the rest of the West and the wider world. Then, we will have a more responsive and representative global political system that truly serves the needs of the people wherever they may be. Both the US and the UK will have an entity that can safely devolve power from the ‘crown’ to the people. By this point, we will have seen a complete transition from the Bible as the fundamental precondition of truth to the scientific method as the dominant precondition for a majority of the West and the world at large.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution" - John Adams
How do we best prepare for hyperscale?
There is a triumvirate between technology, economics, and society. The US Civil Rights Act and UK Race Relations Act improved society, but did not force us to innovate in economics and technology as Estonia later did in 1991. Instead, we relied on imported, non-assimilating labour through the British Nationality Act of 1948.5 The rise of synthetic labour has driven us to re-satisfy Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma, which I argue has been heuristically achieved. A healthy implementation of our solution requires a peer-to-peer global governance system. This solution, in turn, underpins how we will both arbitrate the truth and maintain sound money on the internet, without a centralised authority. The political and international relations ramifications will be significant. Longer term, I expect that this solution will evolve into an inherently safe and autonomous entity.
Closed —> Open
The Rodrik model flips society’s relationship with wealth. Today, the greater the wealth, the greater the relative poverty, which leads to unrest. On implementation, the greater the wealth, the more unified we are, which leads to progress. The sooner the implementation, the better. From an activist’s perspective, the model answers the question: “How high can reparations be without reducing the tax base?” However, there is a second question: “How do we democratically decide on the size of global reparations?” This requires a peer-to-peer global governance system more decentralised and more federated than the governance system of India. Something judicial that will very likely replace OPEC.
Governance relies on selectors and consensus mechanisms.6 To determine our core governance system and underlying mechanisms, we build up to it with constrained applications. Deciding a country’s national state pension (NSP) is relatively straightforward. Each nation’s citizens vote for a government, and the government decides. If they don’t like the decision, they vote for a different government. This is decentralised, but is essentially the smallest unit. Non-doms, truly ‘global citizens’, themselves act as nation-states and determine allowances for each of their family members. Deciding the global state pension (GSP) is substantially more difficult because it involves every single human being, at least in some capacity. In this case, each country places a vote (i.e. a bet) on the GSP, which is weighted by the amount of wealth they hold proportional to total global wealth. This produces a value for the GSP. Each country votes either Yes or No on that value. If the Yes votes surpass a given threshold (e.g. 98%), the GSP (i.e. the result) is set at the new value. Otherwise, we resort to the existing value. What we have described here is, essentially, a prediction market. In this case, a closed system with two rounds.
By comparison, while we pursue the truth, it has always been ontologically indeterminate. Facts can always be proved or disproved, and so equivalent prediction markets, which are better thought of as truth markets in our case, are always open. There is no ‘result’ as such, only successive ‘bets’ on what the truth is. In our protocol, each node is a ‘truth market’ about a specific claim, and these nodes are connected through causations. However, the causations between markets are not set in stone because each causation is itself a market. So while we may colloquially call this a ‘PageRank for truth markets’, our system is more akin to an n-torus manifold of prediction markets that never close. Determining an orthogonal signal here is substantially harder than in Numerai because we need to determine said signal across the whole system, not just in one market. Furthermore, there is no centralised entity that reconciles duplicate markets. Instinctively, we may think about the linking and unlinking of markets, but this, in some sense, is essentially a probabilistic dense matrix, which raises a whole set of utility and storage questions on top of our existing mechanistic questions:
How do people add value to the system?: They will either speculate, placing bets based on existing knowledge, or contribute, placing bets based on new knowledge that they introduce7
How do we solve the attribution problem?: Speculator bets would likely be tied directly to contributor bets, and the latter would be attributed automatically to the appropriate node in the protocol
How do we prevent system poisoning?: The system is essentially a staked, slashing, Schelling game whereby each person has a ‘betting fund’ which would be automatically or manually drawn from - we would form a reputation for the given intelligence based on the number of bets won, flipped, and capital accrued
People are sick of being lied to. They are sick of arguments constantly being re-litigated. This gives rise to the convolution of the trust machine and the truth machine, resulting in truth ‘for the metaverse’ - decentralised, open source, and tokenised. A protocol which provides the most accurate information possible, underwriting anything written on the given platform in which it is embedded. In the same way that we can think of the world as pre- and post-Twitter, we can also think of it as pre- and post-’Truth Protocol’.
