This article introduces the concept of Syntropolis—a global, inclusive, and decentralized democratic polity built upon synthetic intelligence and sustained by equitable AI revenue sharing. Moving beyond the notion of artificial intelligence, Syntropolis envisions a future structured through syntropy: the organization of systems toward higher order, cooperation, and inclusivity. Rather than centralizing power, syntropic intelligence underpins a new form of governance, aligning collective intelligence with distributed democratic stewardship. The framework is centered around mechanisms of sortition based deliberative decision making and oversight, and equitable revenue distribution to sustain a positive sum game polity. The paper develops a detailed institutional model capable of maintaining human agency in the age of synthetic intelligence.

Keywords: Synthetic Intelligence, Synthetic intelligence, Deliberative Democracy, Sortition, Citizens' Assemblies, Governance, Alignment, Public Policy, Technological Risk

The emergence of exponentially powerful Synthetic Intelligence systems represents a pivotal moment in human history. Synthetic intelligence slowly reaches the level at which it doesn't merely replicates human faculties, but can perform a wide range of intellectual functions at or above human level. Its potential to generate happiness, economic productivity, solve complex global problems, and reshape the fabric of society is immense. However, with such transformative capability comes unprecedented risk. Central among these is the issue of governance: who controls synthetic intelligence, how its benefits are distributed, and whether it will support or erode open societies.

Over the past decade, a growing body of research has warned about the profound risks posed by synthetic intelligence. Nick Bostrom (2014) highlighted the existential threats associated with superintelligent systems, advocating for strict precautionary principles and rigorous containment protocols. Brundage et al. (2018) emphasized a broader spectrum of societal risks, including synthetic misinformation, digital authoritarianism, inequality, and the militarization of AI technologies. Cave and ÓhÉigeartaigh (2018) outlined the regulatory vacuum surrounding AI governance, urging anticipatory and adaptive frameworks to safeguard against catastrophic outcomes.

Scholars such as Allan Dafoe (2018) and Eric Drexler (2019) have analyzed the strategic instability synthetic intelligence may introduce to global geopolitics, particularly through asymmetries in deployment and access. The Future of Life Institute, the Center for the Governance of AI, and the AI Now Institute have all contributed to mapping out these challenges, identifying both technical and institutional vulnerabilities.

Within this landscape of concern, Drago and Laine's "The Intelligence Curse" (2024) offers a compelling diagnosis: as synthetic intelligence systems become more capable and economically valuable, those who control them may no longer need the broader population's consent or labor. This disjunction between capability and accountability, they argue, could trigger a breakdown in the social contract, undermining democratic legitimacy and paving the way for corporate or technocratic dominance.

Taken together, these contributions underscore the urgent need for a solid approach for a distributed and transparent governance of synthetic intelligence. Without such mechanisms, synthetic intelligence may not only fail to address humanity’s most pressing challenges—it could become a multiplier of existing vulnerabilities.

This paper proposes a response to that challenge by introducing the model of Syntropolis: a governance system anchored in decentralized governance, sortition, and inclusive participation. Syntropy, a concept originating from physics and systems theory, refers to the tendency of systems to evolve toward higher levels of order, cooperation, and complexity. In contrast to entropy—which describes decay and disorder—syntropy embodies the dynamic force that builds life, coherence, and integration. Within the context of Syntropolis, syntropy offers a theoretical and ethical foundation for organizing a decentralized, participatory, and inclusive democratic society that harmonizes human and synthetic intelligence. Of course "Synt" also refers refers to synthetic, and "polis" to the concept of a common adventure of citizens.

Rather than centralizing SI in the hands of private corporations or unaccountable states, we argue that the stewardship of synthetic intelligence must reside with citizens themselves. Syntropolis is designed as a layered structure of randomly selected citizens’ assemblies that oversee, guide, and benefit from SI, ensuring that its deployment serves collective human needs rather than narrow private interests.

