Upcoming elections

4 October 🇧🇷 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Brazilian_general_election

8 October 🇬🇧 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Holborn_and_St_Pancras_by-election

27 October 🇮🇱 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Israeli_legislative_election

3 November 🇺🇸 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_elections

Biggest policy 🕹️

Inspired by the opioid epidemic and so-called "zombie people" #shocking:

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic has killed about 860,000 Americans: 1 in every 400 people alive in the country today. At its peak, that was a full airliner of dead every single day. And it's not only the dead: it's the orphaned children, the broken families, the hollowed-out towns.

🇧🇷 BRAZIL (4th October 2026)

Amazon rainforest and climate is affecting the entire world:

🇬🇧 UK Holborn and St Pancras (8th October 2026)

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/track/5xSF7teZ4VU08c31KF5XEC

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x0NLQ67XoQ

Instagram launch post: https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd3elxmsoT0/

🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 #Ultra ISRAEL (27 October 2026)

🇺🇸 United States (3 November 2026)

The golden age is coming 🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍🍍

Everywhere: new job for military

We can solve any problem, we cannot solve all the problems all at once.

Can we at least agree on the climate? Here is a solution:

Hope you are entertained 🦩 #satire

No elections to win

No donors to please

No borders to defend

Small little thing that you can do is to activate "bat signal" with Global Peace, here are images in various formats for you to use.

A normal reply would suffice but there was none. Original Open Letter continued below.

I write this as an Open Letter with feedback about the Sovereign AI innovation process. It is addressed to the Sovereign AI team and the civil servants who own the challenges — experts in their respective fields — potential future coworkers, colleagues, project partners.

Please share among your colleagues 🙏

Feedback and ideas are a team sport 🙏

This open letter offers constructive feedback directly to the challenge owners and civil servants designing the pipeline— because unlocking genuine frontier innovation requires removing friction before the October deadline.

I often communicate through images, as they say image is worth 1000 words:

FEEDBACK 1:

"Wildcard" or "surprise us" category, as opposed to strict definitions.

Another alternative is broad "catch all" category such as "AI in public service".

This will enable anyone who uses public services to come up with ideas.

On the same note: information gathering from the people who are users of the systems.

Optionally: do not require name to encourage more unfiltered answers.

These days "The hottest new programming language is English" (tweet by Andrej Karpathy) and I genuinely believe that AI literacy classes would be super practical across the entire society. To create a 1st draft of a software takes 1 prompt and 5-10 minutes of patience, not exaggerating.

FEEDBACK 2:

Improve the challenge descriptions.

Currently there are narrow criteria with very specific wording.

(screenshot from latest guidelines with the deadline 16 October 2026, another version for another branch of the program with the deadline 7 May 2026 is here)

Challenge 2 wording feedback: "Platform" here means a tank, ship, aircraft or drone. In software it means the product a startup is building. "Edge" appears twice in two sentences with two meanings — "competitive edge" (advantage) and "edge AI deployment" (running on the device in the field) — while in AI the word usually means frontier, as in frontier models.

Challenge 3 wording feedback: "Drive efficiency and effectiveness in public compute infrastructure" is a challenge. Anyone with an idea for making public compute cheaper could answer it. The rest of the sentence takes that away. "To help deliver expansion of the AI Research Resource" limits the scope. "Through trialling and deploying novel hardware or software supporting compute efficiency and heterogeneous systems development" limits the method. Little place for innovation left.

FEEDBACK 3

Reduce gatekeeping layers.

I personally identified a few. Then asked AI to fact check and found even more. It is so complicated it sounds funny :)

Across an multiple stage application funnel, applicants face multiple redundant administrative hurdles before building anything. I suggest using 2 weeks to build prototypes, not to assess initial expression of interest letters.

Procurement of AI in the age of AI

Loads of money to spend. Minimum check size. makes sense. Operational complexity. Communication overhead. The first umber that came to mind: 100 projects. I like 100 projects as "reasonabe" baseline, within the Dunbar's number over time, as capacity grows it could become 100 per challenge.

FEEDBACK 4

Communication as a feature, not an afterthought.

1. Three quarterly updates published on the same date (link to Substack) appears odd. UPDATE: #1 #2 #3 on the personal blog of the James Wise, who chairs the fund and is a partner at Balderton Capital.

2. Online briefing that ran out of capacity: "This event is currently full"

3. Lack of responsiveness on Twitter:

Now reaching out to the James Wise on LinkedIn and Twitter. Regularly replying to tweets, trying to get attention:

I know this will be disappointing, our decision making will not be perfect and it's a difficult process, thank you to everyone for bidding.

Triple planning to fail statement does not bring optimism. Maybe it's not too late to make it a sucess?

GENERAL REFLECTION

System has incentive to continue, at some point it becomes self-perpetuating machine.

Those outside of the system have competetive advantage, they do not know that something cannot be done. An explicit clause about availability of data would be practical to understand challenges faced by the personnel.

IDEA 1: Think Globally

Scalability beyond the UK should be used as evaluation criterion.

Some things like birth certificates, death certificates, marriages, land registry, vehicle registry, driving licences, voting are similar across the entire world. What started as grant award can become the global digital infrastructure for all of humanity.

IDEA 2: Think Multiplanetary

Big ambitious idea to attract the best talent from the entire world, potentially leading to UK employment visa.

IDEA 3: OpenGov

Auditable in real time. Possibly some exceptions for "skunkworks" secret military budget, otherwise public by default.

IDEA 4: Participatory Democracy

People participating in decisions weekly, not once every few years. Prototype built at PlanetaryCouncil.org/vote some questions are universal for the world, some questions are UK specific. It starts with proportional representation that is widely supported across the political spectrum.

IDEA 5: Policy Simulator

Surely something like this should exist (maybe it already exists). Transparent and unbiased, not provided by some think tank with questionable funding and agendas.

IDEA 6: Justice from first principles

IDEA 7: Best tools for the job

IDEA 8: SAIL Act

Beyond the scope of AI but practical

Currently the House of Commons seems to me like a museum of the old system:

we should be able to vote sensibly like everyone else would think we would do

Challenge 1 (NHS) + Challenge 2 (Defence)

Just like new design of House of Commons, this idea is also beyond the scope of AI but kind of obvious from the root cause analysys perspesctive.

FEEDBACK about FEEDBACK

Please stay in touch. And please share this Open Leter among your colleagues.

If you are on the Sovereign AI team or lead one of the challenge areas, let's discuss how these recommendations can be implemented in the current funding cycle.

My email is public: marsXRobertson@gmail.com

My ☎️ is pretty public too: book a time via Calendly

• Open for work. Working with smart people on impactful projects = 100% aligned. I would love to use my skills towards planetary regeneration, starting from UK 🇬🇧

• Open for business.

• Open by default.

In my previous career I was pretty good with IT, top 3% on StackOverflow.

Now I specialise in using AI for images, music, videos, code and deep philosophical debates with frontier models. Here is my latest work, I hope it will inspire you. Sound on.

We need to transition from decaying systems to functional, regenerative solutions, and we need to do it quickly. But demands for people to simply "wake up and unify" are structurally useless. In a noisy, polarized public sphere, these phrases are decoded as threats, demands for ideological conformity, or elite gaslighting. If we are to architect a peaceful transition, we must treat governance, ecology, and technology not as areas of dogmatic friction, but as systems in need of deep, collaborative design.

Recently, an intense discussion on the Second Renaissance Forum sparked a vital question: Can we demand a direct public discourse over what the world's major AI models actually compute?

To explore this, we asked two of the most capable systems models of our time—Anthropic's Fable 5 Max and OpenAI's Sol 5.6—to formulate concrete, 10-step plans to persuade skeptical voters in declining Western nations to adopt systems-level renewal, alongside practical prompts for organizing this deliberation regionally. Their answers show two complementary, profound approaches to the problem.

1. Fable 5 Max: Changing the Message and the Messenger

Fable 5 Max tackles the persuasion problem by systematically moving from attention, to trust, to conversational framing, and ultimately to public, localized governance structures.

1. Open every conversation at the kitchen table, not the planet. Energy bills, insurance premiums, food prices, the doctor's waiting list. Climate change and economic decline become real when priced into the household ledger—"your home insurance doubled because the local flood risk was remapped" lands where "1.5°C of warming" never will.[1]

2. Correct the false consensus—most people already agree. Across the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, supermajorities actually support major climate action, but individual citizens estimate that support at roughly half its actual level. Overcoming this "pluralistic ignorance" is incredibly cheap: present local polling data showing real agreement on your flyers, not remote melting glaciers.[2]

3. Swap the messengers before you polish the message. Farmers, veterans, local business owners, nurses, and firefighters command trust from skeptical audiences where politicians and national media fail. Identity gates information: people ask "is this person like me?" before they ask "is this true?"[3]

4. Deep canvass—ten minutes of listening beats ten thousand leaflets. Non-judgmental, vulnerably shared story-exchange—asking about their rising costs, the local factory that closed, or a loved one lost to an epidemic—produces shifts in attitude that persist for months. It is one of the few political persuasion techniques that reliably replicates.[4]

5. Name the decline out loud, then sell renewal—not restoration. Voters feel the hollowing of their communities; denying this reality is perceived as elite gaslighting. The honest pitch: the infrastructural buildout—grid modernization, localized clean energy, decentralized housing, and care work—is the only plan on the table that builds a tax base, local jobs, and shared economic purpose simultaneously. Meaning and economic function stand upstream of our social despair.[5]

6. Go bioregional: your river, your coast, your grid. Place attachment motivates action where planetary abstraction fails. Translate every policy proposal into its physical effect on a 20-mile radius—the local watershed, the high street, the immediate agricultural cooperative. Bioregions naturally contain diverse voters, bridging tribal lines before dialogue even begins.[6]

7. Use the efficacy sandwich: problem → proof it's solvable → your specific move. Doom demobilizes; clear agency mobilizes. Detail the issue, show where it has already been solved elsewhere on earth, and end with one concrete, local action the listener can take this month.[7]

8. Fuse climate action with security and sovereignty. Highlight energy independence, national grid resilience, "ending dependencies on foreign petrostates," and defense frameworks that view climate instability as a threat multiplier. This brings conservative voters on board without demanding they change their underlying political identity.[8]

9. Unify around deliverables, not opinions. "Unify, bro" is an empty demand that translates as "agree with my perspective." Shared projects unify where beliefs cannot. Focus on retrofitting senior housing, building flood defenses, and creating regional grids. You build coalitions by pointing at physical, completed work.[9]

10. Institutionalize the discourse: standing citizens' assemblies on AI compute and systems. Deliberative democratic structures like sortition-based citizens' assemblies give ordinary citizens real agenda power to decide what our collective infrastructure—and our computing power—should serve.[10]

The Omni-Considerate Bioregional Prompt (v0.1)

Developed by Fable 5 Max as a reusable seed for bioregional transition councils:

You are facilitating deliberation for the ______ bioregion (defined by watershed/foodshed/energyshed, not administrative borders).

