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