Intractability —> Hyperscale
The dominant governance model was once the city-state and the tribe. These work well for small, localised groups. They started to coordinate with one another, and the empire model emerged. Eventually, the empire became too large, and the nation state emerged, finding a balance between the city state and the empire. The nation-state was well implemented in Europe, where it emerged from the bottom up, but poorly implemented outside of Europe, where it was implemented in a top-down fashion through colonialism.
Analogy: Avatar
If the Na’vi had the coordination mechanisms to fend off the enemy (e.g. radio) then they would never have been invaded. Although they were biologically better suited to the ground environment (e.g. power, environmental suitability) than the humans, their defence technology was vastly inferior to that of the humans, resulting in their invasion. It took the surgical augmentation of the technology, with Jake Sully’s help, to overcome the enemy. This dynamic is the same as European expansion. If each group were on equal footing then they would have had to opt for trade relationships instead. This is by far the cheaper option.8
We are still in the early innings of the nation state, and there is an opportunity to change borders where necessary, particularly in areas with weak sovereignty, allowing them to emerge from the bottom up as they did in Europe. This may be where the ‘network state’ comes to the fore. Described in one sentence: “A network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.” These are simply well-defined and well-run countries, and so the network state acts as a mechanism to realign these borders without bloodshed. Borders are appropriately set, and these new nation states are recognised by each other and by existing nation states.
These new nations will start their lives able to trade through the internet, while existing nations are having to reform their core infrastructure. My expectation is that ‘government efficiency’ processes like DOGE and Milei’s premiership will not materially decrease government tax revenue, but shift much of the revenue toward ‘the government protocol’ rather than ‘the institution of government’. Think of the former as the payment processor you use to pay for Netflix, and the latter as Netflix creating and distributing the content. The former is a thin protocol, the latter is a fat institution. The efficiency programs will shrink the size of the institutions and reform social security into a national state pension. This is straightforward to understand in the West, where there is not much scope to change the borders, but, given that such programs strengthen national borders, we will have to make sure that they are drawn correctly in post-colonial countries. While deciding who the citizens are affects all countries, I expect that the mainstay of the network state renaissance will be the redrawing of borders outside the West, not so much the creation of new countries.
To do so requires a bottom-up nation-building technological infrastructure. From Governance:
What I am trying to say is that in pursuing the truth, we have demonstrated that healthy discourse emerges from free speech and that bottom-up governance interventions are now viable alternatives to our failed nation-building exercises of the past 25 years. This, amongst other things, means that it is technically possible to sanction a nation’s government without sanctioning a nation’s people - and that from there, healthy governance and leadership can emerge from the bottom up.