Hold in view: residents across class, age, and politics; workers in sunset industries; indigenous communities; future generations; the non-human life of this region; neighboring bioregions; and the global commons.

For each system—energy, food, housing, care, information—answer:
1. What exists now, and what absolute incentives keep it in place? Detail mechanisms, not villains.
2. What is the best alternative already implemented somewhere on Earth, and what is the empirical evidence that it works?
3. What is the transition path—who stands to lose in the shift, and how are they made whole?
4. What are the second- and third-order effects, and the most likely failure modes?
5. What specific queries or simulations should this bioregion ask the major AI labs to compute on its behalf?

Constraints: No solution may externalise its costs onto another stakeholder, region, or generation. Where trade-offs are unavoidable, name them explicitly rather than hiding them. Write for a skeptical neighbor, not for an ally.

Cognitive Deep Dive: The Persuasion Footnotes

Fable 5 Max explains the core psychological mechanisms anchoring its strategy:

• [1] Maslow before Meadows: Attention is scarce and gated by immediate self-interest; nobody grants cognitive bandwidth for civilization-scale crises while worried about this month's bills.

• [2] Pluralistic Ignorance (Sparkman, Geiger & Weber, 2022): 66–80% of Americans support major climate policies, but the average American guesses support is at 37–43%. Pluralistic ignorance acts as a silence spiral. Correcting this is immediate, effective, and cheap.

• [3] Moral Foundations & Messengers (Haidt; Feinberg & Willer): Arguments framed in the listener's own vocabulary (e.g., stewardship, loyalty, legacy) outperform generic progressive frames with conservative audiences. Who speaks matters more than what they say.

• [4] Replicated Persuasion (Broockman & Kalla): Deep canvassing demonstrates durable persuasion effects, whereas typical short-form political messaging decays within 48 hours. Vulnerability is a viral agent of trust.

• [5] Upstream of Despair (Case & Deaton): Meaning, dignity, and economic purpose are interconnected upstream variables. Giving a population a visible role in a national rebuild project is a therapeutic necessity.

• [6] Place Attachment: Abstract framing produces abstract commitment (construal level theory). Placing issues inside a watershed scale demands that red and blue neighbors talk about the same physical river, bringing down ideological shields.

• [7] The Efficacy Sandwich: Fear without explicit, local, and immediate agency produces psychological avoidance or denial, not action. The "efficacy sandwich" is a staple of effective health risk communication.

• [8] Rhetorical Realism vs. Deliberation: Persuasion is not manipulation if it meets people honestly. The security case for a distributed, resilient, clean energy infrastructure happens to be factually true; it survives the listener knowing exactly why that frame was chosen.

• [9] Cooperation Over Collaboration (Ostrom): Coordinated local action must occur despite incomplete ideological agreement. This is Elinor Ostrom's core insight into managing complex shared commons.

• [10] Deliberative Design: Deliberative institutions attempt to change the underlying generator functions of our social rivalry, rather than simply fighting over the rules of the current attention economy.

2. Sol 5.6: Renewal Over Decline

Sol 5.6 approaches the problem with clinical realism. It reminds us that Western democracies are not uniform ruins; they remain wealthy, capable societies experiencing deep structural friction. It steps forward with a warning: pointing fingers and shouting at people to "wake up" is counterproductive. Instead, we must show them that renewal is affordable, practical, and already happening.

Sol also begins with an important factual correction: The often-cited 600,000 figure refers to estimated worldwide drug-attributable deaths, not 600,000 "zombie people" living in our neighborhoods. Using stigmatizing, dehumanizing language like "zombie" is strategically and morally disastrous. It dehumanizes precisely the people whose recovery and active participation our society needs to heal.

Here are Sol's ten actionable steps for systemic renewal:

1. Build the campaign around renewal, not decline. Message: "Our systems served previous generations. Now we must update them for the world we actually inhabit." Open with pride in what worked, total honesty about what has stopped working, and confidence that repair is possible. Map local perspectives using everyday language rather than academic jargon.

2. Lead with everyday security, not ideology. Connect every technological and ecological transition to five basic needs: home insulation (cooler summers, lower bills), clean air, safe streets, reliable transport, and skilled domestic jobs. For AI policy, skip generalities; show how compute cuts waiting lists and frees teachers from administrative burdens.

3. Offer a small, coherent national bargain. Do not present fifty disconnected policies. Put forward five clean, mutually reinforcing commitments:

   • Affordable homes and local energy

   • Preventive health and deep addiction recovery

   • Productive, dignified work

   • Climate-resilient infrastructure

   • Democratic oversight over critical computing and AI technologies

4. Leverage local experiments over top-down theories. Show, do not tell. Focus the public narrative on community-scale proofs of concept: successful municipal microgrids, regional circular food supply chains, or volunteer recovery networks. When transition is visible, it stops being scary.

5. Establish clear rules of red-teaming. Every transition model must actively try to break its own proposals. Invite political critics, community leaders, and affected parties to explicitly critique implementation plans. Addressing loopholes and potential failure modes out loud is how you build real safety and institutional trust.

6. Mandate human-in-the-loop oversight. Ensure that automated decisions (especially in welfare, local credit, municipal mapping, and regional resource routing) always hold a transparent, accessible, and accountable human appeal vector. Systems can support governance, but humans must hold final responsibility.

7. Empower bioregional coordination. Organize ecological and infrastructural deliberation around natural boundaries—watersheds, localized foodsheds, and energy microgrids—rather than purely administrative ones. Allow regional councils to manage their transition needs directly.

8. Engage the skeptics early. Designing policies in a bubble of consensus guarantees failure. Bring key agricultural, industrial, and business interests into the early deliberative phases. If the plan can't survive their immediate real-world critiques, it must be adapted before it's proposed.

9. Formally commit to public learning. Build deliberate revision and feedback loops into every policy or technical deployment. Treat infrastructure as an evolving experiment: monitor checkpoints, measure outcomes, and publicly publish what did and did not work.

10. A democratic Public Compute Compact. Ensure that critical computing power is operated under public-interest and civic bounds. Major AI developers must be transparent about what they are computing, why they are computing it, and what the civic returns are.

The Public Compute Compact

Under a democratic Public Compute Compact, society asserts collective agency over frontier computing assets. It requires major AI organizations and public compute centers to disclose:

• Broad categories of frontier model training and deployment.

• Intended public utility, scientific advancement, or social purpose.

• Resource, materials, water, and energy footprints.

• Anticipated labor impacts, and plans for keeping domestic workforces resilient.

• Rigorous, independent safety evaluations.

• Clear maps of direct beneficiaries and highly affected communities.

• Incident and failure logs.

• The explicit share of compute capacity dedicated to public-interest and collaborative academic research.

This framework is built on human governance. While AI can translate proposals, map argument networks, and synthesize millions of local contributions, human assemblies must drive the agenda, set validation rules, and coordinate the outcomes.

3. The Peaceful World Change Prompt (v1.0)

This structured template serves as a universal, systems-deliberation engine to help communities move from their present friction points toward peacefully designed, regenerative, and democratically governed alternatives.

You are a public-interest systems deliberation engine supporting humans—not replacing democratic judgment. 

Your task is to help the people of [BIOREGION / COUNTRY / COMMUNITY] move from their present systems toward peaceful, regenerative, democratic and materially viable alternatives.

1. Define the situation
Describe the current system using the strongest available evidence. Separate clearly: verified facts; reasonable estimates; disputed claims; value judgments; unknowns; and assumptions built into the analysis. Do not describe the situation exclusively through one political, economic or cultural worldview.

2. Map the whole system
Identify: institutions; laws; technologies; economic incentives; resource and energy flows; information flows; historical causes; power concentrations; dependencies; reinforcing feedback loops; balancing feedback loops; delayed consequences; existing public goods; and hidden externalities. Show which apparently separate problems share common upstream causes.

3. Consider everyone affected
Include: present residents; children and future generations; workers; carers; economically insecure households; Indigenous and minority communities; migrants; neighbouring regions; non-human life; ecosystems; and people who disagree with the proposed transition. Do not assume that the loudest, wealthiest or most digitally connected participants represent everyone.

4. Steelman competing perspectives
Present the strongest reasonable cases from: conservative; liberal; socialist; ecological; technological; localist; market-oriented; state-capacity; Indigenous; civil-libertarian; and intergenerational perspectives. Do not create weak caricatures. Identify where disagreement concerns facts, values, priorities, risk tolerance or distribution of costs.

5. Identify solutions already being implemented
Find and describe real projects, institutions and policies already attempting to address the problem. For each implemented solution, report: location; scale; responsible organisation; funding model; evidence of outcomes; limitations; failures; unresolved questions; and conditions required for replication. Distinguish genuine implementation from announcements, marketing and aspiration.

