Clarifying the Core Thesis: Justification for Believing in Imperfect Human Plurality over AGI Governance

[earthwalker20075-coder]

The Plurality vision correctly identifies the historical failure patterns of human intelligence—such as the cyclical tendency toward one-directional convergence (populism) and political paralysis—and explicitly rejects the Technocracy solution (AGI/Superintelligence rule).
However, the core philosophical justification for choosing imperfect human plurality over a bias-free AGI rule needs to be consolidated into a clear, affirmative statement. This addresses the deepest underlying skepticism: Why trust human intelligence that continually repeats patterns of prosperity and ruin?
Proposed Enhancement:
In core philosophical sections (e.g., Chapter 3: "What is Plurality?," Chapter 7: "Conclusion"), reinforce the rationale for trusting human plurality by clarifying that:

1. Value is in Diversity, not Perfection: The choice is based on believing in the aggregate capacity of diverse, imperfect human intelligences (Plurality) to continuously adapt and regenerate new perspectives, rather than the monolithic perfection of a single intelligence (AGI), which is prone to concentrating power and freezing societal evolution.
2. Mechanism for Self-Correction: Human intellect is deemed "trustworthy" not inherently, but because Plurality provides technological and institutional mechanisms (QV, Polis, etc.) that force the inclusion of diverse voices, actively regenerate new conflicts, and prevent the self-limiting biases of any single group (even government leaders) from dominating the system.
   This clarity will strengthen the ethical and practical superiority of Plurality, making the "Third Way" a more compelling and robust choice against the seductive promises of Technocratic perfection.

[cppcooper]

I agree that covering bases is a good idea, but I also tend towards believing the people reading already know why to rely first on humans instead of computers programmed by humans. An AGI might be a great core for successful loooooong term (longer than a human life) governance, but unfortunately we don't truly understand the "how" of thinking for AI seen with LLMs let alone AGI which would be profoundly more complicated. It is rather difficult to trust things you don't understand. It becomes even harder when you're intelligent and they are 10000 times smarter than you. Basic risk aversion imho.

[earthwalker20075-coder]

Thank you very much for your input.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the significant delay in responding.
As I am a non-technical person who is unfamiliar with GitHub, I must confess that I did not understand the correct communication and interaction procedures, which unfortunately meant I failed to check for your reply.

Your point is absolutely spot on and hits the nail on the head.
We agree that understanding the black-box nature of an AGI's thought processes represents a considerable risk, and mitigating this risk is a vitally important factor.

However, I would argue that the collective thought processes of humans—the 'crowd'—are similarly complex and lack a clear core, perhaps also constituting a black box (or, though not a direct antonym, perhaps a 'spaghetti' or even 'chaos'?).

My concern is not that we can only understand one and not the other, but rather that we may fully understand neither.

Nonetheless, there is a Japanese company currently advancing an initiative to structurally capture and database human behaviour throughout history. The company's name is COTEN INC (https://coten.co.jp)).
I cannot say with certainty whether this project truly elucidates a flat structure of historical movements. However, I believe that this analysis of humanity's historical movements is a highly important text that has strong affinity with the concept of Plurality.
Furthermore, it is possible that there are other similar attempts to that of COTEN INC.

If we can leverage the existence of such efforts, I believe it would significantly strengthen the theoretical foundations of Plurality.

P.S.
COTEN INC also operates a channel called "Coten Radio" on platforms like Podcast, Spotify, and YouTube, which curates knowledge by structurally examining history (find out more at $https://coten.co.jp/services/cotenradio/$).

Thanks and regards.

[cppcooper]

However, I would argue that the collective thought processes of humans—the 'crowd'—are similarly complex and lack a clear core

I would argue the same thing. As a result of that problem, I don't think consensus is actually possible at large scale - often times at small scales. As a social anarchist I have been thinking about this problem for more than several years. I think the solution to this problem requires granular democracies and ideological heat maps. I've written about my vision of a solution here https://github.com/A-Universal-Union/Project-Document

Unfortunately the vision is the easy part. There are still two immensely difficult parts left, at least. 1. deliberation, discussion, development of the framework 2. implementation. Roll out seems inconsequential by comparison.

I believe that this analysis of humanity's historical movements is a highly important text that has strong affinity with the concept of Plurality.
...
If we can leverage the existence of such efforts, I believe it would significantly strengthen the theoretical foundations of Plurality.

I believe data is useful, but not anywhere near as useful as simply building solutions. It's on par with protesting in my books, time better spent. My only issue with solutions I typically find in the wild are they approach things from the linux utility view point of Do One Thing, Do It Well.

[earthwalker20075-coder]

Thank you for sharing your document.