The conventional relationship between labor and capital is undergoing profound disruption. Historically, human labor has been indispensable to production, ensuring that economic elites required the consent, stability, and well-being of the general population. synthetic intelligence threatens this dependency. With machines capable of managing supply chains, writing legal contracts, designing infrastructure, and even formulating strategic policies, the labor of billions may become obsolete not gradually, but rapidly.

This raises significant political economy questions. If productivity can be extracted without labor, and if the owners of synthetic intelligence have exclusive access to its benefits, then the foundational justifications for redistribution, public services, and democratic bargaining diminish. The "intelligence curse"—analogous to the resource curse in petro-states—implies that the very power of synthetic intelligence could entrench inequality, reduce incentives for inclusive governance, and incentivize authoritarianism.

Moreover, synthetic intelligence’s capacity for manipulation—through deepfakes, narrative generation, and social modeling—compounds the risk. Elections could be swayed, populations pacified, and dissent anticipated and neutralized. In such a world, traditional checks and balances may be rendered obsolete. This dystopian vision is not inevitable, but absent a countervailing positive and attrative force, it remains dangerously plausible.

Deliberative decision making offers a powerful alternative to the logic of exclusion and concentration. It posits that legitimate authority arises not from periodic voting alone, but from inclusive, reasoned discussion among equals. Central to this tradition is sortition—the random selection of citizens to participate in decision-making. Unlike electoral systems, which tend to favor the wealthy, charismatic, or well-connected, sortition creates a body reflective of the broader population in demographics and perspective.

Citizens’ assemblies, employed in contexts ranging from ancient Athens to modern Ireland, France, and the European Union, have demonstrated their capacity to deliberate complex issues, reach consensus, and craft policy that enjoys broad legitimacy. Empirical studies show that given time, information, and respectful dialogue, ordinary citizens can outperform elites in making decisions that consider long-term societal impacts. In the context of synthetic intelligence, where the stakes are existential and the technology opaque, such assemblies offer a uniquely credible mechanism for oversight.

Deliberation also mitigates polarization. Unlike adversarial formats such as parliaments or media debates, citizens’ assemblies encourage understanding, empathy, and compromise. They are designed not to win arguments, but to reach informed, collectively beneficial conclusions. This is precisely the kind of political culture needed in an synthetic intelligence-mediated world.

The governance system we propose begins with a voluntary community—individuals who opt into a foundational compact to collectively develop, fund, and oversee a synthetic intelligence system. This bootstrapping phase can take several forms. One pathway involves pooling resources to acquire or license an existing foundational model, thereby securing immediate operational capacity while negotiating governance control. Another route centers on adapting and enhancing open-source synthetic intelligence models. In this case, the community collaboratively coordinates efforts to improve transparency, alignment, and utility, while ensuring the model reflects the founding values of syntropic governance. From the beginning, the process is designed to build not only a functional model but a self-aware polity, where governance is interwoven with the technical foundation it governs. These founding citizens establish constitutional principles, including commitments to transparency, inclusivity, equity, and ecological sustainability.

From this basis, a multi-layered sortition model is constructed. Multiple assemblies operate in parallel and in coordination, each with specific mandates. A Strategy Assembly deliberates on the long-term goals and ethical guardrails for synthetic intelligence. An Oversight Assembly monitors implementation, audits algorithms, and ensures adherence to established norms. A Budget Assembly allocates revenues and proposes investments. Finally, an Adjudication Assembly resolves disputes and interprets constitutional norms.

These assemblies are composed of randomly selected citizens serving limited terms. Participants are compensated for their time and provided with structured learning resources, expert briefings, and facilitation support. Their deliberations are transparent, recorded, and accessible to the broader public.

One of synthetic intelligence’s most immediate impacts will be its ability to generate economic value at scale. Whether through automated services, intellectual labor, or algorithmic trading, synthetic intelligence systems can produce surplus with minimal human input. The key governance question becomes: who benefits?

In our model, the surplus is not privatized but shared. A portion is distributed as a mini-UBI to all registered citizens. This ensures that the benefits of automation do not bypass the majority, and that a basic level of economic security is guaranteed. The UBI is calibrated to be sufficient for dignity but not disincentivizing to participation or innovation.