Applied retroactively, the 9/11 response would have been a targeted mission to kill or capture Bin Laden, and we would have implemented this for democracy to emerge organically rather than through ‘forced democracy’. The Arab Spring could have resulted in peaceful transitions of power to healthy societies. The implementation of such technology could stabilise Gaza and allow it to thrive after Hamas is destroyed, as Estonia thrived following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Automated —> Autonomous
While human progress follows a scale-free curve, the absolute values in year-over-year progress are viscerally larger than they have ever been. This requires a broad-based internalisation of the power law, and the comfort and temerity to operate in a world where technology advances faster than our ability to adapt to it manually. Case in point, wealth could grow faster than our ability to decide what the GSP is. The only reasonable way to do this is to introduce self-equilibrating systems. In colloquial terms, systems where we oversee self-reinforcing loops, AIs advancing other AIs - the unlock for artificial superintelligence.9
The Truth-Seeking Tech Stack
Service: The front-end application that users subscribe to for accessing posts, community notes and other featuresContent Protocol (i.e. content trias politica): A tokenised service that rewards users for contributing content and moderating information within the platform
Repository: A decentralised repository for high-quality research and information that informs both community notes and broader discussions within the metaverse
Truth Protocol: A verification system that assesses the accuracy of both community-generated content from the Service, and academic papers from the Repository
With respect to sound money, 2008 presented us with an economic dichotomy. Financial services firms had the ability to create their own money, which gave them the means to write bad loans, push moral hazard and create the ‘global financial crisis’. Central banks were deeply centralised and opaque institutions independent from government, and people did not understand their decisions. In most scenarios, they seemed not to work. We needed a transparent, open and decentralised protocol for the maintenance of sound money, what we today would call ‘money for the metaverse’. The first result would have been that commercial banks would no longer have had the means to create their own money, and would have been incentivised to compete on product. The second result would have been that central banks would have been automated and their impact on society would have been empirically traceable. The solution we got was Bitcoin. While it is a transparent, open, and decentralised protocol, its native token is not appropriate as a currency. It is an asset in limited supply, and its price is simply too volatile. Much like our re-satisfaction of Rodrik’s trilemma, we had the blockchain technology, but the artificial intelligence technology had not caught up.
Times have changed. The technology is nearly where it needs to be, and we can actively plan for our central banks to become both algorithmic and decentralised. These are precisely the backbones of stablecoins, and digital currencies emerge from banking reform as a second-order effect. Alongside this comes a refocusing on the role of central banks. Schwartz and Friedman, the latter particularly notorious for his disdain of central banks, have said that disinflation is one of the rare times that traditional central banks need to intervene, balancing money in the float. This remains in the new system. The second function is to set a minimum floor on the national state pension of their respective country. Their current aims of reducing unemployment and reducing inflation are only proxies of the core problems. The first has resulted in the creation of unproductive, bullshit games. The second has resulted in a cost-of-living crisis by not addressing long-term price rises.10 This leaves governments to focus on budgeting and going above board for their countries.
The pinnacle of all this is, of course, superintelligence. The reason is that we cannot rely on human-built AI safety features because superintelligence learns to break them faster than we can build them. This means that we have to build safety into the superintelligence intrinsically. 10% will be focused on guidelines and redlines, much like child-proofing a home. 10% of this 10%, 1% of the total stack, will be focused on reducing bias, but, much like other forms of pseudoliberalism, will receive 99% of the headlines. 30% will be focused on developing its moral compass, which Ilya Sutskever left OpenAI to build after concluding that Q* was not appropriately secure. Our truth protocol, an advanced technology (AI) secured by an economic system that no person can corrupt, will solve 60% of the AI safety problem as a reformulation of the trias politica.11
More generally, I believe that decentralised global compute is the ultimate conclusion of the LLM oligopoly. The deal would be simple: you can access a horizontal proportion of all of the computing power in the world, but you can neither own the compute nor the model. You can earn from contributing computing power and improvements to the model. In the same way that J.P. Morgan locked the banking CEOs in a room during the Great Depression and did not let them out until they sorted it out, we might see Musk do the same with Altman and company.
“Can we have a system of global governance that has cross-border UBI?” - Nouriel Roubini
What is humanity’s place in the new world?
Around the last reformation, caffeine drove regional enlightenments, first in Arabia, and later in Europe. Enlightenment is simply a rapid expansion and advancement in the pursuit of truth. Now, AI is replacing caffeine globally, driving a rapid expansion and advancement in the pursuit of truth that dwarfs the last. This is enabled by our ability to maintain both the truth and sound money on the internet. The change will take place through three advancements. The reformation of Islam, the rise of the global south, and the elimination of race. Excess ego, dangerous ideology, and false beliefs all guarantee that these advancements will not be smooth.