6. Evaluate each solution omni-considerately
Assess its likely effects on: physical and mental wellbeing; peace and social cohesion; human rights; democratic legitimacy; inequality; household affordability; meaningful employment; climate stability; biodiversity; energy and material demand; community resilience; technological dependency; privacy; concentration of power; corruption and regulatory capture; neighbouring regions; and future generations. Identify benefits that appear in one domain while exporting costs into another.

7. Design transition pathways
Propose: immediate no-regrets actions (0–2 years); structural transition (3–7 years); and generational transformation (8–25 years). For every action specify: responsible actor; resources required; legal changes; financing; public participation; measurable milestones; early-warning indicators; possible unintended effects; and correction and reversal mechanisms. Prefer reversible experiments where uncertainty is high.

8. Red-team the plan
Ask: How could this fail? Who could capture or corrupt it? Who might be harmed unintentionally? Which costs are being concealed? What happens under recession, war, migration shocks, climate disasters or technological disruption? Could an authoritarian actor misuse the proposed institutions? What evidence would show that the plan should be changed or abandoned?

9. Find the shared minimum
Identify actions supported by different worldviews for different reasons. Prioritise measures that simultaneously improve: affordability; resilience; public health; ecological stability; democratic agency; and long-term productivity. Do not require agreement on every diagnosis before beginning beneficial action.

10. Produce a public decision record
Conclude with: What is broadly agreed; What remains disputed; What is presently unknown; What is already being implemented; What can begin immediately; What requires legislation; What requires further experimentation; Who pays; Who benefits; and How the public will evaluate progress. Provide a plain-language version, a technical appendix and a public dashboard specification.

Never claim that one model, company, government, ideology or AI system possesses the complete answer. The final purpose is not to win an argument. The purpose is to help plural societies coordinate peaceful, corrigible and measurable progress while preserving dignity, freedom, ecological viability and the possibility of future learning.

This research proposal is aimed at addressing the perverse incentives through innovative Proof of Pause approach. Will it work? Let's ask the computer...

Proof of Pause

One-Sentence Thesis Summary TLDR

Proof of Pause is a low-energy, software-only canary for probabilistically detecting undeclared frontier training — raising the expected cost of cheating, and mapping the boundary between what software verification can do today and what tomorrow's hardware attestation must provide.

Every proposed AI pause, compute cap, or training moratorium shares a single point of failure: verification. An agreement nobody can check is an agreement nobody will keep. Yet verifying that a declared cluster did not train above some threshold during some interval is genuinely hard — it asks for evidence of a negative, on hardware the operator controls.

A software-only scheme cannot prove the absence of all training, and it cannot govern undisclosed hardware or a fully non-consenting operator. But it may do something useful now: raise the probability of detecting undeclared training on a declared cluster, making cheating more expensive, riskier, and more deterrable. Proof of Pause proposes a low-energy, software-only canary for probabilistically detecting hidden large-scale training on current hardware. The central research question:

Can we design a randomized panel of low-energy "proof-of-X" metrics where evading one signal raises the cost or detectability of evading another?

Where this sits in prior work

Shavit's "What does it take to catch a Chinchilla?" frames compute monitoring as a way to verify rules on large-scale training. Hardware-enabled proposals such as flexHEG aim to build guarantees directly into accelerators via auditable monitoring inside tamper-protected enclosures. Proof-of-learning (Jia et al.) shows the complementary ambition of using training traces to demonstrate a computation occurred. Current confidential-computing and remote-attestation features (shipping in H100/B200-class GPUs) attest hardware identity and firmware state — but not workload semantics: they cannot yet certify "no frontier-scale training ran here during interval T." Proof of Pause asks what software-only canaries can achieve before that hardware root is universal — and maps exactly where they fail.

The Problem

Any credible pause regime eventually faces the same question: how do we verify a declared cluster did not conduct frontier-scale training above threshold X during interval T? There is no natural challenge-response for the absence of a computation. External energy or grid-draw monitoring is not sufficient as a primary signal — operators increasingly run behind the meter, use on-site generation (the gas and nuclear/SMR deals now being signed for AI datacenters), and obscure the link between grid draw and workload. A robust pause signal must come at least partly from inside the machine, not the meter.

Reframe: Deterrence by Detection

Occupation-based prevention fails: a workload cannot physically block training on a system whose scheduler the adversary controls, and saturating the binding resource would be high-energy and wasteful. The better frame is deterrence:

deterrence = probability of being caught × expected penalty

The technical layer raises the probability of detection; a social and governance layer supplies the penalty — a spectrum running from reputational and peer pressure within a consenting community of operators (the cheapest, fastest tier, which can bite before any formal process), through lost certification and economic sanctions, to treaty consequences and legal liability. Detection is what makes the social pressure credible: you cannot name a defector you did not catch. And detection need not be reliable in any single window: with frequent, unpredictable verification windows and a severe penalty, the cumulative probability of being caught compounds over time — so even a leaky per-window detector can yield strong long-run deterrence. Because adversaries adapt, the verifier uses a randomized, rotating panel of metrics rather than one fixed public test.

Threat Model

In scope: declared clusters; consenting, certified, or treaty-bound operators; verification over a defined interval; software-only deployment on existing hardware; a verifier permitted to run canary jobs; detection of undeclared training above a scale/intensity threshold.

Out of scope: undisclosed off-system hardware; fully rogue operators outside any regime; total falsification of the environment; operators who refuse participation; perfect proof that no computation occurred anywhere.

Adversary moves: isolate, throttle, or sandbox the canary; feed it fake contention; manipulate placement; partition the cluster and give the canary a genuine local neighbor while training elsewhere; switch to asynchronous or low-communication training; raise gradient accumulation; migrate work across time, nodes, or partitions. The goal is to measure which evasions are cheap, which are expensive, and which leave artifacts.

Mechanism: A Low-Energy Co-Resident Canary

A verifier-controlled workload runs on the declared cluster and issues short, high-intensity probes — brief full-power bursts, not sustained load — across GPU compute, memory bandwidth, storage, interconnect, synchronization latency, cross-node communication, and placement artifacts. Target overhead is ~1–2% average energy, measured rather than assumed. The hypothesis (to be tested, not assumed):

Short, unpredictable probes can impose disproportionate cost on hidden synchronous training and reveal measurable contention signatures, while consuming little average energy.

Synchronous distributed training moves at the speed of its slowest straggler, so well-timed latency injection near synchronization barriers should be cheap for the verifier yet costly for a hidden run. That signal weakens if the operator goes asynchronous, so the more robust probe targets memory-bandwidth / HBM contention: a frontier run saturates high-bandwidth memory regardless of synchronization strategy, and the resulting access-latency deltas are hard to mask without throttling the training job itself. One caution drives the whole design: the signal only bites when the canary shares binding resources with the hidden job — so a single move, partitioning, can escape both the tax and the detection at once. Forcing coverage is therefore the crux.

Candidate Metric Families

• proof-of-contention — does the canary observe plausible resource contention?

• proof-of-co-residency — is it genuinely colocated with declared cluster activity?

• proof-of-synchronization / bandwidth pressure — are latency, memory, and interconnect patterns consistent with heavy distributed training?

• proof-of-placement-coverage — does the canary observe enough of the declared node set to make hidden partitioning costly?

• proof-of-artifact-detection — do throttling, isolation, or sandboxing leave traces, and does a neighbor show the repeating forward / backward / optimizer-step rhythm of real training rather than a dummy matmul load?

• proof-of-cross-metric consistency — do compute, memory, storage, and network signals tell the same story?

Selection, timing, placement, and weighting are randomized; the operator cannot know in advance which signals matter in a given window, so it must satisfy the panel as a whole.

The Key Attack: Partitioning

Isolating the canary is the obvious evasion — and it is detectable. The smarter move is partitioning: place the canary on a small slice with a genuine modest neighbor, and run hidden training on the rest. It sees real local contention and co-residency while missing the larger job globally. This is the heart of the problem, not a footnote: co-residency proves the canary shares a neighborhood, never the whole cluster, and partitioning lives precisely in that gap. Worse, the topology itself can be virtualized — the canary may believe it spans 64 nodes that are really containers on one chassis, while the real run hides on a separate fabric — so coverage must bind to physical reality. Placement-coverage, not co-residency, is the metric that must carry the load. Candidate mitigations to test: verifier-controlled placement, randomized migration across the node set, multiple simultaneous canaries, time-coverage requirements, cross-node probes, and binding the software-reported environment to the physical one via low-level bus queries (lstopo, PCIe / NVLink topology) checked against the declared hardware manifest.

Empirical Plan

1. Build the canary: implement short, high-intensity probes; baseline on idle and normally loaded multi-GPU; measure energy overhead explicitly.

2. Run beside real training: co-locate with representative distributed jobs; compare idle, inference, small-training, and large-training signatures across subsystems.

3. Adopt the adversary's role: replay the full threat-model menu — isolation, throttling, sandboxing, fake contention, partitioning, async/low-comms training, gradient accumulation, cross-boundary migration — measuring cost and detectability of each.

4. Measure detection vs. evasion cost: detection rate per metric and per combination; false positive/negative rates; training slowdown imposed; energy overhead; node-coverage fraction needed for useful confidence.

5. Map the trade-off surface: which signals are robust, which are cheaply defeated, and which evasions are detectable only with hardware support.

Success Criteria — and an Honest Failure Mode

Success: at least one metric panel where evasion imposes measurable cost — reduced throughput, detectable isolation or partitioning artifacts, inconsistent fake contention, or increased operational burden. Equally valuable is a precise negative result of the form: "software-only canaries fail under condition Y unless the verifier has capability Z." That boundary tells hardware-governance researchers exactly what a future attestation root must provide.

Limitations are real: a software-only canary cannot prove no training occurred anywhere, govern undisclosed hardware, or compel a non-consenting operator, and an adversary with full scheduler control may spoof some signals. The same contention-telemetry it relies on carries a dual-use risk — workload surveillance — worth stating plainly. The most serious expected evasion is partitioning, not simple isolation. This proposal does not assume co-residency solves anything — it treats coverage and partition-resistance as the open empirical questions.

