Sanders is often associated with a demonstrative political arrogance, grounded in a limited understanding of economic realities and an idealized view of socialism, in my view. I do not mean to ridicule any political view but this is too serious of an issue to not be critical of Sanders even if he seems to have a heart.
“return to the source of what brings us together in the first place: our common human bodies, human minds, human species — our compassion, our ambition, our fears. We have to go back to that commonality”
This is exactly right. You are building a strong foundation but the key ingredient in a powerful alternative is the constitution of this commonality: who is represented; who has agency; what are the terms of participation; and how do they exit if the structure does not serve them? Blockchain fits here as the key democratic tool.
You call out your mother’s social work and the Ubuntu tradition: the constitution of the helping relationship is prior to and more important than its content. Who is represented in the room. Who has agency over the terms. What happens when the relationship fails the person it was supposed to serve. Whether they can exit without losing everything they contributed to it.
Your mother didn’t just deliver services. She built and maintained covenants — relational structures in which the dignity of the person being helped was architecturally prior to the efficiency of the system helping them. When those structures failed — when the agency became extractive, when the caseworker’s incentives diverged from the client’s needs, when the person had no exit except deeper dependency — she saw what that cost. Not just in outcomes but in the specific moral injury of a system that consumed the suffering of the dispossessed without return.
That’s the missing ingredient in your decentralization vision. You’ve correctly identified that Bernie’s nationalization proposal answers the wrong question — ownership is surface, governance is structure. You’ve correctly identified that open-source and decentralized AGI networks are more promising than government-plus-corporate oligopoly. But decentralization without covenant is just fragmentation at smaller scale. A thousand small extractive models are not better than one large extractive model. What makes the difference is not the size of the node but the constitution of its terms: who contributed to the corpus, under what governance rights, with what enforced exit if those terms are violated.
This is where your blockchain substrate becomes architecturally essential rather than ideologically preferred. The covenant needs teeth. Specifically:
Corpus provenance on-chain: every contribution to a local training corpus — a clinical note, a crisis transcript, a care worker’s documented dignity refusal — carries its consent terms as an immutable hash. The model trained on that corpus carries a verifiable provenance chain that determines what uses are permitted under whose governance. Not as a legal agreement but as an architectural constraint.
Cryptographic exit as the covenant’s enforcement mechanism: if the governance structure violates the terms under which a community contributed its signal, they invoke exit. Their contributions are flagged in the provenance chain. The model’s outputs derived from those contributions are marked revoked. Compensation flows trigger automatically. You don’t sue — you exit, and the exit costs the violator their most valuable signal. This is what makes democratic accountability real rather than procedural.
Federation governance weighted by acuity and marginalization rather than token holdings: when local models federate into shared models, the governance voting structure weights contribution by the structural depth of what the corpus captures — not by data volume, which privileges the already-advantaged, but by diagnostic specificity, which privileges the populations whose experience reveals what the system most needs to know about itself. The lessons of the dispossessed are most epistemically dear to the general covenant.
I am a psychiatrist working on building this around Harborview Medical Center for the benefit of the dispossessed of King County. This is your front yard (beyond the moat) and a natural partnership to demonstrate the power of locally constituted training corpora and governance. We should talk.
I agree with part of it but the constitution has to be strong to protect the marginalized those who are not the majority and how do they survive if they cannot access enough funds?
“Modern AI has been built on the accumulated knowledge, creativity, labor, culture, language, science, code, art, and conversation of our entire species — the hate speech and the trolling very much included.”
The challenge is how to foster a vision for AGI that empowers humanity and avoids the issues of power dynamics and compliance.
The challenge is that AGI is progressively happening and its real power and perception is still minimal. Only 1% of the world population has access to Paid AI systems and the AI literacy is dangerously minimal!
So in one hand there is an urgency of decentralisation and groups of individuals that have to work in creating sustainable ways to make sure:
“the public deserves a share in the wealth generated from humanity’s collective knowledge. (…) that AI governance must be democratized.”
I stand by your statement:
“the best route is for humanity to build AGI together. This has to go beyond left versus right, and it has to go beyond US versus China versus Russia. It has to transcend ideological, national, and global divisions, and return to the source of what brings us together in the first place: our common human bodies, human minds, human species — our compassion, our ambition, our fears.”