I have conducted a comparative analysis of its engineering-centric approach with the philosophy of Plurality, as articulated by Audrey Tang.
I believe that by integrating these two frameworks, we can overcome the challenges you've identified and construct a more resilient model.
My perspective and proposals are outlined below.

Thesis: Engineering Robustness and Evolutionary Acceleration
The primary strength of this project lies in its structural approach, which utilizes cryptographic techniques and trust graphs.
This foundation provides a high degree of robustness, making it possible to mathematically exclude malicious attacks and impersonation.
Furthermore, its scalability—achieved by subjecting ideologies to a form of evolutionary selection pressure to efficiently derive optimal social systems—is a uniquely powerful feature.

Antithesis: A Human-Centric Viewpoint and Its Associated Structural Risks
In contrast, Plurality positions technology as an "aid to dialogue," emphasizing a level of transparency that is accessible to everyone.
When viewed from this human-centric perspective, it becomes clear that the project's strengths are intrinsically linked to the following advanced risks:

• Risk of Power Concentration in Experts:
  As the system grows in complexity, the number of technicians capable of managing and auditing it will be limited.
  This creates a risk that their inherent biases could exert an invisible form of power over the entire system.

• Risk of Cognitive Entrenchment:
  Should the harm-detection algorithms become overzealous, there is a significant concern that they could create a "Mega-Echo-Chamber"—a vast, closed-off space where only certain opinions are allowed to circulate.

• Risk to Foundational Sustainability:
  Abrupt technological shifts, such as the advent of quantum technology, or the fundamental human drive for domination (our Karma), could radically undermine the system's core premises.

Synthesis: "Liquid Constitutionalism" Catalyzed by Risk
These risks should not be seen as negating the system's value, but rather as crucial guideposts for making it more robust. By synthesizing the project's engineering strengths with a human-centric philosophy, we can transform these challenges into sources of hope.

• The Right to Accountability:
  To counter the concentration of power, we must ensure the algorithms are not black boxes.
  This can be achieved by guaranteeing citizens the right to have the reasoning behind algorithmic behavior disclosed and to participate in its adjustment, thereby fostering a sense of legitimacy.

• The Freedom to Exit and Fork:
  When the system's operation becomes biased, the right to fork the system and begin anew must be implemented at the protocol level.
  This structurally prevents the consolidation of power and maintains a state of healthy tension.

• Final Judgment by Humans:
  Critical decisions must always include an approval process involving living human beings.
  By positioning technology not as a "ruler" but as a "powerful advisor," we can supplement its potential for technical failure with human oversight.

Conclusion: The Acceptance of Paradox and the Path of Evolution
The difficult paradox between "solutions enabled by advanced technology" and the "limits of human control" will remain.
However, accepting this very paradox is the key to achieving long-term sustainability.

This project can prevent its own collapse and become a beacon of mature hope precisely by not being implemented as a finished, static social system.
To that end, it must be in a state of constant evolution, sustained by a commitment to "perpetual spiritual maturity" and functioning as a "perpetual training facility".
I believe this concept shares the same meaning as the idea of "life at the edge of chaos" mentioned within the Plurality framework.

[cppcooper]

Thank you for sharing your document.

I have conducted a comparative analysis of its engineering-centric

While it can certainly be considered engineering centric, as it revolves around system design.. I'm not sure it's a fair articulation. Did you read the v4.0 document? or just the summary page?

Success in fact relies on existing structures and human desire to connect and be heard. However, perhaps that hasn't been articulated clearly enough.

Thesis: Engineering Robustness and Evolutionary Acceleration The primary strength of this project lies in its structural approach, which utilizes cryptographic techniques and trust graphs. This foundation provides a high degree of robustness, making it possible to mathematically exclude malicious attacks and impersonation. Furthermore, its scalability—achieved by subjecting ideologies to a form of evolutionary selection pressure to efficiently derive optimal social systems—is a uniquely powerful feature.

I can agree, these are the core goals of the architectural[engineering] side. I would add though that the scalability, in fact, isn't part of the platform so much as the platform's intent to provide a civic layer to society's governance structures.

Antithesis: A Human-Centric Viewpoint and Its Associated Structural Risks In contrast, Plurality positions technology as an "aid to dialogue," emphasizing a level of transparency that is accessible to everyone. When viewed from this human-centric perspective, it becomes clear that the project's strengths are intrinsically linked to the following advanced risks:

* Risk of Power Concentration in Experts:
  As the system grows in complexity, the number of technicians capable of managing and auditing it will be limited.
  This creates a risk that their inherent biases could exert an invisible form of power over the entire system.

This is actually a UX problem to be solved. However considering the implementation details of the platform itself aren't ironed out fully, it would be premature to attempt solving a UX problem.

* Risk of Cognitive Entrenchment:
  Should the harm-detection algorithms become overzealous, there is a significant concern that they could create a "Mega-Echo-Chamber"—a vast, closed-off space where only certain opinions are allowed to circulate.

