Marcin Woźniak about Swarmcheck and Argument Mapping: How democratic discourse can be more rational

the so welcome and another episode of

democracy innovators podcast and today we are

here with magazine was neck i'm sorry

for the pronunciation a ready

and welcome and thank you for your

time for being here

the the pronunciations got to thank you

for having me on the podcast

thank you and as a first person

i like to ask you what is

a swarm of check that is a

project you're working on a

yes a swarm check or it's a

technological solution of optimum but at the

foundation

with the mission of improving rational public

discourse and room technology in our opinion

is most effective way to do it

so we create a swarm check and

it's mainly argument mapping software for collective

decision may

making delphi processes and are improving collective

intelligence

so are you can be applied in

a variety of uses and topics because

argumentation the

as its core mechanics is very universal

right we we see argumentation everywhere

so we've correct technology that supports collective

argumentation we can improve not only the

quality of the discussion the liberation and

collecting data in the process but improve

decision making as well by having more

perspectives more and critical voices and

the better

a quality of the decision

as a whole

for yeah that that's that it probably

will have more or questions or i

will elaborate yeah of course and

do you have any sort of use

case that the

you think could fit very well for

for swarm attack

for we have many use cases we

are completed over forty projects and with

this software so i will give you

some some range of topics that we

tackled in the past

so maybe i'll start with the that

the current one we are excited about

and there is a method of

achieving a numerical results for your questions

called the delphi methods so it's the

expert deliberation anonymous am which is an

iterative process of

producing numbers estimations about some future event

or as some risks of british nation

and with anonymous argumentation about those initial

man estimates we can

achieve concern source of the group and

be quite sure that our the final

results achieved by this process is a

good for decision-making or a stretch it

strategic decision-making or a risk planning or

they're even as a

the publications so for example a pharmaceutical

company approach us to conduct delphi process

with a clinicians to estimate the risks

off

illness contracted with some virus or after

that that the treatment there is a

period in which the

the their solution is is given to

to the patients but after that this

process can be some the cook and

appears on some additional a symptoms so

for people with certain criteria we can

st

he made how risky is for them

to the basically stop the treatment right

and with those data we can show

okay experts collectively have consensus that the

treatment needs x station for a certain

criteria with this amount of risk

took her to to do to stop

them

and with this data we can have

scientific publication that can convince for example

decision makers seen in governments to an

a finance that the the extension of

of the treatment another case an more

the on the site of policymaking is

are basically creating collectively new strategies new

or new policies in a local governments

and so one a case was at

the renewal

of a ten year educational policy in

the city of was none

so the the challenge was okay what

do we want to achieve in a

in next ten years from what are

the most important issues because education is

big think and that there are many

people who are interested in in in

the outcomes their students of course there

are teachers the sky

directors

public officials and gr workers their academics

will know a lot about their educations

and and effectiveness of of certain or

policy interventions and so on so that

there are people with different point of

view on the same topic and with

different interests and we have to somehow

how make them the aim come up

with the the the solution for for

those policies so we use swarm check

thought to the map or the argumentation

about the key propose us to basically

come up with

solutions that are anonymously produce and represent

the collective intelligence of the group

the may be here is the good

thing to explain what his argument mob

for people who are hear about this

for the first time absolute the basically

if if you are if you have

a book right you have

a line of lines of text theo

you start reading it from the while

usually front row from the left the

top corner and and go to the

right and go to the button so

on

so it gives you on the linear

progression of some narrative right you basically

have a story the that have beginning

middle and and but we can extract

or they useful information so that specific

claims and map data relation to each

other basically arguments are are and those

those claims that that relate to each

other by giving each other support or

they contract the each other or give

an a or shall disagreement or so

while the extract those claims we we

can generate a graph at my

up of individual claims and their relationships

so that right now we don't have

a this linear texts we have something

that that is a network network of

reason inc of argumentation of ideas and

we can clearly show how they relate

to each other these

gifts or gives us a lot more

information about the reason inc and a

show the

the subject we are discussing mortgage objectively

because there is no story about this

you can basically travel as you like

a through their connections on on the

graph and read what are the agreements

what are the voices of support a

how people explain their that their support

it's what are the justifications and on

the other hand that there are disagreements

a contradictions are critical voices and those

in turn can have their own supports

and these agreements as well so basically

you built block by block this a

graph of collected

it reasoning and and when you do

this anonymously with from software that that

can integrate different points of view a

you you have outcome that is not

controlled by anyone but only represent the

collective knowledge of the discussion gather

and then you can from

conduct additional analysis of this of this

graph so for example you can analyse

how certain claims are network how many

supports are there even the support supports

our well

the sourced in a library you for

twenty second for the

action

okay i i then i will go

back to to the analysis of the

graph so sorry can you please repeat

their the last two minutes because there

was a problem with your connection i

think

sure what what was the last time

your car were la think you heard

you were talking about how the graph

shows all the different the

the because because i lost two times

of retired my microphone that was disconnected

you yeah sure i can start over

maybe

the extreme the the gruff yeah exactly

okay let's do it sure so

at the end of the of the

process when we have graph of arguments

and their relationships through to to each

other and we can analyze it from

the standpoint of okay which claims are

more the and of the best supports

what are the sources if we use

for exemple scientific data to support some

claims what are the contradictions disagreements a

critical voices and every level of those

graph can have the same thing so

basically every are welcoming when he starts

with the first premise we we are

we can add to to it's the

learn took to to to this artifact

another are arguments so

let let's say nah i er i

click on the on the premise

every or students should wear as korean

you for something guy that and or

that the system asked me why one

should think so

and i give my at my premise

my my reasoning or let's say i

i think that i uniformity allows for

our students to to are not feel

excluded

and this my my explanation is the

claim of of itself right so people

can agree with it and give a

reason inc so may be there is

some scientific study that supports might my

claim or or may be there is

some criticism that even though the the

uniforms may provide that too

to some extent our different aspects and

and salon i that that undermined the

the that the idea of of a

feeling well for for just a typo

students that sort so are he in

this way we we have graph of

all reasoning that these are collected through

through the day

discussion and can be a additionally supported

by the reasoning source from a literature

from research from other sources the even

from other discussions because the the claims

are reusable in our system is very

important aspect that it can connect the

discussion of that are held in different

play

a different time and and after we

achieved this argument mop we can run

analysis on it so are we can

see okay what is the line of

reasoning that supports our main claim main

idea or what are their

a risks and we can see on

the graph basically the a hot how

strong are the branches that leads to

to some

so awesome outcome we can see which

claims are the best networked in the

graph so it can indicate that this

claim is very important for people because

they addressed it a lot we can

see which claim don't have any support

and those may be just saw him

a fringe

ideas or or just the the group

don't have any way to to supported

are contradictory is not very interested in

them we can see that some initial

a line of reasoning was very well

supported but at certain voiced is a

m undercut by by very

good a counter argument so this is

something that would be very

okay i last year

i'm still here to worry

answer a time

so we wake up from in indiana

something that would be very hard to

