🌄 Peter Alexander

I understand that a state machine computational model can be adequate for modeling some business processes. I'm not saying that this is all garbage. The problem is that they say that they want to apply this to communities, communities of communities, the dream being to apply it to the entire society. If I understand their thought process correctly, the idea of "synchronzed state" comes from blockchain, the ledger is the synchronized state of the network at every moment a block is added. But I think that there's more. In computer games, there's also a concept of a "game state", which is the ensemble of parameters required to recover the game if there's a computer glitch. Also, in programming terms, a game takes an action plus the current game state and produces either a new state or an end result. So I'm trying to understand these guys from where they come from... Left to their own devices, they will waste their talent trying to fit society (complex socioeconomic processes) into a simplistic state machine. That's their tendency, if I understand them correctly, to project their mental models on society, trying to squeeze society into their models rather than trying to understand a reality and look for a tech that could help represent it. Also, there is nothing new that they're doing terms of "value sovereignty". No innovation in this field what so ever. Moreover, there is no real surface of attachment, meaning that what they claim they'll build (since what they call Value Functions are not built yet) isn't built from a real project perspective, enbedded in a real life experience. I took part in their conversations about benefit redistribution algorithms in the abstract, struggling with non-problems, trying to engineer out stuff that very rarely happens, in real situations. I intervened and pointed them to information coming from experience in past Sensorica projects, explaining that some stuff is taken care of by other processes, in the social, cultural, even spiritual layers of an organization. What I want to say is that they are good at pointing AI agents at the Internet, gathering lots of info and trying to synthesize it outside of a real context, without really understanding the whole meaning of it and how all that would apply in reality. Their content is mostly synthesized with AI, with no trace back to where the inspiration came from, providing their community members no path to digg deeper. Fine, I'm all for letting people replicating past work, bringing new perspectives. At the same time, we need to have a way to evaluate these initiatives, make sense of them, to help them (collaborate across organizational boundaries) or even denounce them, if we think that they are spreading false signals. Talking about false signaling, here's my assessment. Their language is grandiose, expressed in superlatives: We have better tech than blockchain and holochain, we have taken everything into consideration and more, there's no project out there better than ours. Really, that's the tone in their Discord :) That's a wrong signaling... Then there's the grandiose idea of changing the whole world with one project. They have the prescription, it takes synchronization to solve our problems. Then we can look at the outreach mechanics. They have contests, competitions, where anyone can enter to create content for SP, and they pay money to the top 3. So they create an incentive to create content. People use AI to do it. They get hundreds of posts and only reward 3, or a very small number. Then they complain that most of the content is garbage, so they try to create AI tools that solve the problem created by AI tools with the wrong incentives :) Meanwhile, they make waves on social media by spinning this AI-driven crowdsourced outreach campaign. So this type of signaling resembles a cult with a pump. A cult for the grandiosity aspects of the language and for refusing to engage in real debate. A pump, for crowdsourcing outreach.