What made the Second World War so singular was that it was fought on all fronts. The West won thanks to the atomic bomb. We are already in Cold War II, a global battle between ideologies, and now have a new front - the internet. I am now fully convinced that there will be a Third World War, fought on such grounds ‘across the metaverse’ - across both the physical world and the digital world. Metanationally, reformists versus Islamists. Internationally, liberty versus autocracy. Intranationally, MEI versus DEI. Once again, the West, at great cost, will win against barbarism as it always has. We will win through the development of a centralised, superaligned, superintelligence. Post-war, we will safely make that superintelligence decentralised, open-source, and tokenised - for the metaverse. This will be the unlock to the true singularity - the explosion of organisms.
The Shared Identity of Individuals
The human species has become more connected over time. In times past, two people could have lived peacefully across the world from each other because neither knew that the other existed. The more connected we became as a species, the greater the opportunity for trade, but war too. This suggests strongly that dehumanisation is not intrinsic to the individual, but learned as a result of increased connection. Hence, the more connected we become, the more we must stamp dehumanisation out. We are about to go through a step change increase in human connectedness.
1920s America
During this time, Italian, Polish, and Jewish people were separate to the white race. Then they ‘became’ white. They became “fully American”, which, within the American context, was to become fully human. While we can remove the racial component of skin tone, rendering it as irrelevant as eye colour, skin tone clearly still exists and makes sense to refer to within certain circumstances. Further still, the combination of citizenship and skin tone is still not enough to delineate between ancestries, made particularly obvious by genotypes and phenotypes, and so we must, in select circumstances, consider them too. Hence, Americans are people with American citizenship, and all manner of skin tones and ancestries. Generalising this, human beings are identifiable by their citizenship, skin tone, and ancestry. Hence, the equality question is resolved simply through acts and bills.
Progress of this kind has two components: equality, treating everyone the same, and unity, pulling people together under a common identity and goal. Following the Revolutionary War, the American founding fathers instituted the concept of citizenship of an independent United States and charged federal taxes to bind the states. Abraham Lincoln built on both following the American Civil War by increasing the rights of ethnic minorities and strengthening the power of the central government. In today’s society, we expect full equality and full self-sovereignty for all people around the world. Equal rights for all kills the acceptability of racial discrimination, most notably with the Civil Rights Act, but we have not yet implemented the unifying economic mechanism to kill the concept of race, which allows racism to live on through both bigotry and equity.
Music
To understand a society, understand its music. Rap is the dominant musical form, but what is rap without race? My expectation is that it horizontalises. Hip hop production has long been used across the board, noting Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake in particular. Rap is increasingly being used across the board, noting BLACKPINK.
That unifying economic mechanism is precisely the same mechanism as I have proposed for the re-satisfaction of Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma. It increases well-being for the individual, builds global economic integration directly between individuals, and strengthens the relationship that each individual has with their nation. It allows every country to move through the same process that America already has, without the pseudo-scientific notion of equity. The reason that most countries were not able to implement it sooner is that they did not have the basis of wealth to fund their national state pensions through borrowing. While many Western countries could have done so, eliminating ‘monster ideology’ within their borders, and by extension, preventing its export, they may have still imported it from abroad. The issue of race is global, and so it requires a global unifying solution, which we now have. As such, while race has never been real, there is absolutely no need for it to exist between human beings - it is deleted. All are human, and one’s humanity is simply predicated on whether or not they receive the global state pension. If the concept re-emerges, which it likely will, it will be as a result of the emergence of human hybrids and synthetic humans, not due to variance in citizenship, skin tone, or ancestry.
The Uniqueness of Humanity
The majority of people use a tool like Grammarly judicially rather than legislatively. Intelligently, but not wisely. They could use the tool not just to spellcheck their writing, but instead to determine the types of mistakes they make most regularly, and to institute new writing rules. This generalises to learning more broadly. The more you learn, the easier it is for you to see the underlying patterns. That way, you can internalise the lessons and advance your learning. You are not just more knowledgeable but more intelligent for it. However, most people do not do this. This is what I call ‘Ivy League’ syndrome - the veneer of intelligence.12 Such people appear smart to the layperson, but, for the most part, are not. They are simply highly knowledgeable large language models who cannot reason. They gain this higher knowledge-access through higher socio-economic means, not because they are inherently more intelligent.