analyzed by a person because all those

connections you have to have in your

own hat right and are you have

to remember okay how the the the

claim argument sentence that that this spoken

at the end of the meeting

the related to something that was set

at the beginning right this is very

hard to to have it in mind

i am even if you use something

like rot large language model an artificial

intelligence to to analyze this a transcript

of the of the meeting it'll be

hard for artificial intelligence to to have

those connections in in its let's say

attention so argument mobs the

gif very good and reliable and explainable

reason inc about the issue that these

created by collective intelligence and this is

ma'am

why i think he did it is

one of the best tools to support

collective decision making

when now we talk about the collective

the i mean the tester you have

done i mean how many people wearing

of the in this and then i

also have another custom related to the

designated as you can deposit the summer

short explanation syrup so on the how

how many people are the it depends

on of course on on the issue

and we had groups us a smaller

let's say for people that to discuss

something but as large us for

forty or eighty people

so of course it is that the

let's say individual session of the discussion

that the optima a number of people

it's around let's say ten people but

we have we can have a many

sessions in parallel or in in sequence

because we can what what when somebody

gree uses some claim from the past

some some argument from the past this

system it will join those grass and

the we we we can have something

that is a bigger than and the

anything that one group can come up

with because it's not the result of

the discussion of of two groups

so

yeah it it depends in it can

be scaled up to basically global civilization

if we imagined so i

the the the core and a site

in this process is that

argumentation in in public discourse on the

in scientific discourse is not from

infinite in every topic in every topic

we we hear a finite number of

arguments and when we tried to put

them onto a gruff or ontology we

can see that okay here are the

the same repeating points we don't have

to mop them

mm over and over we can reuse

them from the past and see how

they were address this is very important

to or contract and misconceptions this information

and the

basically mistakes and errors one can making

in decision making process right so it's

quite important for us to allow groups

not to repeat mistakes over and over

as it is the case the in

public discourse right now

but we want to

use this collective intelligence to only built

on top of previously gathered knowledge

yeah so

the the idea is that the is

potential potentially a feasible to to basically

map out the whole public discourse by

collecting or eva important arguments important innocence

that they are reasonable in this discussion

we have to exclude spam

and something that is not arguments and

so on right to about three we

don't or in any way to intervene

in the married of the their claims

because this is what arguments are for

if somebody thinks it's unjustified one can

give counter arguments right and the

can allows us to do

avoid something like sensor shape or the

focusing only on something that moderator moderators

think is important

so yeah it usually it's not needed

to have the the robot civilization thought

to map out the the whole discussion

that the most important argument but the

group of or let's say

and dental to forty people is usually

more than enough tool to have or

to represent or the viewpoints that are

appearing in public discourse

sure and about the doesn't matter the

since the very interesting and the

did you get inspired by that

home

yeah herbs the that he method is

something that the

exist from the fifties it was developed

by rand corporation and as a means

to our hands decision making in a

very important

digic decision making and from it was

improvement developed through the years there are

many versions of of the delphi process

the the main problem for earth that

we helped thought to to solve of

the delphi method is the and

the time consuming or

part of the of the process so

basically a every and expert that this

invited must be muslim name remain anonymous

a and at the other sign have

to present their estimates in every round

for for each a question and have

to present reason inc or remaining anonymous

so classically you know that that the

surveys were sent to the expert that

the

will collect but somebody made calculations okay

this is that the mean of your

estimate this is the standard deviations of

the measure of

lack of consensus if the the standard

the division is higher or the

how how much consensus is achieved it

if it goes to a two zero

am so basically how how how much

variety there is in in the estimates

of experts and then in order to

to get close to zero so to

achieve consoles the the consensus

the experts need to present their reasoning

that they have to present okay i'm

trying to convince you that my point

of view is that correct so i'm

let's my estimate was a lower than

the mean of the group so i

can give some counter arguments for the

position

that should be high right and and

then we can go into details so

basically i one experts present the line

of reasoning another expert can address it

can present their own arguments and from

it in a collective argument map pink

it's it's very easy it's anonymous

already a everyone can see the same

map we are on the same page

we speak the same language it's or

everything can be done quickly and the

with preservation of

best practices to to touch of collective

intelligence and but when we don't have

the to like this or it's easy

for moderator or or for person who

collects information tool and to presented in

a way that that will break that

on

the let's say experts rights short essays

okay my reasoning was blah blah blah

and somebody can okay i i i

know that the style of writing a

source of this is this expert the

that the anonymity is there an is

broken

or may be some experts are very

yeah

to the point and are right on

the one paragraph and other experts will

write longer essay right how we can

compare those the and of course the

the problem of plaintext the with the

linear narrative still can

misguided other experts but with argument months

we only have reasoning and we can

objectively see okay all the arguments that

what were deemed important by experts are

here we can look at them and

then rethink our initial estimate and give

another one which will lead us to

to const

councils and from our and

experiments or or our projects we can

see that and the

the standard deviation that that is measured

on each round that the measure of

consensus is are shifting significantly after the

the rant of argument mapping a to

to the consensus as so i think

it's

an improvement on on that part and

of course we don't need to or

create summarization of of statistical analyses for

for the estimates we don't need to

make summaries of of for every essay

that expertise everything we is it real

time showing on on

software so it can be done really

quickly

so the process that could take months

can be done in a in one

day on one sitting basically it depends

of course how many questions or there

and so on but the this is

that the the improvements are in time

and quality because the the important thing

at the end of the process is

we don't only have

results with summary a statistical summary a

and the what what is that mean

that that the averages are under under

the after the last round and and

the measure of consensus was a standard

deviation we additionally have the reasoning that

let the experts to

to this conclusion so there is additional

safeguards that this this this or

estimation is correct

or even if some future event will

or

give us new information we can see

okay if this

from new information can be added to

the map we can see how can

in effect initial a sort of final

conclusion so it's easy tool or

the to use this knowledge for the

future goals

so if i understood correctly the platform

help of people to

let's have to find the agreements and

disagreement agreement that about a certain topic

in analytical way and the proton iterative

process so when new information on collected

the people can earth

agree or disagree on a single information

nothing single part of the problem yes

exactly and the we can go to

the nuances so that that's the very

important aspects from the standpoint of reducing

polarization because especially

political topics people tend to align with

some

the ideological lines a party lines of

so on but when we go into

the little to the nuances people are

much less ideological and are they can

from my experience discuss very reasonably a

particular claims so may be initially there

is some disagreements but when the got

to those premises of the premises we

can see that are people are quite

rational and when they see viewpoints of

others the the perspectives they didn't come

up themselves them they are actually learning

thought to think more critically about the

issue and

with those the this additional knowledge there

in real time adjusting to the that

their own perspective so

yeah i i think it's quite important

that this process is not only

interesting and and good in terms of

producing good data but is good for

the users themselves they they are an

education or being being educated on the

topic in real time by by engaging

with argument mapping and

not only that the the critical thinking

ability of people who engage in arguing

mapping and increases radically so there was

some studies that