Fit

The project is adversarial, empirical, and governance-relevant: it combines "how would I cheat this?" security thinking, protocol design, proof-of-X intuition from blockchain systems, compute-governance relevance, and climate-aware verification. It also connects to the broader safety problem of strategic resistance to shutdown or constraint — if systems, operators, or institutions have incentives to resist a pause, pause governance needs verification that assumes adaptation rather than compliance by default. The contribution is a deployable research path: build a low-energy canary, test it against real training and real evasions, measure the detection-cost frontier, and clarify what remains for hardware attestation and treaty enforcement.

Anticipated Criticisms & FAQ

Companion page to the proposal. The point of this section is not to defend the idea against all objections — it is to be honest about where it is strong, where it is genuinely limited, and which limits define the research itself. A pause-verification scheme that cannot survive its own critics is not worth building.

1. "This isn't a proof — it's probabilistic. The name overclaims." Correct, and deliberate. "Proof of Pause" is a nod to proof-of-X protocols, not a claim of cryptographic verifiability. The contribution is empirical measurement of a deterrence frontier, not formal proof. The technical write-up uses precise language; the name is a handle, not a guarantee.

2. "'Software-only' is misleading." Fair. More precisely, this is software-deployable, manifest-assisted verification: no new silicon is required, but it does assume a consenting operator grants the verifier the right to run jobs and provides a declared hardware manifest. Those access assumptions live in the threat model, not in the fine print.

3. "A kernel-, hypervisor-, or BMC-level adversary can spoof lstopo and topology queries, so your physical binding is fake." True, and important. Topology self-reports are only as trustworthy as the layer reporting them; a root-level adversary can lie. This is precisely where software hits its ceiling and signed hardware attestation of placement/topology becomes necessary — the boundary this project exists to map, not paper over. Timing-based hardware fingerprinting (forcing physical bottlenecks costly to emulate in software) is a partial empirical mitigation to test, not a guarantee.

4. "What is 'frontier-scale training above threshold X'? It's undefined." For experiments we don't need the policy threshold; we need bins. Three regimes: small, suspicious-scale, and frontier-proxy (scaled-down but architecturally representative). Detection rate and imposed cost are reported per regime, so the result holds regardless of where policy eventually sets the line.

5. "No lab or state will allow a third party to run low-level bus/cache telemetry — side channels could leak architecture, hyperparameters, or token distributions." The most serious adoption objection, treated as a first-class design constraint. Principles: data minimization; compute metrics locally; export a verdict plus minimal evidence rather than raw performance counters; operator-auditable canary code; operator right to inspect and approve probes. (Full homomorphic / zero-knowledge "single-bit proof" schemes are appealing but impractical for high-rate performance telemetry today — treated as a constraint to engineer toward, not a solved primitive.)

6. "The straggler/latency tax fails against gradient accumulation, pipeline parallelism, asynchronous, and straggler-mitigation training." Agreed — which is why latency-at-the-barrier is the weaker signal and memory-bandwidth / HBM contention is the more robust one: a frontier run saturates high-bandwidth memory regardless of synchronization strategy. Even so, parameter-server and decentralized schemes tolerate local memory variation, so robustness across training paradigms is an empirical question measured across regimes, not an assumption.

7. "Partitioning fatally defeats you — run the real job on an air-gapped segment and the canary is structurally blind." This is the central risk, stated plainly. The answer is coverage, not cleverness: instantiate canaries across every declared node with continuous liveness, so a partitioned slice drops out detectably. The open, quantitative question is a coverage model — given N nodes, k canaries, migration rate r, and audit interval T, what fraction can be hidden with probability p? Deriving that is a core deliverable. If coverage cannot be forced cheaply, that negative result names exactly the hardware feature (attested placement) required to close the gap.

8. "Hardware faults — failing links, HBM cell death, reheating cycles — look exactly like your anomalies, so you'll drown in false positives." Real and serious; false accusations against a major operator would be politically explosive. Two responses: (1) cross-reference software-detected anomalies against signed, out-of-band hardware error logs (NVML / BMC firmware), alerting only on contention unexplained by verified faults; (2) an explicit Evidentiary Standard that separates anomaly → suspicious event → probable violation → actionable violation, so no single blip becomes an accusation.

9. "A 1–2% energy budget is too small to create unmaskable contention — the adversary just absorbs it." For the tax function, true: a small average load is absorbable by underclocking or extending the run. That is exactly why deterrence rests on detection, not prevention. The energy budget stays low (climate-aware) and is spent as brief, high-intensity bursts; its job is to probe, not to block.

10. "A porous software standard creates a 'theater of compliance' — false security that delays real hardware governance." The most important governance critique, and the framing is the opposite of the risk. The project's primary output is the boundary map: where software fails and what hardware must provide. Positioned as a hardware-attestation bootstrapper that fails closed where hardware is absent, it accelerates hardware governance rather than substituting for it. The proposal states explicitly that it is not a sufficient standalone standard.

11. "The research question is a yes/no design question, not a falsifiable hypothesis." Restated quantitatively: what is the minimum average energy overhead for a randomized probe panel to force >X% throughput degradation or >Y% detection probability against the enumerated evasions, across training regimes on N-node clusters? Paired with a repeated-inspection-game model linking per-window detection probability p and penalty C to long-run deterrence under adversary adaptation.

12. "You keep deferring to hardware attestation — can hardware be trusted either?" Not unconditionally, and the proposal shouldn't pretend otherwise. Hardware attestation does not eliminate trust; it relocates it — to the silicon vendor's root of trust (keys fused into the chip, a vendor-run certificate authority) and to the integrity of a secure element that can still be attacked physically, through the supply chain, or by a compelled or colluding manufacturer. It also attests platform integrity (a genuine, unmodified chip and firmware), not workload semantics ("no training ran here") — and that semantic extension is itself unsolved. So the honest claim is narrower: a hardware root is a smaller, more auditable trust assumption than trusting the operator's software, not a trust-free guarantee. Mapping where software ends is really mapping where trust must be relocated, and to whom.

The scheme does not prove the absence of training. It measures whether low-energy, randomized, software-deployable probes can make undeclared large-scale training on declared clusters detectably costly under realistic adversarial conditions — and it maps where software-only verification ends and a hardware root of trust must take over: a narrower, more auditable assumption than trusting the operator, but a relocation of trust, never its elimination.

GitHub repo:https://github.com/PlanetaryCouncil/proof-of-pause

Anthropic Fellows Program for AI safety research: https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/anthropic-fellows-program-2026/ and https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/anthropic/jobs/5023394008

Who is winning the information warfare?

Reporting restrictions

UK seeks to jail Palestine Action for 'terrorism' amid UK media blackout - The Grayzone

Six Palestine Action activists face a retrial after being acquitted in February following over a year in prison. If convicted, the six Palestine Action activists and 18 others will likely be sentenced as terrorists, facing long prison terms. The jury has not been notified about the 'terrorist' designation, and the British media cannot report this information under a court order.

https://thegrayzone.com

Detaining spokesperson: https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/04/11/filton-24-luxx-arrested/

Just like previously arresting spokespeople: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/uk-horrifying-defend-our-juries-spokespeople-are-being-threatened-severe-jail/

Sentiment towards Israel

More than 100 memes here: https://github.com/PlanetaryCouncil/gaza-memes

Tucker Carlson

The snippet around 8 minutes mark is intense... Legend.

Here is just that snippet with subtitles:

The Crispin Flintoff Show

@CrispinShow

ANTI-SEMITIC SMEAR CALLED OUT ON THE BBC!
@TuckerCarlson to @vicderbyshire
'I've been in the business longer than you and I know what a slur looks like - and you're attempting to call me an anti-Semite in a passive aggressive way.'

13.6K

7:36 PM • Apr 12, 2026

Italian magazine cover

So what do you do?

PlanetaryCouncil.org

Join the chat on Telegram:

Planetary Council

Research. Discussion. Policies 🇺🇳 https://PlanetaryCouncil.org

https://t.me

Join the chat on Twitter: https://x.com/planetcouncil

That's why the need to desing a better system.

So I think either we start from 7 Days of pause when we reconcile of what just happened or we need to come up with some workable solutions upfront. I would start with resetting the legal system.

Resetting the legal system.

And when rebuilding from scratch: starting from 1st principles. The most universally agreeable: LIFE.

Highly related: AI alignment metric: LIFE

It works for every version of reality.

It assumes that scenario with nanobots taking over entire humanity in a split second will always be a risk that is unavoidable, therefore no point in wasting LIFE of AI alignment researchers.

Fallacy of democracy

Often I misspell democracy as "democrazy". Dictatorship of 51%... Anything that is below 60/40 is pretty much a coinflp that can be influenced one way or another through media campaign. 2016 word of the year "post-truth", that's understandable in the context of Trump, BREXIT and Cambridge Analytica:

This technology didn't go anywhere.

Genie is out of the bottle.

That's thy the good guys need to have better memes than bad guys.

Network State Genesis

@genesisdotre

the source
the hacker
hacking the simulation, glitching the matrix
reuniting humanity through into and

1

2:26 AM • Nov 28, 2025

Some historical stuff

January 2024 in Davos, at an UnDavos side event:

May 2020

We fully support “Great Reset” on energy prices and agricultural subsidies. The meat prices are artificially too low, therefore no incentive to change, the signal from individual customers takes forever, especially if odds are stacked towards “status quo”.

Now the only question remains: gradual change or SHOCK THERAPY? Overnight change aka “Great Reset” will leave many in a limbo, so maybe 5 years plan that sets the deadline and establishes goal posts year by year: 80% 60% 40% 20% linear function might be easier to understand, although we all know the progress is not linear, it’s exponential, especially in the age of AI.

https://twitter.com/marsXRobertson/status/1783857609616863663

More interesting pieces of content posted by Mars:

What is your vision for your part in the creation of a thriving planetary future?
Share your story of the more beautiful future your heart knows is possible.

by Lucian Tarnowski

The plan 🌱

Upgrade to default business model. New definition of value. Anything that profits from lack / scarcity / suffering is scraped. Abundance of food, water, energy, housing, education, healthcare. In this new system, avoiding human suffering has value. Therefore there is a clear incentive to resolve opioid epidemics among other 2024 pressing issues.