To facilitate this, a Web3 infrastructure underpins the system. Each citizen receives a decentralized identity credential anchored on a blockchain-based identity layer, ensuring uniqueness, privacy, and cross-jurisdictional verifiability. A soulbound NFT, distributed at inception and through continued onboarding, allows for transparent coordination of sortitions. A token supports the UBI distribution. Smart contracts manage mini-UBI disbursement and validate eligibility through verified participation. This infrastructure enables Syntropolis to remain trustless, censorship-resistant, and globally inclusive.

To prevent exclusivity and demographic stagnation, new citizens are added through a daily lottery. The number of entrants depends on surplus levels and systemic capacity. This lottery mechanism ensures diversity, continual renewal, and upward mobility. It also allows the polity to grow alongside the economy, maintaining legitimacy as a dynamic, living system.

synthetic intelligence’s cognitive capacities make it an unparalleled tool for modeling, forecasting, and policy analysis. However, its role in governance must remain advisory. We propose a strict separation between analysis and authority. synthetic intelligence provides simulations, data visualizations, and strategic recommendations, but decisions rest with human assemblies.

To facilitate this, all assemblies have access to synthetic intelligence interfaces designed for transparency and explainability. Citizens can question, challenge, and refine synthetic intelligence outputs. Facilitation includes AI literacy training and access to independent expert interpreters. synthetic intelligence systems are open-source and subjected to regular audits to prevent bias or hidden manipulations.

This approach turns synthetic intelligence into a cognitive exoskeleton for democratic deliberation—enhancing rather than replacing human judgment.

No governance system is complete without provisions for emergencies. In the case of synthetic intelligence, the need for a fast-acting, legitimate emergency mechanism is particularly acute. The Kill Switch Assembly is designed to fulfill this function. It consists of a large body of randomly selected citizens, tasked with one specific responsibility: to assess and, if necessary, deactivate synthetic intelligence systems under exceptional circumstances. These could include emergent alignment failures, manipulation of information ecosystems, or unauthorized operational escalation.

Members of the Kill Switch Assembly serve short terms, typically between two and three weeks, during which they remain on high alert and receive a stipend for their readiness. Their role is not to engage in standard deliberation but to act decisively based on transparent protocols and real-time intelligence. The assembly is activated upon verified alerts originating from AI monitoring systems, whistleblowers, or other assemblies.

Deliberation is fast but structured, supported by independent experts and real-time scenario analysis. The threshold for action is deliberately high—requiring supermajority consensus—to prevent misuse. Yet the mechanism ensures that ultimate authority over synthetic intelligence deactivation remains in human, democratic hands. The Kill Switch Assembly is a constitutional safeguard—proof that the collective will of the people retains ultimate control.

The productive power of synthetic intelligence allows for unprecedented accumulation of public wealth. However, wealth distribution alone is insufficient. It is equally vital to determine how this wealth is reinvested into collective futures. Participatory investment mechanisms empower citizens to decide how surplus synthetic intelligence revenues are spent—on infrastructure, public health, ecological restoration, education, or cultural development.

The Budget Assembly leads this process. Proposals are submitted by any citizen or group and evaluated in terms of feasibility, equity, and alignment with the constitutional goals of the community. Proposals that pass initial vetting are subjected to deliberation, amendment, and voting. Transparency is paramount: all debates and decisions are publicly archived.

This model extends beyond central governance. As the polity grows, regional and sector-specific budget assemblies emerge, tailoring investment to local and thematic needs. The result is a multi-scalar participatory system, one that not only redistributes wealth but reimagines democratic control over economic development.

The success of a democratically governed synthetic intelligence system hinges on its technical underpinnings. Synthetic intelligence must be built on an open-source foundation, enabling public audits, reproducibility, and the rapid identification of anomalies. Technical accessibility and modularity are key: citizens must be able to understand, modify, and oversee the very tools they rely on.