measured the the standard deviation of improvement

of critical thinking of students who who

did semester off or an argument mapping

in academic setting and in comparison to

the

the first year of college in general

the the the critical thinking ability of

students who used argument mopping course

was three times better than didn't then

the baseline of the first year of

college what's more important more more interesting

people who attend or trick critical thinking

and philosophy makes the course

i

yet series the connection is a

sorry it

yeah you got disconnected the for a

couple of second but you were saying

that students that are using their dogma

argument map the had the better result

in yes in in critical thinking or

tests

up the basically that the standardized test

of of critical thinking and in

that there were three or

the situations that that were studied in

different studies but when we compared the

results that the first year of college

or is a three times worse in

terms of increased stability of critical thinking

then of course of argument mapping and

the are critical thinking course with that

makes me feel as a

the gifts worse results than argument mapping

about two times worse so from the

techniques i know that increased critical thinking

ability or with some a scientific study

backings i i don't know the better

tool for increasing individual ability

or of critical thinking

yeah so it seems so it can

as a a a lot of applications

and the

i mean all these new technologies that

were and right now

are going to be applied to indifferent

field and the and probably we still

have to discover in which

a specific field the one technology fit

the

very well or not but it's very

interesting that that can

it can do several things

i mean not just the about finding

an agreement bottles related to application or

to to study and about your experience

would you like to share something about

you

i mean

where did you drop her off and

and then later regional calls about your

experience work experience or education sure who

are i was born in poland i

still live here are the bottom instead

of of the time i i moved

to cracow or

to study law at the eagle on

and university but instead of being a

lawyer or judge or something like that

i i was mostly interested in argumentation

about the legal theory about the philosophical

aspects of the law and

because maybe what's my characteristic is i'm

quite attractive thought to philosophy and i

think it's very useful for solving everyday

problems a counter intuitively because when people

people think about philosophy is something that

this data

from reality and yeah

it's it's not entirely true may be

some academic philosophers are quite detached from

reality than and solving real life problems

but good thinking about

problem solving is something that always helps

you thought to achieve better results and

the from the perspective of of society

and that basically talking to each other

having to to believe that together

we are creating laws and rules to

to took how how or to behave

how to conduct ourselves and

those rules can be better or worse

right they can improve the some type

of value that we care about a

or can make things worse is that

sometimes there are tradeoff for example on

one hand we we have freedom

on the other hand we we have

security of and time he it's one

of the cost of the other but

let's

asked the the about the conditions in

let's say a political dissidents in in

russian prison right there that russia is

is a neighbor of of balance a

we we have a lot of the

but history where each other as so

we we the current

your political situation tried to in the

distance ourselves fruitful from their political regime

but in the that is precisely why

because in politico the political dissidents the

russian peasant they they don't have either

freedom or safety right so

he it showcases the the the example

can can showcase a total as that

there are some

way to to optimize society to basically

have the most freedom that the most

security at the same time and then

of course there are some tradeoffs after

afterwards but at least the we can

search for those that are optimal solutions

that that that nobody east is worth

soft and that this the society as

a whole is is better of this

is a optimum pareto principle and

was not on the principle that the

optimal predator

an analysis of of the the the

and social values that that the gave

that the name of the optimum what

at the foundation which to me and

my colleagues in the

yeah colonial university found that basically at

our at the end of our studies

because that the the idea that we

can use deliberation we can use or

good design principles about creating policies creating

gloss i could be applied to decision

making to have better or policies on

on the municipal level on national level

maybe an international level and and

it is it's something that that can

show us that that the abstract reasoning

about the argumentation theory about the philosophy

and about the values can have real

impact on a decision that that affects

us on an everyday life because or

if society makes good decisions everyone is

that they're of and

so yeah that that that was the

motivation to to start the the optimum

part of the foundation and the common

interest let's say about the dialogue and

deliberation and man

an alternative means of resolving conflicts

and the and on top of that

from more than ten years ago or

i started to be interested in artificial

intelligence and from this technology in my

mind is something that is one of

the greatest potential for for humanity and

one of the greatest risks because basically

are we are different than other species

on this planet is by our mostly

collective intelligence or and this is something

that we are adding talk to our

collective intelligence of of humanity this technology

that improves and it's the accelerates some

aspects of intelligence and

or when i see that the

corinth most powerful systems are black boxes

so we don't really know how they

work a week even though the developers

that that created the tools cannot explain

how the certain decision was made is

something that that worries me right because

and how we know if the the

the solutions correct if these if if

it's not something that leads to some

sort of deception what type of values

are maximize are we agreed with those

values and how we can assure that

the individual impulse our our values are

the things we care about is something

that

artificial intelligence that that conduct those calculation

in the black box cares about us

as well right we aren't we we

cannot be sure the so this is

something that that is a worry of

mine but on the other hand when

we use artificial intelligence tool to reduce

the errors that we make tool to

help us as the

collect information that is a water source

and it is not disinformation

created by man

internal political actors or external like in

the case of of russia one with

the biggest a perpetrator of the disinformation

a currently the yo it's just too

much for one person individually to have

good information

diet and and check everything and you

know a follower the fuck jack harrison

than the fact check fact checkers this

is this is too much but with

the collective intelligence and the eight of

artificial intelligence to not to the or

to replace our thinking but to enhance

our thinking and enhance our collective intelligence

this this could be one of the

the greatest benefit for for for humanity

in my opinion but the important thing

is that the the replacement parts eat

when artificial intelligence replaces our thinking

inc or what was left for us

right that that decisions are just flowing

over our heads of of over or

over our heads we we are not

subjects in their deliberation in in public

discourse we basically are objects of

the manipulation we are just data points

that are used to optimize some you

know the financial results of some company

a and through the this situation when

we as humans lose our a person

who

in decision making is something that is

a very worrying for me in

the emergence of of or artificial intelligence

and and the rapid growth of it

but this is something that we expected

for a long time so we prepared

or a swarm second argument mapping as

were told not to be in competition

with

intelligence but the the told that preserves

good deliberation a preserves the ability to

to voice our values our reasoning or

point of view and be included in

decision making that can be incorporated in

an artificial intelligence as well

so yeah is that the question was

about my experience and i quickly move

though by the us so maybe to

summarize it i'm a person that that

is moved by the idea southern like

when i see something that is important

that i tried to act on it

and do something useful so maybe yet

this the

something that that

the isn't the do my work it's

a free is a free discussion so

whatever you with it was a very

interesting by the way and i totally

agree about the transparency for i am

i mean not having a i as

a black boxes because then it became

like a sort of

having faith in the i then me

now i say something and we'll just

have to trust it and then we

don't know maybe the daughter the twelve

were that were used to train the

eye and as you said the below

first also maybe don't have a clue

about why yeah he is it is

a sang it it is saying something

and not something else

and so absolutely and then when you

said the about freedom or stability you

made me think about to the brave

new world the booker from a huxley

yeah

and the

it's very interesting i mean that your

background is a i mean you studied

law and law is about the yet