This appears to be an inversion of the principles. Perhaps the risk does exist, but I don't see where. One of the key intents is not to prevent harm, it's to allow people to say whatever they feel like saying without feeling unsafe to do so. Another key intent is to categorize discourse according to echo chambers, not to prevent cross talk but to create an unavoidable meta-awareness of the discourse one is reading through.

* Risk to Foundational Sustainability:
  Abrupt technological shifts, such as the advent of quantum technology, or the fundamental human drive for domination (our Karma), could radically undermine the system's core premises.

Maybe. All I know is the insight and inspiration for this paper was divinely guided in my life. I see social erosion as a far greater risk, as made clear by history - but I'm not going to make that argument here.

Synthesis: "Liquid Constitutionalism" Catalyzed by Risk These risks should not be seen as negating the system's value, but rather as crucial guideposts for making it more robust.

I agree analyzing risks provide valuable guiding insights.

* The Right to Accountability:
  To counter the concentration of power, we must ensure the algorithms are not black boxes.
  This can be achieved by guaranteeing citizens the right to have the reasoning behind algorithmic behavior disclosed and to participate in its adjustment, thereby fostering a sense of legitimacy.

Another UX issue. Perhaps it is not stated or made clear anywhere, but my vision does involve this civic layer being FULLY transparent. Such that any user can analyze results according to their own methodologies. Will that create conflict? Sometimes yes. Will it strengthen democracy? Also yes.

Currently elections and democratic processes, FEEL like blackboxes.. because an individual requires a lot of time and effort to understand both their institutions and the results they are producing. So we're already well into "blackbox" territory - just look at MAGA, the supporters are driven by community belonging largely but the core of the community is a lack of time to deeply review and understand their own institutions and their representatives. The proof is in the pudding; watch clips of interviews on issues they support where they are asked to for example name wars Trump has stopped or prevented - they simply don't have the time because they are presumably in survival mode and lack the social pressure from their community to be knowledgeable on such things.

* The Freedom to Exit and Fork:
  When the system's operation becomes biased, the right to fork the system and begin anew must be implemented at the protocol level.
  This structurally prevents the consolidation of power and maintains a state of healthy tension.

This doesn't seem necessary based on the existing architectural goals. Particularly the points about collective governance. To explicitly reiterate a point I've been trying to make, perhaps implicitly: the strength of such a civic layer is to support ANY form of governance without structural judgement or prevention. As such it relies on human institutions and communities that already exist. Thus there is nothing to branch or fork.. except a community. Thus the forking happens in the real world, not on the platform.

Taken from section B:

Federated Collective Governance — organizations, governments, and communities can operate validator nodes, embodying accountability through human institutions.

Responding to the rest of your comment would just be reiterating existing points.

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

[earthwalker20075-coder]

Thank you for your response.

I must first apologize for two things.

The first concerns my language proficiency. I made every effort to read and tried to understand both the v4.0 document and the summary page from your repository. However, while I did my best to translate and read through them, I cannot deny that my understanding may be incomplete.

The second concerns the lack of detail in my comment. I had actually prepared a detailed report on my end. However, I considered it too lengthy to be appropriate as a comment, so I attempted to create a summarized response instead. Unfortunately, this resulted in a significant loss of specificity, including the rationale behind my arguments.

In particular, the opening phrase "I have conducted a comparative analysis of its engineering-centric" was a poor summary...

Having read both A-Universal-Union and Plurality, I did not perceive either as being narrowly focused on a single perspective—whether ideological or technical. My intention was to convey that a constructive issue could be created by achieving a dialectical synthesis (Aufhebung) of the two frameworks, but my expression was inadequate.

In particular, the reference in A-Universal-Union's introduction to the propaganda model—citing Chomsky and Herman's discourse on how existing power structures become entrenched and how the polarization of opinions fragments public life—is, in my view, clear evidence of a multifaceted approach rather than a purely technical one.

In other words, when I attempted to summarize my analysis of achieving an integrative development of A-Universal-Union and Plurality to arrive at a higher-level discourse, the words "technical" and "philosophical" emerged as shorthand to represent the primary (though not exclusive) factors when extracting commonalities and complementary aspects. I will elaborate on this in the context of my thesis-antithesis-synthesis analysis below.

I can agree, these are the core goals of the architectural[engineering] side. I would add though that the scalability, in fact, isn't part of the platform so much as the platform's intent to provide a civic layer to society's governance structures.

This is precisely correct. And I understood that "providing a civic layer to society's governance structures" is the goal, with the architectural[engineering] side being the means to achieve it.