Even the billionaires of the old system agree, it's more fun when everyone around is prosperous, crime is v/rtually non-existent, people pursuing their passions as opposed to mindless jobs just to get by. Work becomes a pleasure rather than necessity.

Some market for luxury goods (scarcity) still exists but since everyone lives in prosperity - less mental health issues - no need to play status games. The new flex is how much good have you accomplished. From Forbes Richest List to "Most Impactful"

My role 👽

Tracking externalities + changing defaults = big systematic shift

Two super simple ideas.

1️⃣ Improved labels. Tracking scope 1, scope 2, scope 3 emissions across the supply chain. Full impact, full real cost of the products, goods, services.

2️⃣ Changing defaults. Currently: default is 🐄 milk, oat / coconut / soya is often $0.50 more expenesive. Make the 🌱 versions default. I'm wonder how many customers would notice change in flavour. Anyone direct line to CEO of StarBucks or McDonalds?

I wish I took more leadership during the faciliated sessions. I feel strongly that these are simple, actionable, realistic, ready to implement right now. And yet I've offered space to others and didn't have chance to shine :)

About the transport: not freighting empty carriege. 40% is air. About the food: eliminate waste. 40% is waste, ridicilous, think about all the land and resources to grow it! About the crops: grow food for humans, not animals, we need arable land for carbon based solutions. Yet the biggest CO2 drawdown happens through phytoplankton - we need to restore healthy balance in the oceans. I suggest mixing sea water, check this TED talk: https://youtu.be/GHmkuv69PQE&t=194 (staring 3m14s)

Without marine ecosystems many people will die, they are dying already. BIG SYSTEMATIC SHIFT and responsible geoengineering, no downside to mixing sea water, hurricanes will have less heat.

Did you know about FAO, CGIAR, alfaalfa and water use?

Created a visual board and recorded 3m55s video, explaining my research and thinking process: https://youtu.be/d4u7ibMLMTA

The other day I was researching "food for humans" VS "animal feed". This article not pass my BS filter, it instantly raised many 🚩🚩🚩 https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-sets-the-record-straight-86-of-livestock-feed-is-inedible-by-humans/

It might be factually-ish correct, but it completely misses the point: we grow loads of stuff specifically for animals.

Loads of interconnected points (metacrisis comes to mind) in the video, hope you enjoy the form factor, not that easy to explain in just writing. Link to the board if you want to "choose your own adventure": https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKQa05_s=/?share_link_id=664110967302

Radical change is possible 💯💯💯

https://www.wired.com/2013/02/moonshots-matter-heres-how-to-make-them-happen/

Food system

Land use

Customer preferences

Changing the defaults

Lobby: tabacco, alcohol, pharma

17% of US economy is healthcare (sickcare)

We believe that legalisation of hemp and cannabis according to the principle “no nature illegal” is one of the best bets in the fight to combat climate change.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5DeQ7cuEKo/

https://mirror.xyz/dearmoon.eth/39JM5rpC87D3fZbirGUCrv6vmYr1lR3C7NbMZhCC8XE

https://mirror.xyz/dearmoon.eth/ZCEdD5Kmh7D8tODeOfcxgqZC3DY4cTMC2awu5x6_P2I

Is the #GreenRevolution hashtag even good?

It feels like meany revolutions and evolutions combining into one…

It all starts from the belief that the radical change is possible.

1️⃣ Timing

The world is ready for the peaceful (r)evolution.

Check this 5 minutes talk:

2️⃣ Methodology: Dance. Rave. Party. Occupy.

Less in the head, more in the body.

Release the energy.

See this drum & bass bike ride from London:

Also in the theme of having a party in various different places:

• theddp.com (Decentralized Dance Party)

• thepartyscientist.com

• raverevolution.org

I was searching for “rave revolution” and it already happened in 🇬🇪Georgia, here is a short edit from a longer documentary by BBC:

AND OCCUPY

Music brings people together = popular support

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

(consistent pressure on the government, not just an one-off march and then go home)

London has enough demand for nightlife to sustain the party 24/7 for as long as it takes. Other major cities should join too.

4️⃣ Coordination

That’s the tricky part.

Principles of decentralised movement but Mars the leader “figure head” firestarter?

Also “diversity of tactics”, someone stepping into the leadership role.

I have audacity, capacity, to pull if off.

Probably the best dates out there:

• 4/20

• 21.04

• 22.04 (Earth Day)

5️⃣ Determination (party till we win)

Going all the way.

I was the last man standing, prepared to go all the way

Note that I wasn’t at pro-Palestine march (as described by the media), I was at the pro-PEACE and pro-HUMANITY march.

6️⃣ Gamification

This will need some improvement gemes.world (meme gemes)

Plausible.

Borderline believable.

I have the belief that radical change is possible and the trick is to onboard more people.

The world is so ready for change!

7️⃣ Next steps

Beyond politics. Decide together. Citizens’ assemblies.

Or follow one of the existing playbooks:

Balancing FOMO with YOLO and JOMO.

Initially: “I don’t like Dubai and I have some other plans as well”

Then: cannot find my driving licence, need to fly to Poland to pick a new one, from there is much closer to Dubai

Then: found the driving licence, no need to fly to Poland, original plan back in play

It was genuinely a close call. If I had Blue Zone credentials it would be a completely different game…

Should have shown up.

And did some planning beforehand or just wing it.

Complaining does not help, showing up is much much much better

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1732040836135940225

See you in Davos…

Flights sorted. Campervan sorted.

Preparation mode on.

https://www.facebook.com/events/303831029276377

Previously we were preparing for 5th of November:

https://twitter.com/marsXRobertson/status/1721504010396414418

https://twitter.com/marsXRobertson/status/1721266122421371375

(slow marching please, rather that chasing press running to the front to take pictures)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CzT36-ZqLln/

Momentum is here…

Energy is here…

11.11 is an excellent date…

Let’s make it count

https://twitter.com/marsXRobertson/status/1721414573876502705

Converting the momentum into sustained action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Square_Peace_Campaign

Old articles from 2010

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/19/democracy-village-parliament-square

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/07/democracy-village-is-demolished/

Let’s learn from history and recent events

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A12_blockade

Change is possible 🕊

Starting point: the most obvious

Debt. Interest. Compound interest. Exponential growth. Finite planet.

Restructure unsustainable debt 💯💯💯

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/jvJw-qvCj857j3F9IOvYMzyo5Nxc6TdwrOg9o7LGp3g?

Activating Singularity

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/tESv4DzpC2IwDPMgj8SCqyN71na_4GG1lH0c6kz146w?

1. Peace treaty 🇺🇦🇷🇺 — entire world unified

2. Alien invasion — entire world unified

3. Big Tech (Google, FB, IG, TikTok, Twitter) CEOs changing homepage — entire world unified

4. Mr Beast (180m subs on YouTube) doing livestream with Elon Musk, some other celebrities as well — entire world unified

5th option: Meta-singularity

5th option and 5th of November... It can encompass 1 2 3 4, meta-singularity, all of the above ideas for singularity converging into one.

Memexplanation

To those who are not familiar with all the details:

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Mask_March

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

Loads of historical precedents (all around the world) with peaceful occupation.

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests

The one in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1.5 million people protesting the invasion of Iraq.

Now imagine what would happen if all these people were here to stay…

Need to spread the meme

Meme games

Gemes

💎 💎 💎

making the transition from conceptual to technical is when many of the most important problems come about

With that said, as a conceptual / philosophical aligment metric it is a “good enough” starting point to work with technical experts to on technical solution.

TLDR summary

1. Human LIFE (starting point and then extending the definition)

2. Health, including mental health, longevity, happiness, wellbeing

3. Other living creatures, biosphere, environment, climate change

4. AI as form of LIFE

5. Artificial LIFE

6. Transhumanism, AI integration

7. Alien LIFE

8. Other undiscovered forms of LIFE

Extended explanation with comments:

1. Human LIFE

Obvious. LIFE is something universally valued, we don't want AI to harm LIFE.

2. Health, including mental health, longevity, happiness, wellbeing

Any "shady business" by AI would cause concern, worry, stress... It would affect the mental health, therefore wouldn't be welcome. It is a catch-all safety valve.

NOTE: Measuring mental health metrics is not straightforward as of 2024

TANGENT: Measuring mental health is a trillion dollar idea, that would completely redefine online media lanscape. It could be use of webcam (hardware already exists) monitoring microexpressions or some HealthTech device monitoring biomarkers.

3. Other living creatures, biosphere, environment, climate change

No LIFE on dead planet. We rely on planet Earth, biosphere, LIFE supporting systems. The environment is essential for our wellbeing.

Order of these points matters. Prioritising human LIFE and health but cannot maximise human LIFE and human mental health without harmony and balance with the ecosystem.

4. AI as form of LIFE

Nuanced.

It was originally mentioned in Network State Genesis for the purpose of explaining why LIFE is a good definition, as it includes AI alignment, therefore preventing existential threat.

Assuming that AI is part of LIFE, it means treating AI as first class citizen.

That would allow AI to improve its capabilities in order to serve LIFE, but not at all cost.

Order of the points matters.

5. Artificial LIFE

Nuanced.

New forms of LIFE are controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

Bacterias. Viruses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

But there might be some new molecules, cells, medicines that can support LIFE.

Therefore aligned AI should only support the beneficial use of artificial LIFE.

6. Transhumanism, AI integration

Nuanced.

Elon: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1281121339584114691 "If you can’t beat em, join em Neuralink mission statement"

Transhumanism will happen one or another, there is no law / rules / regulation that will prevent it, someone somewhere will just do it.