both freedom and both stability

and the

was there a moment like some

when you had that the idea about

the

using technology for this kind of things

and the was there like something particularly

like personal experience a conflict that he

have seen that i dunno

the okay maybe is not enough we

need something else

yeah a couple of things

so i was interested in sociology or

of the law as well so basically

how the

law can shape personhood so basically the

last set the president can do this

this and this and when the are

prisoner we can do that the solely

right

what what so the the idea that

law is an instrument that the the

gifts power i think it's an attractive

just for people in general the that

the power directive for for people but

the when i observed that process of

democratic elections

it's very strange to me that people

are not question that much the the

whole process that we developed because most

of people are not satisfied with the

results of course currently there is a

some process that that hijack the the

collected discourse and and recent see on

the internet that so many people support

somebody and so on so on but

people are generally more rational about their

earn yeah i mean in general about

and the overview of of democracy they

don't think it's the best system to

select the most optimal person to to

hold the position to create the best

possible loss most people think about democracy

as the the least

good system that actually you know produce

some amount of freedom stability and we

have to deal with those stupid politicians

as a

some sort of unfortunate externalities right

but it strikes me as something something

weird tried that we we can have

better this is makings the making systems

luckily when we aim for exemple discuss

something on a seminar about the law

or so

the the the discussions were very smart

thoughtful and pathetique and they incorporated many

points of view but if the same

topic is discussed in and on parliament

it it started to to resemble in

a circle something that nobody watches us

intellectual active

beauty but maybe for entertainment of to

see what how how stupid one politician

he is or what are outrageous other

politician said and we are actually this

satisfied with with this type of deliberation

that is that is sin on in

parliament's right

so the the question was for me

okay how how we can

take the thoughtful deliberation and actually good

knowledge about the of from people who

are

a study certain topics and move it

a little bit towards the and extracts

of some reasoning some arguments and imovie

towards decision making in you parliament's that

that what were the decision about our

everyday lives are are made right and

even a i'll grab a level how

we can

access that the voices of the citizens

to govern our city better

am and the the the problems are

very human that we have even politicians

are are humans they have

the cognitive capacity of of human it's

very normal think so so one cannot

put everything or

on the in their head so that

this is

this is why i started to go

into artificial intelligence field because

in artificial intelligence are solutions for for

for those problems and twelve foot for

the province of hunting alert a big

amount of data and and making decisions

about that but the that there are

some additional issues and basically solving issues

about the issues of audacious let me

talk the the combination of

artificial intelligence and law and reasoning about

the norms about values the box policies

or and from this i i just

started to are going to to conferences

going to libraries when when you have

problem to solve its much easy easier

to educate yourself on on those topics

because

if you care about solving it

and so in my line of study

i i tried to follow those interests

more than you know the classical let's

say a yeah

as syllables of of of the have

some courses

and yeah i think that this approach

can lead to more into in interdisciplinary

view of the of the problem and

and then when you see the problem

you know in in more places in

different areas then you can see okay

i i

nobody's really solving it because everybody is

is in their own silos intellectual let's

say that they're not combining necessary knowledge

to to solve this problem

and you can see it you know

in in everyday discussion when

let's say you starts from just polite

discussion with somebody and all of the

southern you a shouting at each other

so from argumentation it little argument in

a sense of of a conflict it

is that those situation strike me as

i or something that that usually can

be prevent that and he prevented we

have better nah better dialogues but but

better a phrasing of of some wars

better listening but it's actually heart when

so many arguments so many claims

fly around in the discussion we don't

have cognitive capacity to store them all

and seed or the connections so we

use our emotions to to move our

ourselves in the discussions in the dialogues

and he i think it's unnecessary of

course it is good one and emotions

and you may

you to to do something good but

especially when you're watching the internet and

and through the public discourse devolve over

there for to to shouting matches and

up algorithmically enhanced outrage right is it

something that's a that that that the

that makes who said that

makes you are stressed and

yeah seeing all those instances of basically

the liberation and dialogue that goes bad

and one can you know and has

their own opinion that okay if we

just make slight improvements about the way

we communicate with each other and we

can have better policies better decision less

mistakes and we can all be better

off right so

yeah all those aspects led me to

to this powerful more and more and

then yeah it did there is of

course drawback of you know argumentation being

this all encompassing told that we use

every day so people

don't really off as some people just

get it from from the get-go okay

argument that mapping he says for because

you can see it it can function

as cognitive scaffolding for you can

see the bigger picture you got you

can critically analyze the topic you can

use artificial intelligence total to enhance the

that the analysis of the discussion and

decision-making soul great but for some people

it's like water for of proficient the

see right it just all over there

so you don't breathe

think about improving it them and it's

like it's like areas like something that

is just there is a like a

state of nature but of course it's

not the language is something that the

yeah

i was constructed by our culture's for

a long time and and the the

the way we talk to each other

is very the chin is it is

changing still but but change lot through

the through the history and and when

we started to be more cautious about

the the

the language the

prep presented that that the reason inc

or something that that can be examined

this or led to beginning of philosophy

right we we started to exchange ideas

we started to think critically about the

word we start to think about big

things like

what what is three what is not

real how or why are we conscious

what what what is the purpose of

life that what is moral what is

not moral how we can best arrange

society for the benefit of all am

a car

can we know the true or not

those are very fundamental questions that people

leaving you know a three thousand years

ago started to the think about that

basically helped our civilization grow exponentially from

the time because the philosophy that door

to

to science science led to the technology

and our modern world that that is

based on it and it when we

go back to the beginnings of of

philosophy of critical thinking about nor the

the

brattle dialogues that the the word is

vastly different but the problems at the

the bottom the core problems remains the

same and but when when we look

at how the the knowledge progresses we

can see that some ideas that people

believe in the pass

or just wrong people didn't have good

reasoning behind the don't didn't have good

arguments and to step step-by-step collectively we

we developed a science and academic institutions

a salon that gives a much better

understanding of the worth we live in

and i think the same goals

way for ethics and moral philosophy and

and sociology and and and law a

but it's very heart currently to be

knowledgeable about all of those topics right

but to certain extent we we need

to be knowledgeable about all of it

them to to make good decisions to

not not to lie to ourselves in

our of the cliff a because the

the it's quite clear that the changes

in the word are very fast right

but when we don't have goods sense

making tours tall a says the changes

to the basically navigate

hate those complex problems with a critical

thinking and clarity and interdisciplinary knowledge

it it's inevitable that we will make

huge mistakes that that very costly and

we will you will don't like of

them

yeah so if an if we can

build on top of the knowledge a

created by generations that a us isaac

newton said that if he saw further

is because he stood on the shoulders

of giants i think that this is

exactly that the think that

we want to capture it using this

technology that public discourse can be something

that is this or shoulders of giants

that

a lot of things and thoughts and

a private conversation then public conversations are

very valuable in terms of the their

content that that the knowledge that that

the reasoning the arguments that we now

that wheels but there are on the

fortunate is that collectively as a society

we cover omni

asia we just talk the same things

over and over we have the same

argument the same conflicts over and over

and from