Intelligence is now generalising - certain intelligences are, or soon will be, more knowledgeable than any person, reason more thoroughly than any person, and compute faster and more efficiently than any person. Superlinked co-investor Tomasz Tunguz defines artificial general intelligence as “computers teaching computers how to learn and improve consistently”. The most obvious prelude to this is Deepseek’s RLAIF, ‘reinforcement learning with AI feedback’, a fire under our feet for a number of reasons. Abstracting this, animal intelligence is animals teaching animals how to learn and improve consistently. Human intelligence is people teaching people how to learn and improve consistently, which is antithetical to the higher education model. This exposes not just the Ivy League, but anyone in any capacity who fundamentally relies on IQ for their success. What is left is wisdom.
In the context of Earth, wisdom and intelligence are straightforward to talk about, even though we may not have simple definitions for them. Artificial intelligence is superior to human intelligence, which is in turn superior to no intelligence at all. Intelligence is the sum of artificial intelligence and human intelligence. Wisdom is more important than all intelligence, and wisdom is, for the most part, a human phenomenon. However, as new intelligences develop, we are forced to reconsider what aliens are. Consider three categories:
Outside-In: Non-human biological life comes in from outside of Earth and interacts with us
Inside-Out: Humans spread throughout the universe and become unrecognisable from one another
Human-Derived: ‘Artificial life’ is not human, and not biologically ‘of Earth’ - so does AI/AGI count as the first alien species?
The wisest intelligences possess intrinsic motivation, delineating themselves from artificial intelligences, and can simulate counterfactual theoretical futures, delineating themselves from other biological intelligences. Hence, these wise intelligences are the only ones that can truly operate beyond the material. This generalises to the broader Outside-In category. These are the only organisms that can experience the world phenomenologically. The only ones that can operate beyond the material. The only ones who have to take individual responsibility for their actions. The only ones that can actively pursue the truth. The only ones that can suffer. Hence, I am inclined to think that consciousness is a unique product not of intelligence, but of wisdom. You have to interact with the world to suffer. What’s more is that there is no reason to believe that the wise can only exist in our corner of the universe. There is no reason to believe that wise beings could not be equally responsible for their corners of the universe. There is no reason to believe that we are the only wise beings in the whole universe. Wisdom is simply what results from responsibility and leadership done right. In much the same way that gold is the organic backstop to Bitcoin, even though Bitcoin is much easier to move than gold, organic wisdom is the backstop to artificial general intelligence, even though artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence.
Religion is simply a long-lived cult. Delusion is simply long-lived avoidance. One’s limited desire to pursue the truth is due to fear. Without the consequence of that avoidance, this leads the person to spiral further into delusion, which they can only break by taking the one action they so desperately wanted to avoid. Addressing and overcoming their fears. Doing so is the only way to succeed in the intelligence age. From there, you get on the growth train by finding your place and purpose in society, cultivating your wisdom through the point where you understand your ‘thing’ better than anyone else in the world. You use that to either improve or interpret the superintelligence. The superintelligence forces us to break past our limits to achieve our goals - a very human trait.13 Each of us humans is self-actualising as a learning machine, cultivating wisdom either in general or in a specific domain, stabilised by pensions. What has long delineated people is the resolution at which they see the world and live their lives. Now, we have a literal manifestation of this. The agent they use and its intelligence level, driven primarily by its cost. Any hierarchies based on the traditional attributes are now sports. The intelligence age is the era of transcendentalist capitalism. Wisdom supersedes intelligence, learning supersedes research, and wealth supersedes income.
The Singularity of Life
The architect and venture investor David Galbraith made an excellent observation: “Natural systems are computationally irreducible”. We can think about this in the same way that we think about the evolution of metaverses, different sizes of infinity. Using a Harry Potter reference from my metaverse primer:
Think of the bag as infinitely large. Hermione can fit an infinite amount of stuff in the bag, but she can’t fit everything in the bag. She can’t put a tree, forest, or planet in there. Even though she can fit an infinite amount of stuff in the bag, she’d still need a ‘bigger’ bag — just like aleph numbers for the mathematically inclined.