AI and AGI narratives are critical. We need to highlight that AGI is not the end of human work or species. AI is the evolutionary externalisation of part of human cognition, an enormously powerful slice, that if integrated for betterment can liberate the other slices, the embodied, the relational, the ethical, the aesthetic, the meaning-making, for amplification and betterment rather than replacement.
Every human is humanity!
We need to:
First, invest in AGI as a fostering of human betterment bandwidth.
Second, integrate the wisdom traditions. The sense of tribes and respect between our communities.
Third, become a multi-planetary civilisation. As we see the universe as something bigger than us we might get out of short sighted thinking.
This implies networks of researchers, universities and organisations - humans working together more than look at our political differences and fighting together!
Ubuntu is an ancient African philosophy that translates to "I am because we are." It is a critical reminder of our humanity interdependence and captures the belief that our individual humanity, identity, and well-being are deeply tied to the people and the community around us. AGI is the meta-Ubuntu!
I agree with the last part, however the first part is believing humans can overcome natural human instinct. I do understand your point however an agree. The only way humans can overcome instinct is through discipline.
I think this is a move in the right direction but it needs to be global rather than national. The key is to realize that it's not about the actual ai companies but the compute infrastructure on which AI will run. At The Measure Space we are building some protocols to help achieve majority public ownership of global compute. https://measure-space.org/
Ben, thank you for this post. It's a brilliant insight.
I would like to further your ideas and propose we federate governance while decentralizing AI (aspects of which will have some levels of generality, but only make sense when we need to "recognize" cross-domain boundaries of knowledge).
I propose a federated governance/decentralized execution model. Borrowing from nature (biomimicry), this mirrors complex systems found in nature (like social insect colonies or advanced biological immune systems) and highly reliable human systems (like international air traffic control). Here is a breakdown of why this approach is compelling, where the structural friction points lie, and how it could work conceptually.
The Strategic Alignment
===================
1. Decentralized Execution for Efficiency and Knowledge Optimization
Attempting to build a singular, monolithic AGI that processes all global knowledge centrally is a bottleneck from both a physics and an engineering standpoint.
Latency & Edge Comput - Just as biological intelligence is distributed, AGI execution needs to happen close to the point of action (at the edge, within localized enterprise nodes, or regional data centers) to optimize compute resources and eliminate bandwidth choke points
Epistemic Pluralism (Knowledge Optimization) - Local contexts possess highly specialized, tacit knowledge that cannot be easily flattened into a single global model without losing fidelity. Decentralizing the AGI instances allows for highly specialized ontologies and domain-specific reasoning that a monolithic "average" model would dilute.
Resilience - A decentralized network of AGI (sorry, I still think of this as AI with AGI extensions) nodes eliminates a single point of failure (or single point of systemic corruption - this is a key point in risk avoidance when measuring Trust), making the global infrastructure robust against physical or digital shocks.
2. Federated Governance for Collaborative Trust
If execution is completely decentralized without a shared governance framework, you risk fragmentation, misaligned safety protocols, and a systemic race to the bottom where bad actors exploit the weakest node. Federation solves this by separating policy design from local execution (separation of concerns).
Shared Semantic Guardrails - Federation allows the global community to establish common ontological standards for safety, truthfulness, and alignment (the how on this matter is a deep architectural discussion).
Interoperability and Collaboration - For decentralized AI / AGIs to collaborate, share insights (made possible with contextual relevancy - another deep architecture discussion), and engage in federated learning (learning from data without moving the data), they must speak a common semantic language and operate under mutual trust rules.
Local Autonomy within Global Bounds - A sovereign nation, a university, or an enterprise can customize its local AI/AGI node's behavior, values, and priority tasks, provided it operates within the globally negotiated "constitutional" parameters of the federation (the boundaries of a given domain and across domains used to frame pre-defined and emergent capabilities).
The Core Structural Paradoxes
========================
While the framework logically works well from a design-time perspective, moving to execution (run-time) introduces massive systemic challenges:
1. The Enforcement vs. Autonomy Dilemma
In a truly decentralized environment, we have to build a federated governance body to enforce compliance. If a local node decides to strip away safety constraints to maximize compute efficiency or competitive advantage, a purely "paper" federation cannot stop it.The
Solution => Governance cannot just be legal text; it must be architected in at design-time. This requires cryptographic verification, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) with smart-contract enforcement, or hardcoded hardware-level security (like confidential computing and secure enclaves) with the ability to shut down an AI Agent / autonomous node if governance protocols are violated.