i think right now as a civilizations

we are stuck you're stuck on this

crazy loop of are the same arguments

over and over that are very chaotic

and the it gives asbury about energy

the thought to conduct ourselves and so

that the the

vision that attracts me is that

from

using the knowledge of of people using

their personal experiences there may be professional

experiences may be their academic expertise the

in a way that contributes to our

collective knowledge as a a process

in which we are still remain as

a citizens of people who are engaged

in public debate or not

be replaced bought by politicians would be

like replaced by social media algorithms not

be replaced by a large language mother

or any kind of artificial intelligence but

as a as a part of are

in a community not can at the

something useful for the public discourse but

we we need something

what will shepherd the public discourse to

remember those arguments door to use them

in the future when the same topic

arises again thought to to move past

that the shallow conversations and shallow a

conflict to actually do

maybe resolve some of them may be

taught to or a my powdered a

better understanding of some important decisions and

may be tall or and

conflicts on and bigger scale on a

in terms of economics in terms of

or geopolitics in terms of technology development

because otherwise we are creating society that

the can lead into some or

brave new world territory if we are

lucky but if you are unlucky some

or orwellian a territory

so yeah this is basically our future

we are talking about and we are

just don't have any means of correctly

called collectively navigate through the spaces of

of possibilities about our future right so

our yup that women the end of

my long

speech

actually uglier suffered a requests are connected

and the i'm thinking what you were

saying it at the beginning so the

fact that the

when we have to discuss about something

i mean this is my petition that

sometimes there are words that triggers so

we are not the

said rational enough because the that particular

word may be for me as a

different meaning that for you and saw

it's an important to have interdisciplinary approach

but of course we cannot know and

everything

because it's not possible and the ai

of course could help other to

where we dont know at something it

may be can help us with that

the

some knowledge emptiness i dunno how typical

and the that did this this problem

is very big in terms of large

discussions but it's very easy when a

large discussion is are split into the

smallest possible pieces basically a claim

st arguments when the analyzed wine claim

it's much easier to do

to check if the phrasing the definitions

are understood by the parties engage in

discussion if they are if they use

the same language or maybe there is

some equivocation vacation so the same terrorists

misuse or something different

and so on

we we started to build our mechanics

exactly with that point of view that

a went when me a break out

the big problem into smaller pieces it

enhances our or

ability to to solve them and it's

the that there are fine at waste

all the final techniques to use to

to or go from

problem from miscommunication to better communication from

the the argument fallacies that can that

we can check there are certain aspects

of the phrasing that can

make some something more mature and there

are some wasteful to to paraphrase the

the same sentence that that would use

or language that this understood by others

and then and sometimes just focusing on

and select key issues is good enough

one

don't need to know all and then

to analyze everything right if we are

certain that the process of giving one

argument that the up to the discourse

is okay and improving on this argument

and making are going from from being

in in error to to to willis

wrong

a he is something that is a

scalable and this can lead to to

having a collective discussion on the scale

that is currently not possible with of

the technology

and you say the we saw i

also seen on the website that you

are a timber the us yes many

people's

i would you like to say something

about the team also how you build

that he how to build the timo

was the how it happened

yeah and

we started in

or ten years well eleven years ago

in may need the him credit the

foundation we started as a group of

friends from university and but later on

when we are

decided that okay the swarm check idea

is that the technology and

an educational projects that are

connected to argument mapping the something that

we can we want to pursue a

we started to build a bigger teams

we started to hire philosophers we started

to hire developers

designers and soon basically we nearly grew

exponentially force of our similar years

until

two years ago

we got forty people working in different

projects for in in policymaking king using

swarm check or in r and the

project to combat this information so on

but unfortunately the the girl was halted

by the conflict with the public institution

that fund that one of the arrays

of project and who had to reduce

our team so a currently we are

only in the

we have an team of six people

as we we still maintain development or

let's say this

service aspect of of our them

our an entrepreneurship we conduct services for

for the municipalities and for the from

mostly the girl companies and and for

everybody who wants to

improve their decision making conquer the delphi

studies and so on

am

but yeah we we are all right

now in recovery mode but because

yeah what we we took a gamble

to rely on public institution it should

be something that you know every citizen

shoots the water could the

rely on in normal circumstances but the

sometimes public institutions are

from faulty and the that there are

many corrupts corruption scandals regarding despite party

guaranteed to institution or so

our project took a hit or concerning

this the situation the but and we

were letting very difficult situation because we

had to rebuild our software that were

you know in one or more a

third of the are in the project

that we managed to

to or to overcome that and more

difficult this through through two years and

the right now we are in

as i said six m

the member team and this time i

think we will or more flu bit

slower in terms of a building team

but we still i want you know

the thinks the in terms of for

projects and am outcomes especially i think

combination of

of and

arguments or mapping technology and to our

a waste of

building eat into expert systems in combination

with language models is something that

do that

it is very very promising in in

terms of and many fields like of

course a a safety and that he

called development over the artificial intelligence but

for the perspective of the investors and

public institutions legaltech you something that we

are

look into right now and yeah we

were with our team we are

and built a appeal see of of

the system that uses argument mapping tool

have explain the bowl legal reasoning about

the nah basically any subject

this is something that we are pursuing

right now so we eat in our

team we also have the developers but

er let's say flows of her slash

lawyers people who are interested in in

those type of or and areas and

have expertise in it and and yeah

that that the current

the situation so i guess we are

looking for for collaborations because you know

in in in the past when he

had much bigger thing we could conduct

many more projects at the same time

right now we are taking things one

step of the time but we still

maintaining good quality or of the services

or and we still are developing the

the product

the i'm sorry to hear them the

story about with destitution

do

but yeah i can imagine that is

not easy

and the so the softer now it

is made it is a working what

is the state of the softer like

the

are you facing have some issues you

are you said that the

probably the user would like to collaborate

with other entities people saw his there's

any skill any problem that you're facing

right now

that yankee with is in the future

yeah the that's a good question i

thought the state of the software is

that we can fully operates conducting delphi

studies or solder consultations a deliberative process

assault and so on

hm and to that extent we basically

have everything we need a

but the when we look how the

artificial intelligence is being developed and the

ethical issues concerning the transparency

being the leading humans out of the

decision making look and hallucination problems and

basically errors that

enhance that the some human very human

or way of thinking

taking shortcuts characteristics and so on we

can see that our technology have so

much more potential so on on one

hand we are sufficiently developed technologically taught

to conduct their projects the that utilize

collective intelligence lately like those delphi studies

i mentioned but in

know that there is still this or

surrey lsd

you are saying

that the platform as a potential and

then the last year that yeah that

that the bottom have this potential of

combining artificial intelligence and a collective intelligence

that that we would like to just

have more resources to to focus on

and develop because

why we can provide much value in

terms of improving collective intelligence i think

that the the future

his is

relying on on coming up with the

strategies on of incorporating collective intelligence into

thinking of artificial intelligence and so this

is why we are

we want to focus on legaltech and

we want to focus on a stuff

like the central i science but we

we cannot have everything out of the

same time so if we could have

collaborations with people who are interested in