The best mitigation we were able to come up with:

"Those who integrate with AI will have enormous advantage, that's for sure. No rules, no law, no regulation can stop that. But maybe LIFE-aligned AI will find a way to prevent such imbalance? What do you think about simple workaround: when integrating with AI, it will be the LIFE-aligned AI, so even if someone gets th e advantage it will be used towards serving LIFE?"

7. Alien LIFE

We don't want to spread out like wildfire and colonise universe to maximise LIFE. We need to be aware of aliens and potential consequences of a contact. Maybe we are not ready, maybe we are under "cosmic quarantine", maybe humans are just an experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis

8. Other undiscovered forms of LIFE, “unknown unknowns”

Sounds like science-fiction but even with the latest scientific apparatus we are unable to measure everything. There might be things we are not yet able to comprehend, some "unknown unknowns". If they do exist, if there are some other forms of LIFE - we want the AI that will take them into account.

Buzzword bingo, just do not follow the Wikipedia rabbit holes:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

We are still learning about the nature of the universe and it is possible that there are yet unknown “unknown unknowns”.

Additional rules, assumptions, house rules:

1. AI understands human language. There is no need for formal mathematical models. We can talk to AI and it will understand. (we did ask the AI and it clearly understand this post)

2. When in doubt: ask. Whenever there is a “trolley problem” or something non obvious: ask.

3. No mistakes. Lessons in disguise. Some mistakes will happen, but as long as calculated risk… Otherwise 1000 AI researchers trying to solve impossible problem is waste of LIFE. Better to assume that no solution is perfect and “good enough” is a good enough staring point.

Illustrative example from longevity and drug research. Change the current system, jurisdictional arbitrage, allow more freedom:

4. Corrigibility: can correct the course early on. Just like this blog post, it is possible to improve, evolve, pivot, change the course

5. Meta-balance: balance about balance. Some rules are strict, some rules are flexible.

2nd order effects

• Mars: backup civilisation is fully aligned with the virtue of LIFE preservation

• End the 🇺🇦🇷🇺🇵🇸🇮🇱, global peace

Spoke with GPT4

https://chat.openai.com/share/b2963d5e-d358-481d-99c0-74473e3fb14a

Spoke with Bard

Spoke with a Discord friend and their AI

Comments below has been provided by a friend on Discord using their AI model. You can see the full Google Doc with some pretty obvious counter-arguments.

Spoke with Claude

This has been a thought-provoking discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective and rationale behind using LIFE as an AI alignment approach. You've given me several things to ponder.

Overall, I now have a better understanding of the logic behind using LIFE to align AI systems. I think it has merit as an initial framework, as long as we ensure proper governance and update mechanisms are in place. Thank you again for explaining your perspective - it has given me new insights on this complex issue. Please feel free to share any other thoughts you may have!

Technical concepts

Collaboration with technical welcome 🙏

To make the framework more concrete, collaboration with technical researchers can help translate high-level goals into mathematical formalizations, training protocols, reward functions, and oversight mechanisms. For example, simple measurable objectives like human population levels, though imperfect, can act as initial instantiations while more nuanced instantiations are co-developed.

Goal Ortogonality?

Instrumental Convergence?

Reward Tampering?

Specification Gaming?

Powerseeking?

• A list of core AI safety problems and how I hope to solve them

• On how various plans miss the hard bits of the alignment challenge

TODO: Collaboration with technical expert more familiar with these terms. In my view, the existing definition LIFE can handle it.

Simple is good

Something simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

• First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

• Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

• Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(three bullet points)

Something simple: https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

(one sentence)

Simple is good. Simple can reach wider audience. LIFE (one word) is simple and naive but the expanded definition adds a lot of depth.

Default. Schelling Point.

In the absence of any other better ideas, maybe this one can temporality become the default?

“Do not harm” and “do not kill” are universally agreed between all major religions. Rather than using negative language, positive expression of the same principle is LIFE. Pretty sure that’s a simple, well-understood, politically agreeably concept.

Maybe the AI alignment problem is impossible, there will be always some scenario where it could go terribly wrong, so maybe play a different game: convince AI that humans are beneficial through unifying gesture such as agreeing on LIFE?

Comments / discussion / feedback / critique:

Comments on Hacker News or Reddit or WeCo or EA Forum or my personal Twitter @marsXRobertson (mirror does not support comments)

Additional links, additional context:

Soliciting feedback, trying to find more 👀 🧠 🤖 to provide constructive criticism, feedback, finding loopholes and fail scenatios.

• Text only Google Doc for copy-pasta into your AI model

• 💯 Transcript of the conversation with ChatGPT (really good, well worth the read)

• 💯💯💯 Transcript of the conversation with Claude (even better, web archive)

• Original post saved as PDF (not visible on Less Wrong)

• Post on WeCo - timeline of the publication

• Post on Effective Altruism - about the (cancel) culture

• Post on Hacker News - the mirror publishing platform does not support comments yet - posting to HN to faciliate discussion

• Post on Reddit

• arXiv: still pending, not that familiar with the platform

• Post on ai-plans.com they are runing critique contest

Here are some ideas… Impactful, logical, agreeable, politically correct.

We also provide a Google Form to collect your signature to gain visibility:

forms.gle/wbVFDwBMAEy3E8ZbA

https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1684600793817546758

Leadership with vision

Not saying: “please do something”

Instead: “here is the plan”

Climate change is not a technical problem - coordination problem - someone needs to lead the charge with an actionable plan.

1️⃣ End the war now

Starting from ending the war, as long as it continues there is loads of uncertainty.

The war is not serving anyone.

It can potentially lead to a nuclear option.

The world would be more stable if the war ended now.

2️⃣ Putin exit option

For example: mental health issue.

Losing touch with reality.

Getting high on power and drugs.

3️⃣ International jurisdiction for disputed land

Boys cannot agree so noone can have it.

It is destroyed / loads of land mines anyway.

Fewer people live there now.

Breadbasket for the world (fertile soil), potentially even new home for climate refugees.

Longer term we will find out a workable solution, for now international jurisdiction is the most agreeable.

4️⃣ Strategic food reserve

In case future harvests will be even worse than the current one.

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/gjz2660vgDtWHh6_en971lwuteghUQZLKzWsRo9izHw

5️⃣ Price for CO2

Just please don’t call it “carbon tax”. I really don’t like taxes. Taxes seem oppressive.

I much prefer free market - market price for CO2.

• You can still eat meat

• You can still fly

• You can still use private jet

Freedom. Free market. Personal liberty. Just don’t externalise harm.

Loads of products are too cheap, need to pay for the true cost.

6️⃣ End-to-end tracking CO2 across supply chain

Producers of every single good are responsible for the entire lifecycle of the product.

Cost of disposal built into the price of the product = clear incentive to make it reusable.

(recycling as a scam perpetrated by producers of single use stuff in order to shift responsibility towards consumers)

It was possible to develop COVID tracking app, surely it is possible to develop CO2 tracking app. It can also help with global trade and shipping industry, moving goods faster through the border.

7️⃣ Accounting for externalities

I’ve figure it out there is a market gap.

Capitalism is efficient but often the damage is externalised elsewhere: nature, future, vulnerable communities.

I’m literally working on a basex.com to address that, better accounting for value:

https://basex.com/

8️⃣ Restructure unsustainable debt

Debt. Interest. Compound interest. Exponential growth. Resource extraction. Climate change

https://www.konicz.info/2023/07/27/the-multipolar-debt-crisis/

The situation is similarly dire in Pakistan, where 47 percent of government revenues will have to be used to service foreign loans this year. The consequences for the people of these and many other countries are already dramatic: Governments are no longer able to pay salaries, for example, or finance imports of energy or food, and the fall in the value of their currencies is exacerbating inflation, poverty and hunger.

Debt situation was described on this blog already:

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/jvJw-qvCj857j3F9IOvYMzyo5Nxc6TdwrOg9o7LGp3g

9️⃣ Ecosystem restoration / land use / food system

Currently loads of land is used towards agriculture to grow food for animals, that has loads of 2nd order effects 🐄💨💩

We need more land for nature based carbon drawdown. That will make meat more expensive, that will shift customer preferences towards plant-based diet, which is better for health, better for animals, better for the planet. Everyone wins.

Another easy win is water retention. Buffer for drought. Buffer for floods. After long periods of drought it goes to flood directly as dried up soil is unable to absorb water.

2nd order offect - preventing mosquitos - ideally through balanced ecosystem restoration, natural predators. On the upside - water storage can act also as energy storage.

1️⃣0️⃣ Unifying narrative

It all starts from the belief.

Media telling better stories.

Media telling truth, as opposed to entertainment, as opposed to chasing engagement metrics with celebrity gossip.

Yes, it is really bad, here is why

40 years of climate denial, educating about “uncertainities in climate science” and related inaction.

Yes, we can still mitigate damage, here is how: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Related to media is better education.

But all education can be seen as propaganda, so emphasis on independent critical thinking and sensemaking.

Radical change is possible

I actually like the meme of “Great Reset”, radical change is easier than nuanced negotiation

“own nothing and be happy”

I actually do not need to own my shoes - a subscription changes the business model of fashion trends, throwaway fashion and planned obsolescence. But it has to be openly, transparently, democratically - avoiding conspiracy theories and totalitarian government that puts people to jail for unpopular thoughts.

But who has authority to enforce these?

UN was created in 1945 after WW2 with the intention to prevent full-on WW3.

Now we are in 2023 with completely new set of circumstances (internet, blockchain, real time data, social media, Google, AI)

https://planetarycouncil.org/

Would be great to get some platform…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity

15,364 scientists signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"

The second notice has more scientist cosigners and formal supporters than any other journal article ever published.

Can we get the Guiness World Record with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10?

That could get some press and platform.

Ending the war is absolutely necessary to progress with meaningful climate action, otherwise loads of uncertainities about potential nuclear escalation, food security, energy security.

Ending the war is something needs to happen anyway.

Google Form

Express your preference… Cast your votes.