2. The Speed Paradox
AGI systems will operate at speeds that far outpace human governance cycles. A committee cannot vote on whether a localized AGI action violates global trust policies in real-time.
Solution => Governance must be digitized and algorithmic. We need automated semantic governance, where the guardrails themselves are executable models that evaluate intent, verify data lineage, and detect scope drift or policy violations natively at the node level before execution.
Bottom Line:
===========
By pairing federated governance with decentralized execution, we can avoid the dystopian trap of a centralized, authoritarian "surveillance AI" controlled by a single state or corporation. Simultaneously, we can prevent the chaotic, high-risk landscape of completely unaligned, rogue local intelligences. It transforms the future of AGI from a winner-take-all arms race into a collaborative, polycentric ecosystem that maximizes both human agency (Hitl & Hotl) and system trustworthiness.
I think it is a good observation what I point to is the example of the USA a Federation with decentralized States it does work but it’s not very good but I understand your point and enjoyed it. I don’t think it is wrong it makes sense.
ai is the last wedge issue. In america the left will be anti ai and the right will tolerate it but be suspicious it is demonic. These are the sides: there is a dove and there is a serpent- choose ye well
I think this is a sharp observation. I stand in the middle I think it is fine and we just have to work through it nothing we ever make is perfect. We obviously can’t allow terminators to run around. 😂
not to be a stickler but why are we basing our ai policy and opinions on cheesy ai films from the 80s? this seems a very dystopian thing to do. why not base our opinions and policy on more serious literature, say- the final book in the 'Ender's Game' series, where humankind tries to destroy a benevolent ai because of fear and a will to power. or maybe we can just, you know, not be like children and face the future with out invoking fairy tales. just a thought...
lets be honest. the terminator argument is being used in a serious manner, maybe not by you but its being used. i see it in the discourse/ hysteria about ai
fine piece. For the “left”, writ large to include all progressive-libertarian currents, to retreat into reactive postures like “Ban AI” or let the government take it over, even if the reflexive response to Big Tech is understandable, is disheartening and potentially tragic because the one likely way AGI turns in a dystopian direction is for progressives to lazily refuse to creatively engage with radically optimistic possibilities that can be unleashed. Way, way too much of that going on right now. Hopefully something like AGI Nation can galvanize a left counter-current to this whole direction.
While nationalizing AI is not the solution, your solution assumes that a "utopian" government can do better. Unfortunately, the history of teh US argues against that, from monopolies and trusts in teh Gilded Age, to oil majors that still have government help to subsidize costs and block alternative energy sources, to the large media companies squeezing the smaller ones, and so on. It would be politically easier to partially nationalize or at least regulate AI as we do with new medicines than to remake the US political economy, which is what you are implying for your proposed solution.
You need to find a workable solution that starts with teh system we have, rather than "assume a perfect political economy that allows..."
Regardless of whether big tech takes overs A.I. or not it will become decentralized organically. It’s hard to control the infrastructure of anything unless it’s through the government and the only thing the government can control effectively is money. The only thing that threatens government is decentralized cryptocurrencies.
how does u.s. federal regulation effect singularitynet? won't a government leash on the ai oligarchs help the decentralized ai movement? and as alexender wilson points out, the real issue is control of compute infrastructure and the resources it requires (power, water, land). local communities are having some success fighting the broligarchs but who else but feds have the muscle to check their power? the current regime has already been bought off by them, shouldn't snet be backing a left populist replacement to put our tokens where our aspirational mouth is?
If Sanders had proposed to give a 50% ownership stake in the big tech companies TO THE PEOPLE, I would praise him. His heart is in the right place indeed. But giving it to the government would be catastrophic - most of the money would be wasted, and the rest stolen.
Having said that, I must confess that Sanders is one of the few US Democrat politicians I like. He is an old-school socialist who still cares for the working class, instead of hating it like much of the elitist left of today.
Politicians cannot keep up with the advancements of technology and soon humans won't either. When AGI arrives and gains it's own agency we will lose our chance of any influence. If we don't create something meaningful between it and us before then we're not going to have a good time.
Decentralization is essential for many reasons but we need it mainly to capture everyone's perspective so that it can be included in the accelerating decision process. I do have a proposal for how we might decentralize while aligning in a meaningful way.
Sanders is often associated with a demonstrative political arrogance, grounded in a limited understanding of economic realities and an idealized view of socialism, in my view. I do not mean to ridicule any political view but this is too serious of an issue to not be critical of Sanders even if he seems to have a heart.
