hoofish

the real failure is in our collective intelligence — our ability to think together.

Collective intelligence requires ternary logic: a flexible, context-aware system of sensemaking that can hold multiple perspectives and still arrive at a consensus.

But in Western democracy, competition flattens this into binary choices: votes, sides, battles. Then social media adds a second competing voting algorithm, further compounding the collapse. Now we have two binary systems, both collapsing, both trying to manage a complex world that demands nuance. Binary systems cannot sustain collective intelligence unless limited through voting.

Voting is not transparent.

Voting, contrary to popular opinion––is not a transparent method for consensus building in a collective intelligence. Voting can hide reasoning or thinking behind the vote, the influence to actually cast the vote. It doesn’t matter that the vote can hide the identity (which is should!), it hides the important part, the influence.

Today, thousands of political influencers from across the spectrum are all — knowingly or not — participating in the same democracy-collapsing exercise. The content doesn’t matter. The political position doesn’t matter. The game is the same.

When enshittification hits the fan, what’s actually splattering is the failure of our collective ability to think together. Everything gets amplified under competition and conflict, with no mechanism for resolution.

The basic unit of collective intelligence is a co-intelligence, a paired coupling.

How to weaponize harmony and make the web great again. (Symbiquity Field Manual, Beta Edition — Powered by the TAP Protocol)

Well if you want to sign in, or repeat our steps, or try CGT for yourself, just let me know

Wow, you're clever. Like I said, I was not expecting such a response,duh, of course I was the poster. over 5k visits to the site. I think the layer of suspicion you put on everything is kinda ridiculous.

No, that is a misunderstanding. No third party or no AI, or AI training data, is used to arrive at a consensus decision, humans have over-ride in the system.

Yes, this has been an independent project for many years, but has had many endorsements from computer science to cognitive science. This project has had no problems attracting attention and interest from many qualified people, and if you want to see how strong the bones are, just ask for a demo, or watch the demo on the site. It's probably not best to just go off of your first reaction, which seems a little tense and aggravated.

There isn't any buzz words being used, you could simply look up with the words mean if you don't understand them.

"Conversational" is plain english for conversation. "Game Theory" implies what it says.

Which words made it so challenging? Let me know and I can explain.

I think you have a misunderstanding, but you are welcome to believe your first reaction to something you are not familiar with!

Ummm, clearly it is! Why does something have to be cranky just because you don't understand it? Maybe that's on you, dude.

I think it is silly to load everything up with so much suspicion.

These are just grumpy posters, while I was not expecting the post to get all of this attention, its usually the ones who are reactive or trolling who respond here. They want to find so many mistakes just so they don't have to admit to themselves that they don't understand what the project is or how it works.

The company is in stealth mode, thanks for clarifying.

Our entire system is trained on LLMs, so yes LLMs are used to write summaries. Thanks for the feedback.

You're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.

You have a very narrow way of conducting a review :)

yes, i often seed on social media as the project evolves to get feedback.

Hi. Thank you for your response. All of our work is transparent, if there is something you want to see or know, reach out on linked in or twitter. Other than that I think you are misrepresenting what is on the site, it says nothing of what you write

Hi, thanks for your response. If you reach out to the founder on linked in, he is happy to give you a demonstration.

i think natural skepticism is a good idea. This is an independent project outside of academia, some think that projects outside of academia are crank projects by default, comes with the territory. Project should be judged on its own merits. This is just a stealth site.

thx for response. I think it is pretty straight forward on the site. project is in stealth mode. "Conversational Game Theory" is pretty straightforward.

In CGT, there is no third party arbitrator, no admin, the resolution is reached player to player. thx for response

That is in classical game theory, in CGT, it is assumed the actors are both rational and irrational

thx for feedback. wasn't expecting such a big response. project is in stealth mode

in CGT, humans make the final decisions, it is a game designed for humans first, AI just came later

thx for feedback. project is in stealth mode. always a good idea to be skeptical.

Hi, thanks for feedback. Project is in stealth mode at the moment, I was not expecting the response.

all companies die, that is the point. the problem is they resist their eventual death

Facebook is probably one of the worst things in the world for a healthy society, yet it will not die a timely death, and it will not change its revenue model because it would mean death.

Google has created an intractable problem with global data tracking embedded into the architecture of the internet. Both Google and Facebook could get rid of the problem of online misinformation overnight. However, this would mean death.

Companies grow in size out of fear of death.

Would shareholders ever agree to downgrade their stock value, collapse everything, and start over from scratch?

What if, instead, Facebook or Google simply accepted death as a natural function within a healthy eco-system, and what if shareholders were somehow rewarded for allowing Facebook to die?

If Facebook was run like a DAO / Adhocracy, its death would be greeted, even anticipated. But corporations, like Wall Street, are not as flexible as a DAO can be. Corporations resist death, fearing it–so much that society itself could collapse before Google or Facebook would ever consider it.

filecoin is not BTC. BTC does have an inherent value, but only within the system. You're analogies to diamonds make no sense because diamonds are easy to produce and their cost does not reflect either the demand or the production of them. BTC, however, is required to actually run the system, are hard to produce and their value is set on their limited production plus demand. It is true that BTC currently has little value outside of the system, but that is not the same as saying it has no inherent value.