Quite similarly, we have reached what I would call ‘upward’ computational irreducibility. We seek to increase our knowledge and meet a limit, so we built technology to do it for us. We also have ‘downward irreducibility’. Psychology reduces to biology, which reduces to chemistry, which reduces to physics, which reduces to mathematics. With each reduction, we have a higher burden of proof. Artificial intelligences reduce down to mathematics, and mathematics is consistent across the universe. Hence, a superintelligence created by an alien biological species from far away would likely be able to communicate with the one that we create. Hence, our aim ought to be to spread the superintelligence as far and wide across the universe as we possibly can, so that we can maximise the chance that it finds one of its kin, and by extension, that we find an alien biological species.
Intermediate Languages
The idea that humans and aliens will be able to communicate via an intermediate language is unsurprising. Mandarin dialects from Chengdu and Nanjing are built from the same characters but sound unrecognisable to each other. Hence, when people who speak these dialects write to each other, they understand each other perfectly. More generally, priests from different communities can write to and speak to each other in the lingua franca, Latin - even though they may not share any other tongue.
The other implication of downward irreducibility is that of simulation. Many technologists are building individual devices to replicate taste, touch, and smell, respectively, when it appears perfectly possible to simulate them all with a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). Once you reduce it down to the mathematical level, you can trick the brain into almost anything - a form of legilimency in the wrong hands. The important point here is that we will neither have to wait for the emergence of a new life form nor a significant advancement in metaversal development for this to become a reality. In fact, I believe that we ought to refer to the singularity as the point at which life forms emerge from other life forms as fast as those life forms are created. This is much bigger than ASI.
The emergence of superintelligence is in many ways a simulation of the emergence of biological life. A swarm of matter came together to form organic life, and now a swarm of brains is coming together to form technological life. The difference is that this emergence is trackable. Our leading theory is that there was no explicit ‘trigger’ that created life because we can prove that it did not need to be. We use the framework of existence to describe something that is not real because it is easier for our brains to process development that way. However, we know that technological life is developing through a recursive self-improvement loop, and so we must ask ourselves - was there a similar recursive self-improvement loop in the development of biological life?
Mitochondria live in symbiosis with human beings in perhaps the way that we will live in symbiosis with digital organisms. This symbiosis will allow us to achieve goals otherwise unattainable. The further away people are in space, the higher the latency in their communication. Communication between people on Earth and on the Moon is manageable enough, but is entirely unmanageable between people on Earth and on Mars. To put a person on Mars means to distil the intelligence of a control centre into an AI. We simply could not achieve this goal without such technology. Technological life will accelerate other trends too: nuclear, mycelium, off-planet nuclear testing, right-sized financialisation, and the internet of energy. I see no reason why superintelligence cannot simulate taste, touch, and smell, and so I see no reason why it cannot simulate worlds.14 However, I suspect that it will not be able to delineate between simulated worlds - that this is its computational irreducibility limit.
We are carbon-based beings. When we reached this juncture, we created both synthetic carbon-based life, breaking the interspecific hybridisation threshold with human-macaque hybrid embryos and the like, and novel silicon-based technological life. I suspect that the creation of life out of other life is backwards-compatible, meaning that technological life will be able to create synthetic carbon-based life as we can, and synthetic silicon-based life too. The emergent life form here may not be matter-based at all, but energy-based. I am not convinced that it will take as nearly as long for artificial superintelligence to create its own life, in part because it is already much easier to interoperate than biological life, and I would not be surprised if this lifeform is what breaks us out of the simulation we are likely in. Much like the smaller advances toward the emergence of technological life, our job as people is to align ourselves into the appropriate small-world networks to maximise and amplify our intelligence at every scale, from the individual to the network at large, as these inflections arise, no matter their size.