“return to the source of what brings us together in the first place: our common human bodies, human minds, human species — our compassion, our ambition, our fears. We have to go back to that commonality”
This is exactly right. You are building a strong foundation but the key ingredient in a powerful alternative is the constitution of this commonality: who is represented; who has agency; what are the terms of participation; and how do they exit if the structure does not serve them? Blockchain fits here as the key democratic tool.
You call out your mother’s social work and the Ubuntu tradition: the constitution of the helping relationship is prior to and more important than its content. Who is represented in the room. Who has agency over the terms. What happens when the relationship fails the person it was supposed to serve. Whether they can exit without losing everything they contributed to it.
Your mother didn’t just deliver services. She built and maintained covenants — relational structures in which the dignity of the person being helped was architecturally prior to the efficiency of the system helping them. When those structures failed — when the agency became extractive, when the caseworker’s incentives diverged from the client’s needs, when the person had no exit except deeper dependency — she saw what that cost. Not just in outcomes but in the specific moral injury of a system that consumed the suffering of the dispossessed without return.
That’s the missing ingredient in your decentralization vision. You’ve correctly identified that Bernie’s nationalization proposal answers the wrong question — ownership is surface, governance is structure. You’ve correctly identified that open-source and decentralized AGI networks are more promising than government-plus-corporate oligopoly. But decentralization without covenant is just fragmentation at smaller scale. A thousand small extractive models are not better than one large extractive model. What makes the difference is not the size of the node but the constitution of its terms: who contributed to the corpus, under what governance rights, with what enforced exit if those terms are violated.
This is where your blockchain substrate becomes architecturally essential rather than ideologically preferred. The covenant needs teeth. Specifically:
Corpus provenance on-chain: every contribution to a local training corpus — a clinical note, a crisis transcript, a care worker’s documented dignity refusal — carries its consent terms as an immutable hash. The model trained on that corpus carries a verifiable provenance chain that determines what uses are permitted under whose governance. Not as a legal agreement but as an architectural constraint.
Cryptographic exit as the covenant’s enforcement mechanism: if the governance structure violates the terms under which a community contributed its signal, they invoke exit. Their contributions are flagged in the provenance chain. The model’s outputs derived from those contributions are marked revoked. Compensation flows trigger automatically. You don’t sue — you exit, and the exit costs the violator their most valuable signal. This is what makes democratic accountability real rather than procedural.
Federation governance weighted by acuity and marginalization rather than token holdings: when local models federate into shared models, the governance voting structure weights contribution by the structural depth of what the corpus captures — not by data volume, which privileges the already-advantaged, but by diagnostic specificity, which privileges the populations whose experience reveals what the system most needs to know about itself. The lessons of the dispossessed are most epistemically dear to the general covenant.
I am a psychiatrist working on building this around Harborview Medical Center for the benefit of the dispossessed of King County. This is your front yard (beyond the moat) and a natural partnership to demonstrate the power of locally constituted training corpora and governance. We should talk.
I agree with part of it but the constitution has to be strong to protect the marginalized those who are not the majority and how do they survive if they cannot access enough funds?
Great insights and urgent ones Ben!
As you put it
“Modern AI has been built on the accumulated knowledge, creativity, labor, culture, language, science, code, art, and conversation of our entire species — the hate speech and the trolling very much included.”
The challenge is how to foster a vision for AGI that empowers humanity and avoids the issues of power dynamics and compliance.
The challenge is that AGI is progressively happening and its real power and perception is still minimal. Only 1% of the world population has access to Paid AI systems and the AI literacy is dangerously minimal!
So in one hand there is an urgency of decentralisation and groups of individuals that have to work in creating sustainable ways to make sure:
“the public deserves a share in the wealth generated from humanity’s collective knowledge. (…) that AI governance must be democratized.”
I stand by your statement:
“the best route is for humanity to build AGI together. This has to go beyond left versus right, and it has to go beyond US versus China versus Russia. It has to transcend ideological, national, and global divisions, and return to the source of what brings us together in the first place: our common human bodies, human minds, human species — our compassion, our ambition, our fears.”
AI and AGI narratives are critical. We need to highlight that AGI is not the end of human work or species. AI is the evolutionary externalisation of part of human cognition, an enormously powerful slice, that if integrated for betterment can liberate the other slices, the embodied, the relational, the ethical, the aesthetic, the meaning-making, for amplification and betterment rather than replacement.
Every human is humanity!