My concern lay specifically with this architectural[engineering] side. Naturally, the core is the High-Level Technical Overview section. However, the foundational technology lies in the Low-Level Technical Details section, and the cryptographic standards and blockchain described there face potential game-changers that could undermine their very foundations—namely, quantum computing and mathematical breakthroughs (here, I am assuming a hypothetical future where P=NP is proven).

Furthermore, another concern is that any advanced technology supporting the Low-Level Technical Details could inadvertently grant technocrats overwhelming power to easily transform the social infrastructure.

This is less a technical observation than a historical one. As I believe is also relevant to "Manufacturing Consent," referenced in the Introduction, institutional power can both fragment and direct societal discourse. And the more sophisticated the logic, the more diverse its interpretations become.

The latter point is particularly critical. At the core of the system appear to be elements such as the "harm-detection LLM" and "trust score calculation logic." The number of individuals who can truly understand these is likely limited to a very small group—perhaps only a few dozen developers and auditors (validators) worldwide.

As a result, this small group of "technocrats" could inadvertently become "shadow power holders" wielding immense influence. And here is where the problem deepens: such groups are prone to sharing the same jargon, the same ideological backgrounds (often libertarianism, technological utopianism, and Silicon Valley ethics), and can easily build strong mutual trust—a phenomenon akin to an echo chamber effect or in-group bias.

In other words, it was upon recognizing these engineering risks and risks inherent to human psychological structures that I arrived at the antithesis described below, and subsequently developed the synthesis as a constructive proposal.

I had documented these observations in a report, but because it was too lengthy, I summarized it into my previous response. In hindsight, it might have been better to share the report itself. (It is written in Japanese, so it would require translation into English...)

If you are interested in the full report, please let me know—I would be happy to share it via email or another channel.

I am sincerely grateful for your thoughtful response.

[cppcooper]

The latter point is particularly critical. At the core of the system appear to be elements such as the "harm-detection LLM" and "trust score calculation logic." The number of individuals who can truly understand these is likely limited to a very small group—perhaps only a few dozen developers and auditors (validators) worldwide.

As a result, this small group of "technocrats" could inadvertently become "shadow power holders" ...

In other words, it was upon recognizing these engineering risks and risks inherent to human psychological structures ...

I see, I see. It's a good point. I think these deep problems can be solved through adequate attention placed into developing precisely what the User Experience (UX) needs to be. For the reasons you point out the user experience is needed, and expected, to provide easy to use front-ends for complicated robust back-ends. Most users (99%) won't be prepared for complex math theories and graph related algorithms, and so user facing architecture needs to reflect that. Ideally anybody can make simple use of the platform for any use-case.

As a FOSS project, as this would likely need to be, all details ought to be freely accessible for those with the commitment to learn - as is the existing case, you could thus reasonably expect many tens of thousands of people [at a minimum] to familiarize themselves early on. Later on we might expect synthesized details to trickle throughout society, as with any field or knowledge or technology that integrates into civilization. Plenty of examples abound ranging from accounting to quantum physics or zoology.

I mean to say.. If the trust score logic is available, and the resulting scores can be wielded by anyone easily - to analyze segments of the social graphs associated to voting results (or potentially even discourse analysis) - then we might presume no such capacity for shadow control.

As for the other, I had to search the document because I couldn't recall writing anything about harm detecting LLM algorithms or anything of the sort. I used harm more times than I realized, but I couldn't find detection anywhere applicable except G.2 Discussion, Voting, and Polling Layer. And in this section "NLP/LLM pipelines for clustering related discussions, semantic search, and multilingual summarization" isn't recommending a harm-detection LLM, it is about analyzing large global discussions. If you have a lot of data which you need to synthesize into usable information, then you need tools to help you do that after a certain scale of data.

I had documented these observations in a report, but because it was too lengthy, I summarized it into my previous response. In hindsight, it might have been better to share the report itself. (It is written in Japanese, so it would require translation into English...)

If you are interested in the full report, please let me know—I would be happy to share it via email or another channel.

I would recommend slapping it into an issue directly on that repo. I've got a couple others open right now. One about governance models from the Ethiopian Bible that deals with preventing corruption and power centralization, and the other is just a typo.

In the next version some time might be needed to preemptively prepare UX considerations - maybe just threading UX throughout as a way to clear up blindspots. Articulating this vision, and translating into technical concepts has taken quite a bit of time.

edit: more on topic.. human pluralities, are the primary thing which human pluralities trust. Sharing about A-Universal-Union is largely a system's view of what that might look like in practice and in relation to digital democracy. i.e. Individuals, communities, organizations, and nations, each representative of a different kind of voice that generally seeks to be heard. Providing the civic means for drawing ideological/political lines organically, from the bottom up, instead of geopolitically, top down, I think would foster the goals we're all after here. The use of various forms of AI need only serve those same interests instead of serving a particular master - which is to say humans remain in control of their own fate.