legaltech in

decentralized science or and in artificial intelligence

in a sense of explainable ai article

ai and the build a building workflows

that deal with augmentation we basically have

a

to or are in the projects that

are written there just waiting for to

to to be financed about it using

workflows and agents that help

improve collective intelligence us

contributors so basically as a small scale

the moderators that quotes suggest sources that

could use argument mining for a collecting

additional data for of discussion from or

let's say scientific literature or maybe to

analyse something from legal perspectives to a

guy

if criticism to your idea to check

if they're the phrasing is something that

is confusing for others or can be

phrase better that can join discussions that

initially may be or not join because

the phrasing of some claim a were

not similar enough for the system to

detected detected as the same that there

are many smaller aspects of the yeah

process of building collective intelligence that can

be improved by using large language mothers

and people who are interested especially technically

a in those areas can contact me

yeah because and yeah we we need

to to to collaborate on on this

different

maybe people who wants to jointly or

apply for some projects for for for

grants that deals with or

creating data that is combination of artificially

created data and human collect a a

data that these are governed by by

humans

and of course who when somebody's interested

in in the and just using our

software as a four four day on

benefit it's it's something that is always

good for us a like or decision

making like durfee processes like

public consultations improving internal the deliberation in

the organization and yeah those are people

who would we would like to collaborate

of the time and and hopefully

we can with some some initial push

we we we can go back on

track on improving from this combination of

artificial and collective intelligence to something that

that is for benefit of all that

is of benefit to to the people

who are the

collaborating with us on the solution but

that the the and goal is something

that

i i think is is just public

good sense of something that i

it reduces the this this problem of

of tradeoffs rights that the strait of

of security and freedom a the that

the problem of you know having to

manually engage in very minute shower of

of public discourse and being the

cut it out from a completely by

it artificial intelligence of on it is

something that we can we can combine

we vowed that the decrease in any

of or of of this extreme we

are i think that our approach can

provide the the golden ratio of

being a subject in in in public

the public life decision making of organizations

are so on in collective intelligence but

without the excessive requirements of or

no legend and and and a critical

thinking and everything that that is necessary

to in order to

not to make any mistakes than the

not makes any errors this is something

to of collective intelligence should take care

of a so yeah that if this

vision is something interested an interesting for

for listeners

you can contact me or my email

is on swarm jack website

i really hope that someone is going

to do it and i wanted to

ask you how hard the was to

develop the platform i mean

because a as i said i mean

there are people now the tower researching

about your ways for people to agree

and the you are one of them

i mean you're finding new solutions and

the is it easy or hard the

to get the fundings

i mean like did you have to

have a side job or of your

file name

yeah

initially i had to have a side

jobs just to start a company we

didn't have any external funding and and

like that

we just

use our on time

the to develop some prototypes to to

develop workflows our first argument map was

on are just wide berth and are

some

cork's a cork table with the pins

and so basic argument mopping to somebody

that can be done manually but of

course you cannot cannot compute the money

while results that well do so we

started with with those type of

projects we started to or

to to get funding from or educational

projects because the as a nation or

grandma pink is very useful for developing

critical thinking skills and this is something

that them can be are you utilize

very well in the

type of projects of unseen are going

to hoping builds are interesting database a

so while i was our first projects

besides this educational projects from whereabouts what

what are the arguments on skills

that will be needed in the workplace

of the future right so we will

discuss with many experts and and we

created arguing maps about us and we

do

put it into one

ebook fought for people to to see

him educate themselves so we've projects like

that we went to bigger and bigger

things one of our biggest their projects

were

educational project think like a scientist in

which we showed an argument mobs their

waste of analyzing the information from methodological

standpoint so basically a and we we

we saw that a popular science sometimes

is or

only about the results of of science

right so this is like a big

telescope and look at the pretty pictures

and the scientists found out that chocolate

is good for your brain or but

for your brain and stuff like that

but we want people are thought to

see especially the young people

one students towards the to see okay

how scientists know that certain claim is

true and how they can know that

certain crimes is false

so we go we went into those

arguments mobs about their methodology in or

as a social sciences in a more

stem fields about the process of science

about the citation about the peer review

and there is

to to to surprise of many much

to to improve their much to criticise

even the peer review process is something

that know some people are not very

happy with because

the the review can be done by

people who are not that at that

very well versed in the subject of

course they they should be from the

the some discipline and so on but

are they provide some criticism that one

cannot easily disagree with ride the the

you cannot have a deliberation

in the process of of the radio

and the the difference reviewers can disagree

with each other what what to do

then and

it is what what what is what

is the mechanism that compose the reviewer

to to have like a final grant

through for knowledge right there is no

such mechanism so of course he is

not saying that peer review should be

abolished was anything like that but he

chose

that in certain ways peer-review could be

improved even with argument mapping anonymous argument

mapping could improve peer review quite extensively

and we showed how can i am

a scientific paper can be a the

transported the tall a argument mapping chrome

how

claims can be discussed or how are

sources can or

shut showcase that okay this this data

is not only good because it's in

the paper but certain aspect of the

the experiment pros produced the data that

supports some crane rights so throat from

this like hurry sticks and broadview that

okay that this is true because the

a scientific paper

said so we can go into the

details about the methodology about the know

to do to to be sure or

are unsure are unsure about the results

are about him quantifying their uncertainty about

the scientific results and about the replication

of of the study so those things

are

the lead us to to to to

create this the this project and or

for many people are

it it helps to to to develop

a critical thinking skills that we measured

of the end up of the project

and now we have a data that

showcase that okay using or mapping and

having discussions about the methodology is a

sure way to to increase are effectively

or critical thinking

on top of that we we conducted

research on the user experience of argument

mapping because interestingly the same information in

plain text or or in the graph

form or in dynamic argument map so

basically them of that starts with one

claim when you click it shall one

argued

meant the next argument the next mental

sequential or a view of the of

them up at the same information eg

makes people retain information better or worse

so the worse is plain text and

the best is a dynamic view of

argument

map why is that it's or

her to say but there are some

hypothesis and the the one i a

like is i think it's is

have a lot of validity he is

the idea of cognitive scaffolding so basically

you are

your attention your your cognitive powers are

not waste that on maintaining that that

the connection of of of data and

adding information one one by one or

built the this a collective sorry the

the knowledge about the subject in in

a way of are like like a

the that the structure for the building

the did the scaffolding right so you

can navigate the scaffolding easily when you

have the the means to do it

when when we engage vs

usually a in the logical a relationship

of their or or of the know

you are acquiring

so that the that was very interesting

results result for us and yeah the

the after that the educational projects we

we started to engage a companies that

may be that they would like to

use argument bobbing in their on processes

unfortunately

are many managers don't really think about

you know making the best decision they

think about their job security and a

there they can have are fighting misguided

view of that you know if they

are not the sole decision makers that

there will be seen as unnecessary by

the by the company

and to there is a lot of

our reluctance in the private sector talk

to your decision making processes so or

if he the brunch we we went

to okay when you need no legend

and you know your your job depends

on it