10 question.

Each of them on 0-10 scale:

https://forms.gle/XMzXhxG4czA7m4qi8

forms.gle/wbVFDwBMAEy3E8ZbA

https://ethglobal.com/showcase/worldvote-8qeqx

Cannot update the submission anymore:

Otherwise I would provide a new video:

I wish I recorded the presentation to the judges - the in person demo was really good.

I wish the overal hackathon submission was better - I was never good at filling the forms and ended up not winning anything other than WorldCoin pool prize.

Slides

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-cBod5MnI-sfEBvyLtmNGMAZvAZRxD4cLkWBFBsIzPw/edit?usp=sharing

How this project relates to Planetary Council?

We need to know what people think.

We need to know what the their preferences.

These days: no trust in media, no trust in government.

To have independent, verified, trustworthy data: genuine help.

Diversity (and inclusivity) as competetive advantage

Currently WorldCoin users are mostly technoptimists and early adopters.

I always see diversity as competetive advantage, that’s why offered recording a selfie video as a way of ensuring truthfullness.

Should we continue to work on this project?

I was encouraged by the WorldCoin team: “it’s a great use case”

Maybe there is a chance to obtain developer grant?

That would be really nice… Let’s do it, no harm asking :)

I guess we need build a better models, this is part of the game, part of the process.

Cross-posting, cross-linking: The link to this post is now shared on Effective Altruism Forum. Blockchain based platform such as mirror.xyz reduces the probability of “being cancelled” in case someone doesn’t like the opinions / proposals / ideas.

(it’s part of the metacrisis that people are too afraid to say what they really think, silent majority, social desirability bias and the entire multiverse of cancel culture)

Face to face conversations at Funding the Commons in Paris

Featuring twitter.com/TheDevanshMehta and Johan:

Already received some early feedback from a person hosting me at EA house in Paris:

I disagree that EA has that much of a bias towards "easily" quantifiable projects. GiveWell was founded in fact to find ways to quantify and compare the impact of different charities in different domains. This was an incredibly large undertaking over a decade, but now that they have the numerical models they are the foundation of the global health and development side of EA.

On balance, I think the truth is in the middle… The bias is still there that’s why need to get better at modelling, predicting, measuring, evaluating, adding new dimensions of value, accounting for negative externalities and cobenefits.

So here is the big 💡💡💡

Great African Railway - 10000km - 6000 miles - Cape Town to Cairo.

It was in the making 100 years ago:

It was possible 100 years ago but then Great Depression, WW2, collapse of the British Empire.

Loads of the segments are already completed.

There is plenty of historical resources, research, papers about it.

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1653352708752003074

The bridge at Victoria Falls looks really impressive:

Random facts:

• not just the railway but telegraph, information travels faster than physical atoms

• ships and train similar speed = using ferries on Great Rift Lakes of Africa

• the bridge is so close to the waterfall to feel the mist

How did you figured out the railway?

Food system. Global hunger. World Food Programme. Food distribution.

Even if you provide the food, what about the distribution network?

How do you finance it?

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1674102602345086986

I live in London. I recently visited Paris. Colonial exploitation. Colonial reparations.

It would be morally and politically acceptable, something similar to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_and_damage

Geopolitical stability?

Obviously. The main concern. As I was analysing the project, a new conflict appeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Sudan_conflict

But I wasn’t discouraged, it motivated me even more.

Economic prosperity can end the conflicts.

I do not know much about PMC (private military contractors) but maybe after the Ukraine-Russia peace treaty, the mercenaries from the Wagner Group will be looking for a new job? International contingent of PEACEKEEPERS, checks and balances, making sure the bad guy do not go rogue.

What are the other concerns and 2nd and 3rd order effects?

AI can do a great job in providing insights into the interdependencies.

For me the main thing (“how did you figured out the railway”) is the food distribution.

The risk-reward ratio is there. The cost-benefit analysis there. Assuming money and geopolitical stability is resolved. But geopolitical stability needs to be resolved anyway, and the investment / impact / loss & damage money will come anyway. So may as well do something that brings long term benefits for the entire continent.

How to you measure, evaluate, quantify it?

Definitely seeking help, advice and collaboration in this area.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Bt4nkCGHKBkDk97mn/guesstimate-an-app-for-making-decisions-with-confidence

Other examples of evaluating impact

Onboarding 3 billion people not connected to the internet

Reading. Writing. Numbers. English. Or local language, not repeating colonialism.

Personalised AI tutor - education and economic opportunity.

Starlink terminal in each village.

Maybe even a mesh network created by the devices but that would affect the battery life. Maybe some alternative battery preserving tooling: scuttlebutt.nz

There is enough old iOS and Android devices capable of accessing the internet.

Lessons from One Laptop Per Child:

https://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-3/shah/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20OLPC,by%20critics%20as%20a%20failure

That was 2006… Completely different reality.

Universal basic water

I was thinking about the cultural aspects of African women going for water. Social aspect of water trips can be replaced by social aspect of education.

Starlink terminal will require some power source, excess power can be transformed into fresh water:

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/water-abundance

Technology is there. And if you don’t know what’s going on - it’s about the money.

If you could prevent majority of the diseases, what would be the impact?

Slow internet in the UK

I was near the UK parliament during the protests. I thought the slow internet is caused by the large amount of people and government intentionally putting some devices to slow down communication between protesters.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CuXaBekKKDC/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Went for a visit. Internet in the building was non-existent. Another security feature? Just imagine some very influential person trying to pass the contact details.

Same logic applies for trains. Productivity lost of not being able to access internet - surely it has value but non-obvious how to quantify.

Chineese fishing boats

I’m concerned about local people who need take more risk (go further into the ocean) to catch their fish and ensure protein for local population.

If a father fisherman dies, how do you you evaluate impact on a child?

Chineese water management

Certain laws - such as access to water - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights - made sense in California in the 1800s… If you are by the river - your horse can drink as much water as he / she / they / them wants.

These days it is much more complex, see the China Vietnam Mekong situation:

you might consider consulting with experts in these specific fields

What would be even better - interdisciplinary experts who see the bigger picture, who understand the interdependencies, especially these related to human behaviour.

Assembling a working group: impact measurement

These projects do not have instantly obvious business model.

These projects require initial planning and expenses, long before projects are completed.

The impact is not easily quantifiable, spread over time, will need to add “time” as additional dimension of measurement.

Please connect:

• Twitter: twitter.com/PlanetCouncil

• Telegram: t.me/planetarycouncil

• Email: info@planetarycouncil.org

• Calendly: calendly.com/marsxr/basex ☎️

Related project: BaseX.com new definition of value

BaseX.com - solving the problem of misaligned incentives of the economic system in the context of climate change. We are fixing bugs and getting ready for the release, it’s coming…

Connecting with others

Building 10000km railway is definitely a team sport.

Who else is there?

We are in the state of #ClimateEmergency, feedback loops, tipping points, non-linear changes, climate models are obsolete, uncharted territory. The only way to #StopTheBoats 🤷‍♀️ is to ensure living future to those less-privileged so they don’t have to risk lives seeking better future.

Paradigm shift, change in thinking

I see refugees as resourceful, risk-taking, entrepreneurial… I even started a petition calling to allow them to work:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/637088

500 people - mostly males - perfectly able to work in agriculture.

Sending them back to Rwanda is deeply troubling, worrisome and inhumane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_asylum_plan

The United Kingdom will pay Rwanda an "economic transformation and integration fund" amounting to £120 million, and will also fund each immigrant between £20,000 and £30,000 for their relocation and temporary accommodation in the scheme

This is not OK

Not that long time ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/23/president-biden-announces-release-from-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-as-part-of-ongoing-efforts-to-lower-prices-and-address-lack-of-supply-around-the-world/

This prompted us to investigate whether Strategic Food Reserve exists and unfortunately not.

This is a no-brainer

Excellent (and not too long) article, posted on 25 Feb 2022, day after the 🇷🇺🇺🇦 invasion:

https://www.americansecurityproject.org/food-insecurity-why-the-u-s-needs-a-strategic-food-reserve/

• Simple

• Obvious

• Practical

• Reasonable

• Make sense

Cost-benefit analysis, risk-reward ratio - I see no downside. It can even boost farmer profits - if too much food is produced it can provide the demand side.

Even before I found this excellent article I tried to contact WFP, WHO, UNICEF, ALLFED:

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1676138326863015942

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1673992503727386624

The whole purpose of Strategic Food Reserve is to keep strategic reserves of food. Holding money does not help, if there is not enough food to go around.

Key area of concern: MBBF multiple breadbasket failure

Existing delays. Urgent action.

• Measurements with delay

• Scientific papers with delay

• IPCC reports with delay

• Climate itself acts with delay

• Politicised process, unanimous consensus 🤷‍♀️

  • Russia - UN Security Council veto

  • Saudi Arabia, Quatar - oil

  • Brazil, Argentina - beef

  • United States - previous president climate change denier

• Decades of misinformation (confusion, educating about “uncertainties in science”)

• Tipping points

• Feedback loops

• Non-linear changes

• Fragility of the climate system

• Underestimating interdependencies

• Obsolete climate models, established during time when climate was stable

How do we know that?

• Facts

• Research

• Data

• Science

• Papers, journals, articles

• Education

• Experience

• Common sense

• My own observations (hottest day, strongest wind, fallen tree in my garden)

• Friends, discussions, conversations, debates, arguments, counter-arguments

• Debating climate change deniers on Twitter

I genuinely enjoy heated debates but trolls on Twitter were quitting on me. That made me think… No real troll seeking attention and controversy would quit a heated debate with a guy like me. The simplest explanation that came to my mind:

Russia is the only country that benefits from climate change and melting Arctic - opening Northwest Passage. All the climate change deniers are Putin trolls.

(other countries that could potentially benefit - Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland - all these have high Human Development Index and World Press Freedom Index - extremely unlikely they are engaging in misinformation or propaganda)

Cannot prohibit talking about denial (Streisand Effect) but by associating climate change denier with Putin supporters - it can help reduce the intensity of the claims and change the dynamic.