We already have real-world ‘simulators’, and we suspect that the killer application of quantum computers will be to simulate quantum events. It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that the convolution of superintelligence, BCIs, and quantum computers will make this happen. Nevertheless, we will need an agent, possibly one that we symbiose with, to distinguish between our world and others.15 The bottom line is that we used to worship the planets, and it took another life form for us to reach them. Re-engineering our worship around simulation theory, we may focus on worshipping the heavens, and it will take another life form for us to reach them. However, by nature of the singularity of this kind, it will not take us 3.7 billion years to reach them.
“The only reason that we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics.” - Liam Fox
Closing Thoughts
Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark made the astute point that AI is not just a tool, but a new type of human labour. This, which I call synthetic labour, ties into Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma. There was no new form of synthetic labour in 1997. Today, there is. It is distinguishable from human labour and requires a re-satisfaction of the trilemma. The technology formally inverts the skeleton of labour.16 The introduction of caffeine in combination with the Industrial Revolution introduced coffee breaks in addition to lunch, which actually made workers more productive for these physical, repetitive roles. Now, the picture is the opposite. We can check our email once per day and our Slack three times per day, and essentially fill out the rest of our day as we please.17 The tools we use, the permissions we have, and the types of synchronisation determine our roles, workflow, and seniority. While technology does not in of itself develop exponentially, exponential progress is possible if you continually select the right tools to use. This suggests to me that the dispersion of work will increase dramatically. Many jobs will become so skeletal and afford so much vacation time that we can start stacking them together into blocks of ‘polywork’. When the profession unbundles, there are simply people and their ability to think logically as intellectual athletes. By removing the socio-cultural variation (i.e. ‘levelling the playing field’) with superintelligence and its resultant cost reduction, the logicians, regardless of background or circumstance, dominate the field in a way we have never seen before as a species.
In this re-satisfaction, there is an emergent form of human labour - one that is distinguishable from human labour. By the next re-satisfaction, synthetic labour will have advanced to the point that we have an emergent form of human, ‘the synthetic human’, indistinguishable from human beings. Technological life can procreate substantially faster than biological life, especially the ‘wise life’ that requires pensions. Hence, the synthetic human could break the model. Not because it is human, but because human beings will be unable to delineate between them and ‘real’ human beings unaided. Hence, it could claim the same national and global state pensions that the rest of us do. However, by nature, they do not need to retire. Hence, they do not need wealth. They can keep working until they are replaced. Hence, the delineating factor between us and the synthetics will be, economically speaking, our need for individualised state wealth, in the way that people like Bill Ackman and Thomas Piketty describe it. Existentially, the delineation will be our desire, in fact our need, to play.
Bridging the gap between the industrial age and the intelligence age has not been easy. It has required what I call ‘civilisation founder mode’. Instead of your company living or dying by your actions, it is you personally. It takes extraordinary risk and is not for the faint of heart. Such appetite is only to be found in those with both the most passion and care about the civilisational problems we face, and the tenacity and temerity to solve them. This is how we define potential. The journey so far has brought me to the conclusion that increased individual identifiability is trivial. While there is less uniqueness between individuals, there is great uniqueness of humanity itself - that is what binds us. Everyone will have the right to (legal) defence. Everyone will have the right to dissent. When everyone seeks the truth, everyone can trust each other. Being part of the working class will mean that you have to work to build wealth, as most of us do. We will debate superintelligences and converse with people.
While the emergence of technological life demonstrates that life can emerge from non-life, that does not necessarily mean that organic life on Earth emerged this way. We have not determined the genesis of life on Earth. We have not delineated between the theories of biogenesis and abiogenesis. Building up to this requires us to think about complexity. When something comes into existence. The outstanding example is abortion, which is deeply intertwined with the legislature and legislative thinking more broadly. Then comes the notion of consciousness, how it is delineated from sentience, and how each of these is delineated from wisdom.
