The fact that you can compare it precisely confirms the freedom of choice that we are talking about.

That's another topic which doesn't contradict with the core statement. We are trying to figure out if having something decide for you what to think is acceptable.

Again its not you choosing them arbitrary.

That's not going to give you the opinion of 10 different people though. Just 10 answers from the same source.

Let's put that into context. Would you like to replace reddit with AI?

Not talking about correctness here but rather about reducing user autonomy by taking away choice.

It's more about the theoretical side of it. Because fundamentally a search engine can provide contradictory and self-excluding answers as is naturally gathered from people while AI will reduce that to a single yes or no. And that's the actual problem.

Because fundamentally a search engine can provide contradictory and self-excluding answers as is naturally gathered from people while AI will reduce that to a single yes or no. And that's the actual problem.

Show some examples so we can enrich the discussion.

A quick question about automation - why is it moving so chaotically towards consumer markets instead of replacing the most dangerous jobs first? Wouldn't it make more sense to automate professions like miners, nuclear power workers, road construction workers first rather than the kitchen, the vacuum cleaner or cashiers? Is it all driven by where the most profit can be extracted rather than where it's most needed?

I believe our only way out is moneyless economy which we can simulate even right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStasis/

Thanks I really appreciate it. People get very sensitive when you touch the holy graal but no one questions Diablo for example haha

You can read more about them here:

https://github.com/stateless-minds/cyber-acid

and here:

https://github.com/stateless-minds/cyber-stasis

Thanks, will try to improve based on constructive feedback.

Thanks for the suggestion. I find the effort to install the app the most important because it teaches people to co-host apps if they want to use them rather than being simply consumers that want convenience. Being mainstream is not the main idea here. It's rather hacky and aimed at people who are genuinely interested.

I am afraid this is the best I can explain it. You can try the various simulators to get a better understanding of the idea.

We are increasingly living in a centralized, totalitarian society where we end up atomized instead of empowered autonomous individuals. What's more the intellectual elite which has always produced alternative ideas is fruitless to define a new path ahead and unusually silent. The world-known philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries are a distant memory with nothing truly new at the horizon that reflects technological progress and overall human development.
Cyber Autonomy is the fruit of a year of applied research and a couple of years of conceptualization. It summarizes the abstracts of autonomy across the pillars of our society - economics, politics and media and offers viable alternatives to the status quo. At its core it focuses on the autonomy of the individual as a stepping stone for a vital global community. The goal is to bring back autonomy to the forefront of discussions and to attract the attention of the academic circles.

Yeah of course. Not from the app though.

No, you are anonymous to the app but not to the underlying network of IPFS where you are pseudo-anonymous. The app uses the peerID, encrypts a portion of it and uses that as identifier.

Yep, it's really just a fun game/simulation rather than an app to be used as a social media.

It still has admins and servers because it's not p2p and flat. Also Cyber Witness is focused on directly witnessed news only. Other than that of course we can have as many as we like with variations. The whole point of diversity.

The biggest one - no one owns it. All people host it. No censorship, no ads, no paywalls, no surveillance, no curation, no algorithms, the list goes on...

There is no concept of validation and invalidation of news in the simulator. A rumor changes its status to news on 2 confirmations but after that it's up to you to decide based on number of confirmations how real it is.

Of course. The more confirmations and details aggregated the higher the chance it's real.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. It's not about making revolutions literally. It's all about showing people how easy it is to replace the current system. I don't think something you can install and run in 15 minutes is to be considered out of reach. Literally anyone can try and see if it works or not.

You are talking like we are in the early 90s and we have a free market. Now the real picture is 2 investment funds own the world and all new companies are created with investments from them.