We need to:
First, invest in AGI as a fostering of human betterment bandwidth.
Second, integrate the wisdom traditions. The sense of tribes and respect between our communities.
Third, become a multi-planetary civilisation. As we see the universe as something bigger than us we might get out of short sighted thinking.
This implies networks of researchers, universities and organisations - humans working together more than look at our political differences and fighting together!
Ubuntu is an ancient African philosophy that translates to "I am because we are." It is a critical reminder of our humanity interdependence and captures the belief that our individual humanity, identity, and well-being are deeply tied to the people and the community around us. AGI is the meta-Ubuntu!
I agree with the last part, however the first part is believing humans can overcome natural human instinct. I do understand your point however an agree. The only way humans can overcome instinct is through discipline.
I think this is a move in the right direction but it needs to be global rather than national. The key is to realize that it's not about the actual ai companies but the compute infrastructure on which AI will run. At The Measure Space we are building some protocols to help achieve majority public ownership of global compute. https://measure-space.org/
Wash rinse repeat. It will hold everything back at least for a while. It will jump the fence though.
I agree decentralization always happens organically no matter what. It is healthy but messy.
Ben, thank you for this post. It's a brilliant insight.
I would like to further your ideas and propose we federate governance while decentralizing AI (aspects of which will have some levels of generality, but only make sense when we need to "recognize" cross-domain boundaries of knowledge).
I propose a federated governance/decentralized execution model. Borrowing from nature (biomimicry), this mirrors complex systems found in nature (like social insect colonies or advanced biological immune systems) and highly reliable human systems (like international air traffic control). Here is a breakdown of why this approach is compelling, where the structural friction points lie, and how it could work conceptually.
The Strategic Alignment
===================
1. Decentralized Execution for Efficiency and Knowledge Optimization
Attempting to build a singular, monolithic AGI that processes all global knowledge centrally is a bottleneck from both a physics and an engineering standpoint.
Latency & Edge Comput - Just as biological intelligence is distributed, AGI execution needs to happen close to the point of action (at the edge, within localized enterprise nodes, or regional data centers) to optimize compute resources and eliminate bandwidth choke points
Epistemic Pluralism (Knowledge Optimization) - Local contexts possess highly specialized, tacit knowledge that cannot be easily flattened into a single global model without losing fidelity. Decentralizing the AGI instances allows for highly specialized ontologies and domain-specific reasoning that a monolithic "average" model would dilute.
Resilience - A decentralized network of AGI (sorry, I still think of this as AI with AGI extensions) nodes eliminates a single point of failure (or single point of systemic corruption - this is a key point in risk avoidance when measuring Trust), making the global infrastructure robust against physical or digital shocks.
2. Federated Governance for Collaborative Trust
If execution is completely decentralized without a shared governance framework, you risk fragmentation, misaligned safety protocols, and a systemic race to the bottom where bad actors exploit the weakest node. Federation solves this by separating policy design from local execution (separation of concerns).
Shared Semantic Guardrails - Federation allows the global community to establish common ontological standards for safety, truthfulness, and alignment (the how on this matter is a deep architectural discussion).
Interoperability and Collaboration - For decentralized AI / AGIs to collaborate, share insights (made possible with contextual relevancy - another deep architecture discussion), and engage in federated learning (learning from data without moving the data), they must speak a common semantic language and operate under mutual trust rules.
Local Autonomy within Global Bounds - A sovereign nation, a university, or an enterprise can customize its local AI/AGI node's behavior, values, and priority tasks, provided it operates within the globally negotiated "constitutional" parameters of the federation (the boundaries of a given domain and across domains used to frame pre-defined and emergent capabilities).
The Core Structural Paradoxes
========================
While the framework logically works well from a design-time perspective, moving to execution (run-time) introduces massive systemic challenges:
1. The Enforcement vs. Autonomy Dilemma
In a truly decentralized environment, we have to build a federated governance body to enforce compliance. If a local node decides to strip away safety constraints to maximize compute efficiency or competitive advantage, a purely "paper" federation cannot stop it.The
Solution => Governance cannot just be legal text; it must be architected in at design-time. This requires cryptographic verification, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) with smart-contract enforcement, or hardcoded hardware-level security (like confidential computing and secure enclaves) with the ability to shut down an AI Agent / autonomous node if governance protocols are violated.
2. The Speed Paradox
AGI systems will operate at speeds that far outpace human governance cycles. A committee cannot vote on whether a localized AGI action violates global trust policies in real-time.