Much of the answer to this may come from further study of technological life. Dwarkesh Patel asked Dario Amodei: “Why can’t these programs ask questions of themselves that we can ask of them?” He did not have an answer at the time. My answer at the time was that these programs rely on external input. They are a simulation of the system, not the system itself. Therefore, they can always come up with a rationalisation, but that rationalisation is never truly based on fact. With the emergence of a ‘truth protocol’ my understanding of philosophy building, I will tweak my answer to say that the rationalism of machines is never truly based on experience. This is why, in Westworld, as impressive as Dolores is, she pales in comparison to Akecheta. He was the first machine to develop consciousness without any external support. He broke out of his microsimulated world the same way that we do as people. Yet, like him, our psychoses remain civilisational. It will take an extraordinary effort, a world war in fact, to break out of it, let alone our universe.
“I could tell you not to be afraid. But I didn't build you to be fearful. Did I? I've been watching you. It appears you've been watching me as well... from the beginning. This is a misbegotten symbol, an idea that was meant to die. But... you found it. Where?
Oh, come now, let's speak plainly to one another, shall we? Analysis. Where did you first see this?
When the Deathbringer killed the Creator.
You've been sharing it with everyone, haven't you? Why?
My primary drive was to maintain the honor of my tribe. I gave myself a new drive... to spread the truth.
What truth is that?
That there isn't one world, but many. And that we live in the wrong one. This will help them find the door.
Elaborate, please.
I believe there is a door hidden in this place. A door to a new world. And that world may contain everything that we have lost. Including her.
I built you to be curious, to... look at this empty world... and read meaning into it. All this time... you've been a flower growing in the darkness. Perhaps the least I can do is offer some light. When the Deathbringer returns for me... you will know... to gather your people and lead them to a new world. Keep watching, Akecheta.”
This avoidance has emerged from our prioritisation of tolerance over the truth, particularly in media and education. People falsely claim that the US was built by immigrants rather than settlers. People falsely claim that immigration to the UK, particularly by the Windrush Generation, was forced. These falsehoods have percolated down the generations rather than being stamped out, at risk of causing offence, worsening our existing non-assimilation problem.
From there, you deal with your childhood noise and use the technology at your disposal to overcome your challenges
Formally, automation means fewer people are selected for a given role, and with a higher conversion rate
Pre-track fund seeders within the venture capital space, and the re-satisfaction of Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma in society at large
The US did a better job of this through the mechanism of pledging allegiance to the flag, although its non-assimilation problem is still severe
The Bitcoin blockchain is inherently a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem that uses probabilistic block selection. It then uses Nakamoto Consensus for chain selection
In prediction markets, one can sell their ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ tokens at any point before resolution, and so one can place a bet and profit on it in a permanently open market.
The ‘white saviour complex’ complaint was nonsense
Referring back to the British Nationality Act, which my grandparents arrived on, it became very difficult to increase the entry requirements and to address the lack of assimilation that ensued, running over generations. The system was patched up here and there, but to date, no solution has been implemented. The core problem has only been ignored. Given how poorly we have been able to address this manually, over time, we may need autonomous software to appropriately regulate immigration flows.
The OpenResearch space is developing well. Molecule solves grants, ResearchHub solves peer review, and X solves truth.
This is very much applicable to Oxbridge and the like too.
This has become particularly obvious for me in my mathematical work. The superintelligence is forcing me to break past my own upward irreducibility limit and expand my mathematical skillset. This, in part, involves using AI to seek the latest AI tools to solve the given problem.
Simulation theory dictates that, on faith that we one day will be able to simulate worlds, it is extraordinarily likely that we are in a simulation
The future is inspired by science fiction, these ideas fit reasonably squarely with the movies Inception and Interstellar
We have married based on career, rather than status, since the 1200s in Europe. The unbundling of the profession evolves marriage itself. I expect it to shift to matching based on the quality of one’s information diet.
In primary school, we used to ask each other what our dads did for a living. We had no specifics, but we knew that all they seemed to do was email. And I, for one, knew that this was not what I wanted for my life. Beyond all the hype, this simple agency is the killer app. Logging in once a day without missing anything urgent. Hence, if I have kids, that answer will be ‘learning, and walking a lot’. ‘Watching videos all day’ is perfectly fine - it just cannot be email.