that this knowledge is is correct the

of this led us to r and

the teams at all

the a pharmaceutical companies that they they

need a studies thought to or for

example of delphi studies to extract knowledge

front from experts and and be sure

that the process right sorts of the

this was easier for for for us

to breakthrough in terms of a private

sector but a at the same time

we started education project product projects we

started with are cooperating with public sector

as well and public sector was a

more

for enthusiastic about our approach

because they are compelled by the law

to conduct a public consultation on on

many policies so

sometimes they don't care about the innovation

this area but sometimes you know whatever

you though is fine by us just

produce the results for us if for

former aspects are good that the that

we are fine

but it allows us to to to

actually you know tests does approach 'em

from as i mentioned in case of

educational policies in terms of as climate

policies in in local level in terms

of public consultation and actually you know

including that the pie

apple's of arguments and opinions a talk

to some yeah

final policy

it is something that that we see

a that people who are part of

this processes can see benefit that that

they are are pleasantly surprised that the

whole process of deliberation of like a

game to them it's like something that

is entertaining or in addition to to

to be useful

all to to or to see other

perspectives to to voice their own opinions

and him people really like the the

idea that it's not only opinions it's

not only

my way or the highway it's a

it's the knowledge that that can be

and

yeah criticise it eat it can or

includes set some opinions that later on

in the discussion or proven to be

wrong and because in every day discussions

in in the let's say face-to-face a

participation a mink mediated discussions as and

stuff like that

it's are too much relying on

moderators ability to translate everything correctly and

remember ever seeing can summary of the

rethinking away that is not exploit excluding

sites that someone else

and to the if the conflicts arise

that the coffee is rather

hush the than than in a result

of productively but people actually appreciate constructive

criticism but it's hard for people to

to give constructive criticism in everyday setting

because this is not skill we are

born with right so earn

we we still do some public consultations

and and policymaking but as i mentioned

before before right now we are most

mostly focused on

our or

delphi processes and the an hour early

got there are applications because in our

mind is in our opinion is it

something that can can be the close

closest to that the fastest application that

you utilize this artificial

diligence and collective intelligence tool to the

market or neat of having a quick

contract analysis having or improve for some

legal reasoning in some court cases and

so on

am

but on the other hand is not

far enough from our our and the

that can improve or artificial intelligence and

collective intelligence in in areas like commodities

for my it this information or

having crowdsource the science and and the

creating big databases of connected treason inc

in in the martin that manner that

is similar to wikipedia but may be

on more of ukip wikipedia of connected

reasoning of connected arguments so so did

this is the pathway that we are

still on but are we we we

are focusing on the legaltech and delphi

methods

at of the of the time

and the talking about know that is

a very interesting topic do you think

that the i am in the

in the future do you think that

the laws as we know them now

will change like that there could be

a different the kind of system

i dunno sure the and he thought

about the future issue think that there

i mean because he was think about

low the load that we have now

of course they are maybe they were

created twenty years ago but the systems

white all that we can go back

to thousands of years

and the baby relations of we father

kind of technologies either nice you're interested

in the web treat like her your

as smart contracts made me feel about

law but maybe not different termer compared

to what we noah the

yeah we're very interested in

dollars and technology like that for decentralized

organizations and decentralize

as you're making a and decentralized science

as well as i mentioned

not in terms of what what is

the future of law it is something

that i

have a spectrum of possibilities right so

on one hand we can just see

of the past and how before or

something that that we see as a

given so that rough law the

the judicial system that is independent of

executive system and the legislative branches of

the the thinks we are good for

granted

we take for granted the

maybe it will devolve right may be

the more authoritarian system of governance will

one outcompete may be not necessarily outcompete

may be just they will collapse from

an internal strife and and you know

that the way

currently politicians are are

getting power in democratic systems

the the lot of worrying or

a signals that you know democracy something

that may be facing the history of

of civilization we wouldn't like to see

that we would like to strengthen the

the best aspects of democracy but it

means a democracy should evolve their it

should response to to the current problems

because alternative of democracy the rule of

law is just the dictatorship dictatorship as

somebody dictates what is the law and

you must obey or be put to

their for something great that right there

so

it going into the the

happier her outcome

i think that there are still some

important challenges are on one hand we

can imagine let's let's are very positive

future we can imagine that

the public discourse itself can be a

governing force for the best law that

we have it it's technically feasible that

the discussion like we have right now

and millions of discussion that people have

you know in public sphere not not

in their put private

lives but the when they want to

engage in something publicly yeah we can

use those discussions tour or extract important

arguments reasoning a value-based reasoning and and

added to to collected discussions and those

discussions

can you know influence how the

the rules are applied taught to the

whole of society basically we can directly

and indirectly influence the the rules by

talking about the right that would be

something very sci-fi but the totally technically

positive feasible or so the

there is one of the idea of

that so so basically we are governed

by by our collective intelligence in terms

of country or maybe community a whole

i know some some people see is

it it as a something positive for

some people fear that much more nefarious

or things like new worth rs

our something like that

yeah of course a i i think

of all of it is possible right

we can if we can have global

government that is positive positive for people

we can have global government of is

that his bed for people we can

have individual nation state that are good

for of for citizens we can have

nations that the

states other in war and they are

oppressing their citizens am so

having

you know ability to use current technologies

are and future technology store and

surveillance a citizens to to control them

to remove their own a agency and

and or thought personhood

and

you know basically have the pretenses and

the show of democracy instead of democracy

as as we seen many of the

authoritarian countries right now yacht is it

is interesting that most of them conduct

some the some the the democratic elections

just for the performer perform

months of it the that is three

possibility as well right the and

he he in those cases law can

be used as a system of oppression

of a system that the coordinates a

parrot of executive of of you know

the government the police to to control

the citizens stall to or

check for dissidents to do to shape

the society as the most powerful powerful

people once rights also

and

we we the the one option this

is quite good rights a week we

can just basically he broke rationality of

of law and the and have a

say in the in our future and

use collective intelligence to to to navigate

our collected this the decision making maybe

gates a to to the fisher scenarios

that that are possible to have good

since making and and so on but

on the other hand we can just

you know a lethal are all of

that we can reduce our agency we

can reduce from ability to make decisions

on

our on behalf of reduce or

the voice of of criticism or of

the power of the government and the

yeah i have for only that the

spectacle of or of democracy i i

think everything key in this case is

is possible and many scenarios in between

so or for me it's it's still

and

said that right what what would be

the role of artificial intelligence

on on the one hand it can

speed up some some processes it can

basically allows us for for better deliberation

for for better decision-making but on the

other hand it can be used as

a surveillance store for it can be

used as a means of or

thinking for us not with us

are you it can may be in

the featured develop us a new agent

that that is you know the new

force of of decision-making so i i

think it's that there are no physical

or objections to to to have

like super intelligence drunk artificial intelligence that

is us smart in accordance to to

humanity as we are now corners to

chimpanzees right so what when we are

the second most intelligent species on on

the planet

we we have the same ability to

influence the future of this planet as

the second as the current second most

intelligent species caf so that that that's

worrying rights and i think on the