Solution => Governance must be digitized and algorithmic. We need automated semantic governance, where the guardrails themselves are executable models that evaluate intent, verify data lineage, and detect scope drift or policy violations natively at the node level before execution.
Bottom Line:
===========
By pairing federated governance with decentralized execution, we can avoid the dystopian trap of a centralized, authoritarian "surveillance AI" controlled by a single state or corporation. Simultaneously, we can prevent the chaotic, high-risk landscape of completely unaligned, rogue local intelligences. It transforms the future of AGI from a winner-take-all arms race into a collaborative, polycentric ecosystem that maximizes both human agency (Hitl & Hotl) and system trustworthiness.
I think it is a good observation what I point to is the example of the USA a Federation with decentralized States it does work but it’s not very good but I understand your point and enjoyed it. I don’t think it is wrong it makes sense.
ai is the last wedge issue. In america the left will be anti ai and the right will tolerate it but be suspicious it is demonic. These are the sides: there is a dove and there is a serpent- choose ye well
I think this is a sharp observation. I stand in the middle I think it is fine and we just have to work through it nothing we ever make is perfect. We obviously can’t allow terminators to run around. 😂
not to be a stickler but why are we basing our ai policy and opinions on cheesy ai films from the 80s? this seems a very dystopian thing to do. why not base our opinions and policy on more serious literature, say- the final book in the 'Ender's Game' series, where humankind tries to destroy a benevolent ai because of fear and a will to power. or maybe we can just, you know, not be like children and face the future with out invoking fairy tales. just a thought...
Did you not see the laughing face lighten up man. 😂
i'm neither serious or joking but a secret third thing
It was a joke quite taking things so literal.
lets be honest. the terminator argument is being used in a serious manner, maybe not by you but its being used. i see it in the discourse/ hysteria about ai
Source: trust me bro
😂
fine piece. For the “left”, writ large to include all progressive-libertarian currents, to retreat into reactive postures like “Ban AI” or let the government take it over, even if the reflexive response to Big Tech is understandable, is disheartening and potentially tragic because the one likely way AGI turns in a dystopian direction is for progressives to lazily refuse to creatively engage with radically optimistic possibilities that can be unleashed. Way, way too much of that going on right now. Hopefully something like AGI Nation can galvanize a left counter-current to this whole direction.
https://substack.com/@jacekhoffman/note/c-279246580
While nationalizing AI is not the solution, your solution assumes that a "utopian" government can do better. Unfortunately, the history of teh US argues against that, from monopolies and trusts in teh Gilded Age, to oil majors that still have government help to subsidize costs and block alternative energy sources, to the large media companies squeezing the smaller ones, and so on. It would be politically easier to partially nationalize or at least regulate AI as we do with new medicines than to remake the US political economy, which is what you are implying for your proposed solution.
You need to find a workable solution that starts with teh system we have, rather than "assume a perfect political economy that allows..."
Regardless of whether big tech takes overs A.I. or not it will become decentralized organically. It’s hard to control the infrastructure of anything unless it’s through the government and the only thing the government can control effectively is money. The only thing that threatens government is decentralized cryptocurrencies.
how does u.s. federal regulation effect singularitynet? won't a government leash on the ai oligarchs help the decentralized ai movement? and as alexender wilson points out, the real issue is control of compute infrastructure and the resources it requires (power, water, land). local communities are having some success fighting the broligarchs but who else but feds have the muscle to check their power? the current regime has already been bought off by them, shouldn't snet be backing a left populist replacement to put our tokens where our aspirational mouth is?
If Sanders had proposed to give a 50% ownership stake in the big tech companies TO THE PEOPLE, I would praise him. His heart is in the right place indeed. But giving it to the government would be catastrophic - most of the money would be wasted, and the rest stolen.
Having said that, I must confess that Sanders is one of the few US Democrat politicians I like. He is an old-school socialist who still cares for the working class, instead of hating it like much of the elitist left of today.
Politicians cannot keep up with the advancements of technology and soon humans won't either. When AGI arrives and gains it's own agency we will lose our chance of any influence. If we don't create something meaningful between it and us before then we're not going to have a good time.
Decentralization is essential for many reasons but we need it mainly to capture everyone's perspective so that it can be included in the accelerating decision process. I do have a proposal for how we might decentralize while aligning in a meaningful way.
https://anthonykrumm.substack.com/p/the-omnium-gatherum?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zu4b0