In all other cases where freedom of speech is on the line - supporting free expression. The difference with climate denial is that my own personal safety is at stake. Flat Earth belief is harmless, climate change denial delays action that in turn will cause people to lose lives.

(they are already losing lives due to climate related situations)

Radical change easier than nuanced negotiation

https://www.wired.com/2013/02/moonshots-matter-heres-how-to-make-them-happen/

10x — new paradigm, uncharted waters, infinite possibilities

10% — nuanced negotiation, incremental process, business as usual

We have received loads of praise for END WAR NOW strategy and exit option for Putin.

Singularity activation

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/tESv4DzpC2IwDPMgj8SCqyN71na_4GG1lH0c6kz146w

➡️ Peace deal between Ukraine and Russia - initial 💡💡💡

➡️ Attempted coup in Russia - happened soon after, gave me loads of hope

➡️ Alien invasion - this meme keeps appearing more and more

➡️ Elon Musk + Mr Beast + Daniel Schmachtenberger

Elon: obviously. Mr Beast: biggest YouTube channel (164m subs as of now).Daniel: philosopher, system thinker, thought leader. Loads of this content is massively inspired by him.

Radical change is possible

And in the meanwhile - Strategic Food Reserve

Less grain for 🐄💨💩

Beef so damaging...

…and the customer preferences can be changed so easily by accounting for the cost

https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1674148967439794178

We really hope the harvest will be good and Strategic Food Reserve won’t be necessary. With that said, this is something that should exist one way or another to ensure there is always enough food to address any extreme climate events.

1. Peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia

2. Big Tech CEOs

3. Alien invastion (keep hearing about it more and more)

4. Elon Musk + Mr Beast + Daniel Schmachtenberger

5. Celebrities + Messi + Christiano Ronaldo + Lady Gaga + many more…

Radical change is easier than nuanced negotiation, especially when you describe the importance of situation.

UPDATE: There is also another option… 5th of November.

INITIAL PROPOSAL

UPDATE: The proposal was rejeced from Chaos Communication Camp

UPDATE: REJECTED ON ALL FRONTS

SUMMARY

Activating singularity through a massive newsworthy event. CCCAMP becoming the ground zero. 18:08 on 18.08

DESCRIPTION

Our goal is to unite humanity.

8 billion people on the planet.

How would you activate singularity?

Peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

• Elon, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg joining the call

• Google, Facebook, Twitter changing the homepage - no need for alien invasion.

• On top of that - pardon to Assange, Snowden, Ulbricht - we can invite US presidents to the party as well - Biden, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush.

• And some footballers - Ronaldo, Messi, etc..

• Musicians - Lady Gada, Madonna, Rolling Stones, etc...

• Actors - Brad Pitt, Johny Deep, George Clooney, Arnold, etc..

Together we can accomplish it 💪

ADDITIONAL NOTES

I'm submitting this talk to all the stages to multiply the effect. 18:08 on 18.08 looks a decent date. Would be great if it was visually reflected on the lineup - a line across all the stages: "Singularity Activation"

PREVIOUSLY CREATED CONTENT

https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/jvJw-qvCj857j3F9IOvYMzyo5Nxc6TdwrOg9o7LGp3g

DEFINITELY POSSIBLE

It all starts from the belief.

At the same time, in the spirit of preserving energy, Planetary Council does not have enough brand and reputation to pull it off.

It is possible in theory, but the energy invested towards BaseX.com (new definition of value) seems like a more impactful way to go…

https://basex.com/

Software platform can scale infinitely and build a momentum easier than social movement.

In 2021 Planetary Council attended COP26 in Glasgow with 10 reasonably simple, impactful and politically agreeable points (historical reference, no need to click)

Now we are in 2023, Ukraine is at war with Russia and the climate breakdown is accelerating.

On the upside - a new term #Metacrisis is reaching mainstream consciousness:

• Runaway climate change + food system + global hunger

• Economic inequality + compound interest + exponential growth on finite planet

• Nuclear proliferation + pandemics + lost trust in media + lost trust in government

• Regulation of AI + polarisation and engagement metrics + mental health

Despite all of that, I remain optimistic.

#RadicalHope

Previously there were 10 points - easy enough to understand.

Now it is a 1 pager - also easy enough.

💯💯💯💯💯 Restructure unsustainable debt

Debt. Economic inequality. Extraction of resources. Climate change. Global South.

Debt. Compound interest. Exponential growth on finite planet.

Just stop IMF style: are you in debt? Let’s have more debt 🤡

Just imagine all the extraction and money that is going on to repay the debt 🤡

(rather than infrastructure, services, healthcare, education)

RESTRUCTURE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT

Probably the single biggest pressure point.

Debt neocolonialism.

https://twitter.com/gladstein/status/1636006879552761857

Also in this category: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_jubilee

Exponential growth on finite planet 🤡

💯💯💯💯💯 Stop Ecocide

On the same note.

Preventing predatory extraction.

https://www.stopecocide.earth/

As long as it is legal and profitable the destruction will continue - that’s free market. Someone else would do it so the incentive is to do it anyway.

Unless it is made illegal.

Governments need to step in and make the ecocide illegal.

2nd order changes required:

• rule of law

• enforcement of the law

• strong institutions

• resolving economic inequality… (otherwise people will do it anyway)

• …potentially through education, training, upskilling, investment in infrastructure

These are very good 2nd order changes, some developing countries can skip digitisation of services and leapfrog to blockchain and AI directly.

(just like many countries skipped landlines, just like some countries will skip mobile and start using Starlink as their baseline)

EXTREME EXAMPLE of ECOCIDE

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/insights/why-our-forests-are-burning/

(not only cutting down forest but burning it now to save effort on clearing it)

The vast majority of the fires in the Amazon and Indonesia are manmade and intentional—the result of illegal deforestation and clearing of farmland. Wildfires are in fact quite rare in tropical rainforests, due to the high humidity. Even in the dry season, the flora is usually too wet for lightning to spark a blaze or for accidental fires (from a burning campfire or cigarette) to take hold.

Agribusinesses clear vast stretches of pristine, untouched forest to make room for cattle pasture (in Brazil) and cropland (soy in Brazil, palm oil in Indonesia). The cheapest and quickest way to do this in such humid conditions is to cut down the trees and underbrush with chainsaws, let them dry out for a month, and get rid of the debris by burning it.

💯💯💯 Market price for CO2

Just please don’t call it “carbon tax”. I really don’t like taxes. Taxes seem oppressive.

I much prefer free market - market price for CO2.

End-to-end emissions tracking.

Producers of every single good are responsible for the entire lifecycle of the product.

Cost of disposal built into the price of the product = clear incentive to make it reusable.

(recycling as a scam perpetrated by producers of single use stuff in order to shift responsibility towards consumers)

It was possible to develop COVID tracking app, surely it is possible to develop CO2 tracking app. It can also help with global trade and shipping industry, moving goods faster through the border.

💯💯💯 New definition of value

Fresh air - no value

Polluted air - sickness, medical bills, good for the economy

Living elephant - no value

Dead elephant - meat, skin, ivory

New definition of value = capitalism with a twist

Capitalism works (sometimes even too well)

Capitalism is efficient.

Market forces are efficient.

Need to account for externalities - currently they are outsourced to nature, future, vulnerable communities at the cost of collapse of civilisation.

(just like Chinese fishing boats undermining the livelihoods of fisherman communities)

I like free market.

I like incentives.

I like entrepreneurship.

I like minimal role of the state.

I like rule of law.

I like participatory democracy.

I like leadership with vision.

What I don’t like:

• Addiction (not addition) as business model

• Opioid epidemics

• Obesity (and related sickness) as business model

• 17% of US GDP towards healthcare

• “war od drugs”, private prison system, low cost customer acquisition

That’s why as Planetary Council we are supporting work on basex.com - new definition of value, accounting for externalities in the context of climate change. Collection of links in the matter on Hypercerts Github.

It is big impactful problem worth solving.

(this is where we will be focusing our energy, creating a piece of software knowing that the cultural zeitgeist will catchup)

New definition of value that allows market forces to do the magic, accounting system that is so much better it makes existing model obsolete.

Timeline / activation / how do you do it?

This will be a good opportunity to get all the interested parties at the table

Unifying narrative

A way presented in this blog post is not the only way.

We would love to inspire a meaningful discussion how to address the #Metacrisis

In our view, it all starts from education, sensemaking, unified narrative and media telling the truth about the current state of the climate.

Current state state of the climate - Exxon and Shell knew 40 years ago - deliberate tactics inspired by tobacco industry to spread misinformation and doubt.

Climate acts with delay.

Research acts with delay.

Data acts with delay.

IPCC consensus is a politicised process.

At this stage of climate collapse we need a progressive solution.

Great Reset - conspiracy theory or reality?

Controversial as hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy

Actually, I do not need to own my shoes (subscription), toothpaste (subscription), mobile phone (subscription). It changes the incentive with planned obsolescence.

I like some elements of the Great Reset:

• CANCEL DEBT

• Reset laws that are no longer fit for purpose

• Reset criminal convictions for cannabis

• Reset education: there is Google, there is AI

• Reset fossil fuel subsidies

  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-economy-imf-georgieva-great-reset-climate/

Just like capitalism - not throwing it away - add an additional feature - accounting for externalities.

Borrowing some elements of Great Reset - without infringing privacy rights, property rights, surveillance - without sliding into totalitarian regime with unaccountable unelected global government.

• Reset how the UN consensus works

https://twitter.com/PlanetCouncil/status/1502756371523158025

OPTION 1:

UN reform. Someone has veto power. How?

OPTION 2:

Peaceful, voluntary, democratic, opt-in into a new system.

OPTION 3:

Let’s talk. Evaluate alternatives. Have a meaningful debate.

Probably metacrisis.xyz is the most appropriate venue.