alternative to it is collective intelligence there

is no other think we we cannot

being stupid there we cannot control

something smarter than us i think that

many

many smart people think that it is

it is possible to some extent but

soon

our out present may be saw some

argument them up the way the the

not so surreal

there was something with the connection maybe

was me out and about the i

get a connection was a look at

the last the thirty seconds

sure and

success of the the the risk of

an artificial intelligence that is smarter than

us and is basically holding or the

shots about their future that our planet

is moving into and realizing their own

goals

it is quite or me possible in

i dunno about nudity future but even

in medium term is it's not something

that would that i would exclude maybe

even if may be even not if

not not in your tent future so

are the the risk of being this

second most intelligent species on the planet

that does not have shared means of

making some the basically using collective intelligence

weaved artificial intelligence as the method of

of making decisions about our future of

the future of civilization is something that

that is one of the biggest risk

yeah if we don't if that ability

of artificial intelligence increases and our ability

of incorporating this intelligence into our collective

intelligent is not increasing we will be

left behind and or

i dunno if it if it was

a

recorded but i

when compared that the most intelligent species

right now to the second mustn't intelligent

species chimpanzees and are ability to influence

the future right so if we

as the humanity will go down as

the second-most intelligence most intelligent species i

don't think it would be

weiss thought to not to give ourselves

at the ability to to be incorporated

in the decision-making process of the future

artificial intelligences and that the only way

through this process is collective intelligence that

the the interesting thing that that showcases

that is that this is possible at

is there interesting aspect of technology that

you don't really need to understand everything

to

to use technology right the you don't

have to know how the electricity is

made have the lightbulb is created how

the an electricity is

and moving you know for the city

that the collective electric great

you know is is operated to just

push a button and you have a

light right the that there is some

power into in in the setup off

of knowledge that we can use and

i think that the the ability to

reduce knowledge in argumentation have the same

property right so we still

you can be on equal footing even

with

intelligence is greater than ours to be

part of this collective negotiations as collective

augmentation because if our voices voice is

added to the voices of others and

and the argumentation of others are it

create something that is more than than

just our

one idea right there is a complex

of idea

or all the ideas or toward disgusted

the indus that that are discussed in

in this

in this topic that can influence the

that the decision making processes of even

super intelligent beings right because once the

the knowledge is produced in can be

applied many many times for our our

benefit so the philosophical discussions the discussion

about

values discussion about why is good to

do something that that motivates and frames

that is the she making are so

crucial and we don't really have them

because the internet is full of the

the surface lover discussion and the data

that is used to train the models

is mostly on the surface lever disk

russians but we need the ability to

joined the value-based reasoning to the argumentation

that that can go

deep into the nuances and represent many

perspectives he entered the disciple discussion to

preserve our our human values into the

future into the data that is used

by they're stronger and stronger artificial intelligence

i share with you the whole about

url

about the future of of the positive

aspect i mean the

that humanity can use tools or two

to agree on things and may be

find a new ways for for governance

and the would like to ask you

if you have any

message to the community of civic tech

of the people in the civic that

filled the you should think they're are

collaborating in a good way if is

there anything that

yeah

the dipper for think he's just you

know if the thinks i i spoke

about our in of interest to you

just the

contact me and we can

see how we can collaborate the you

know that the the scale of collaboration

can be discussed because we are quite

flexible and we have experience of incorporating

many people are toward our organization

and another thing is that

i i think that

is it is very novel to to

to work in a civil attack or

because it's or

something that is much needed and it's

not very easy to

to survive in this field outside the

the fact that three after this big

color collapse of the of one of

the our biggest projects we still were

managed to survive we're for additional project

problems like that is due to the

a tremendous amount of work by our

team and

and i think that many secret tech

organizations and and people who are interested

managed to struggle with for similar issues

are just you know just having to

explain that those are complex ideas to

about new ways of governing and

or the ducky carla and you weeks

difficulties that the stems from that a

is a think that are often time

the not present produce results quickly so

yeah he in terms of having impact

which is a

i believe something that many people care

about mostly

it it is good that we have

initiatives that you know can

we we can network be network like

with the meta gulf in initiative and

that that the podcast as yours is

is very good example of something that

can

be a beacon for many people who

are interested in the in the subject

and then

i would say just seen on the

don't only look around just give it

the gone and it is not that

difficult to talk or to be engaging

in just one small project that that

provo beginning and end then to three

thousand experimental lot

and shared their results were four of

the community especially or

i think good examples of applied a

civic tech are very encouraging because they

are not only showing the community that

those things can be done they show

a decision makers that this is something

that is happening others are using it

and having good results

really goes along way so

yeah i i would encourage you to

to just skip persisting and to the

issue her ability and diamond gator of

the community engage with

the me if he wants or i

oftentimes spent my own free time about

to discuss the that those issues and

and those most projects with people so

yeah i keep on it's it's one

of the most important think or one

can work in so

given our current state of the then

you know the trajectories for for democratic

governments and democracy in the future and

the emergence of artificial intelligence we are

on the crossroads and the future is

uncertain but we can push it's a

little bit into the direction of that

we all would like to see

so that that that'll be my message

thank you and the absolutely sure that

this topic are very important i mean

they could avoid the eventually wars or

other kind of coffee

and the

and yet so i share your home

and the do you have any anything

you'd like to talk or taught the

that may be we haven't touched before

yeah i i think that the last

thing you the the aspect of the

worst is said suffering that

inspired me to the to measure something

because when you see an ordinary people

that have to

be in some war situation and to

to to be soldiers and so on

governments have to come up with a

waste of you know convincing you that

you are able to to to kill

another and the it's not an in

is not natural for for him as

for most humans excluding maybe some psychopaths

to take a person's life right so

so this is just

mr

something that are are are of course

powerful forces that shape us into the

situations in which we kill each other

but that there are so many cases

that we can show that when we

are able to to talk to each

other even our enemies right

the the the ability to resolve conflicts

are are immense if the no powerful

governments are nuts barking you get and

i think that we as a society

needs something that will protect us from

the abuses of power the abuses of

tyranny abuses of people who

invades other countries a business of power

of of people who know once

further their own interest because if we

are able to talk to each other

directly without our governments but or coordinate

as a

person as as a no ordinary humans

that when to leave and and to

have a good life and so on

we have so much thinking common and

the the only

way that and

in the past the there was this

vision of the internet tried to when

the internet will a marriage will just

have this connection we we we don't

have it but it doesn't mean that

it is not possible we just have

to have right tools for for this

type of communication and the yeah we

just don't give up then the don't

think that

social media as it is is the

only way towards to communicate and that

social media didn't exist

two decades ago rights it everything changes

so fast that are it is important

to remember that the we today we

are building the future

yeah so don't stop your imagination

on what's possible

yeah yeah you make me figure that

the when the i mean if people

are able to discuss the inner or

it's until way and maybe this is

not so convenient for people that have

our but this is another problem

also he held the sneaker about this

so thank you are locked the and

the was very interesting have you here

thank you alex think you for helping

me