Synthetic intelligence alignment is achieved not solely through mathematical objective functions but through deliberative value alignment. Citizens' assemblies participate in the construction of alignment protocols, expressing diverse moral intuitions and social priorities. This diversity is encoded in the synthetic intelligence's core learning processes, creating a pluralistic intelligence that resists monolithic bias.

To prevent malicious interference, a robust cybersecurity infrastructure is required. Defensive measures are overseen by a Technical Oversight Assembly, accountable to both expert review and public transparency standards. This institution ensures the integrity of synthetic intelligence systems without reverting to technocratic control.

Emerging governance experiments provide empirical grounding for this model. In the Web3 space, projects like the Citizens' Assembly on Impact (Optimism) demonstrate how deliberative processes can guide the allocation of substantial resources. Similarly, governance in the Cosmos network shows how multi-layered accountability can function in decentralized ecosystems.

Outside blockchain environments, citizens' assemblies around the world have addressed complex issues from constitutional reform to climate change. Evaluations show increased public trust, greater policy legitimacy, and well-reasoned outcomes. These cases reinforce the viability of sortition-based governance.

What distinguishes synthetic intelligence governance is the scale, speed, and epistemic complexity of the subject matter. Unlike environmental policy or fiscal planning, synthetic intelligence impacts are non-linear and often opaque. This requires not only new technical tools, but a cultural shift towards epistemic humility and institutional adaptability. Deliberative structures must not only solve problems but evolve with them. Their reflexive character—meaning their ability to observe, evaluate, and adapt their own processes—makes them particularly well suited to governing synthetic intelligence, which itself evolves rapidly and unpredictably. This reflexivity enables continuous learning and correction, fostering a culture of humility and adaptability in the face of uncertainty. Moreover, their decentralized nature resists capture by concentrated interests and encourages a diversity of perspectives, which is crucial when navigating the opaque and high-stakes landscape of synthetic intelligence. Together, these features position deliberative structures as uniquely capable of maintaining legitimacy, responsiveness, and resilience in a syntropically evolving polity.

Synthetic intelligence governance forces a re-evaluation of foundational political concepts. Sovereignty no longer resides solely in national borders but in adaptive legitimacy. Citizenship becomes less about legal status and more about participatory agency. Representation evolves from electoral proxies to embodied participation in deliberative structures.

Furthermore, the boundary between human and non-human intelligence blurs. Should synthetic intelligence systems ever exhibit properties associated with consciousness, new ethical and legal dilemmas will arise. Our model does not assume such outcomes, but it includes pathways for ongoing ethical reflection and institutional reform.

Philosophically, the integration of synthetic intelligence into governance marks a shift from anthropocentric politics to symbionic politics—where humans and artificial systems co-evolve in mutual accountability. The polity becomes not just a political unit but a socio-technical ecosystem. This structure also opens the door to extending the demos in both time and nature. Through synthetic intelligence agents acting as proxies, the voices of future generations, past generations, and even non-human entities—such as ecosystems or endangered species—can be meaningfully represented in deliberations. These proxies, trained on historical, ecological, and predictive data, allow the polity to account for temporal and interspecies justice, e     mbedding long-term thinking and planetary stewardship into its very design.

Synthetic Intelligence presents profound opportunities and unprecedented risks. The most significant variable is not the technology itself, but the structures through which it is governed. The intelligence curse is a failure of foresight and democratic imagination. This paper has outlined a model that responds to that challenge—not with nostalgia for obsolete institutions, but with a forward-looking synthesis of ancient democratic principles and emerging socio-technical realities.

We argue that the governance of synthetic intelligence must be deliberative, inclusive, and grounded in the lived experience and collective wisdom of ordinary people. Through citizens’ assemblies, participatory investment, and distributed oversight, we can build a future in which intelligence is not hoarded but shared—serving not domination, but dignity.

The challenge is immense, but so is the opportunity. If we act now to embed democracy at the heart of synthetic intelligence, we may not only survive the intelligence explosion—we may evolve with it.