(01-23-2026, 12:27 PM)SystematyK Wrote: I find it fascinating to read what other people put together in terms of correcting our current national and global challenges. Here are some of them that I have found.
GFC - Essentially an upper layer of globalized control on top of all other types of control around the world
https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comme...planetary/
KAOSnow - A 'second' layer of democracy. Core belief that a central database of opinion will force institutions to stay in line.
https://www.kaosnow.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/KAOSNOW/
https://substack.com/@kaosovercontrol
Senetai - An open-source cooperative platform that lets you:- Vote on actual legislation (bills, bylaws, laws that affect you)
- Earn political capital (Policaps) for participating
- Own your data collectively (you get paid when it's sold to researchers/journalists)
- Build financial leverage (trust fund buys government bonds, gives you debt-holder influence)
https://senatai.ca/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Senatai/
To clarify, this post is NOT to mock or ridicule the work someone else has attempted, but more so exploration of what other ideas other human beings have surfaced.
I appreciate that there is a desire to collect frameworks made by others and to respect the efforts. What I will do here is give my own honest responses to their systems and what works well vs doesn't. My theory is defined by operational praxis: if you can't do it in real life, then it isn't functional. So I'll be looking at it from that pov.
First one is something I've seen floating around the reddit from time to time. I hesitate to really give the AI driven ones a lot of analysis just due to having my own work chucked into those things without my consent time and time again.
What I *will* give it is that it has a slick little website. The questionnaires pretty clever for "global citizenship". However, the framework itself is clearly AI written and formatted. Its basically just bullet points with no operational substance. So I can't really offer any appreciable feedback on something like this. There's no real deep dive into the
reality of systems of power, of human psychology, of sociological theory or game theory. Basically, tis a wish list based on existing logic structures. As a structural examination, I read this as a very surface level overview that doesn't really address core problems in society at large. It also doesn't give enough description on participation and keeps things relatively vague enough that I'm not confident this would actually function in a group.
My conclusion: good website, neat idea with the questionnaire to give people simple guidance but limited operational utility in the rest.
Second one states " Our group believes the answer is in building a worldwide public institution dedicated to the documentation of public opinion." This is an interesting goal, since they want to bring about this Noosphere realization but I don't think that they've actually articulated the functional barriers present in such an endeavor. It isn't just a cross cultural one, or communicative one, its an ontological one. Their hypothesis is derived from the same subjective thoughts that Nick Land produced which gave us the lovely soup of horrors we're in right now. A lot of the reddit discourse appears to be using AI and there is conversation about developing "relationships" with the fancy lying machines. Not to immediately dumpster the idea, because the basic premise is familiar, but the execution is.. lacking.. in priorities. They're still operating under the paradigms of the now and not building for the future.
My conclusion: vague, a bit perplexing in a lot of places. It talks about the Noosphere but not how to realistically make that a reality. I wish I had something more favorable to describe here but outside of podcasts and their reddit, there isn't a lot to grasp onto. I'm uncertain what their real core goal is as Noosphere itself is not really a functional resolution to the worlds problems?
Third one. This one's another AI agentic system that's using AI as the basis on which to build everything from. Smart systems are one thing, but reliance on the infrastructure of the guys with all the bucks just sets this up for poor outcomes. I think that the concept of the 4 steps towards engagement is interesting - it has the potential to be useful. I don't like the notion of creating a profile, as that immediately invalidates the power of autonomy in consensus systems, but I understand what they did it given the digital infrastructure needs to make this tech work. The audits systems interesting too, though limiting people based on "policaps" implies an economy of participation rather than guaranteed franchise. Might be a wording thing here. Synthetic consensus is also known as "digital democracy" and I prefer that as a term personally, though again I see what they wre going for. I do like that everyone can see whats going on and what weights are were, but this runs into problems. People follow the crowd on social media, and there's no mechanism baked into this that I can tell which helps with this. The last module is of middle use imho as while yes, you could do the upload thing, why do you need digital infrastructure ran by an AI for this? Gov does this *already* here. So this last part is an area that would need specific utility to demonstrate why you need a digital system (ie; resource intensive system) instead of a phone line or similarly simpler mechanism to report things like pot holes.
Conclusion: senate-ai is not a useful tool in its current form. However, the basic concept of a 4 step process (build voting preferences -> vote on measures -> see data and how the community responds -> informed governance) has use. It would need adapting, and would need to demonstrate actual utility for the amount of resources it uses. If its simpler to just file people into a community center and go old fashioned to achieve the same result, then this has no utility. Aggregating the information across a much larger nation-state is a potential pathway, but that opens up all manner if issues that aren't addressed by this platform unfortunately.
(02-02-2026, 02:12 PM)SystematyK Wrote: Game B
This seems to be an analysis and a theory about a new system, without the actual mechanics. Very interesting to read.
"Call the world's current civilization Game A. We believe Game A has some serious, fundamental problems that mean we can't keep playing it forever. This community is trying to figure out what a viable, better civilization could look like and how to reach it. We're calling that alternative Game B. For an introduction to Game B, see An Introduction to Game B. For the community's current thoughts on what Game B looks like, see Game B."
"Design criteria of Game B
Although Game B does not have an exact vision, there are design criteria that it may solve in order to tackle the problems that we face."
Took some digging (also note: there are articles in there that are deeply NSFW) but I examined this as well.
https://www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=Game_B looking at this link specifically is helpful, as it centralizes all the concepts they're talking about. I'll reserve commentary on their descriptions of human and social evolution.
They linked a few things that I think you would quite like Sys, specifically this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework
"Dave Snowden created the Cynefin framework to explain the difference between complicated and complex."
- Complicated - In principle can be taken apart and put back together again. Cause and effect are easy to follow
- Complex - Cannot be taken apart and put together again because the phase space in time is changing and dynamic. In complex systems, it is hard to determine cause and effect relationships
All in all, this was an interesting historical dive to see what was being worked in the early 2010s and late 2010s. Apparently the group disbanded in 2017 due to internal differences.
They have a good understanding of the principles of change but read as still stuck in what they call "Game A" thinking. They want to maintain engagement with the existing economic system on the belief it would autopoetic itself into the Game B structure. But this is contradictory: how could people create a true Game B system if they rely on Game A? It reads like colonial logic rather than genuine break out thinking. Game B, according to their own statements, requires thinking outside the box and outside the experiential expectations of the Game A player.
https://www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=G...sition%20B this section in particular (and the one above it) was interesting to read. Because I've seen this before. It makes me wonder if there is intersectionality here between the folks who started this and the network state project types. They talk about 'exit vectors' and 'hyper scaling' in network states which echoes this sort of thinking. Or perhaps it's just the natural conclusion one makes when they see the system as it is.
By my read on it, it looks like most of this was written by Hall with a specific type of thinking in mind. " We have significantly destroyed human capacities at an industrial scale with our current systems (educational, economic, political). Remediating that damage and bringing people back to the basic capacity of being mature adults, who can use their minds to think (and not simulated thinking), and use the whole of their body and emotional intelligence, is quite hard." This statement is curious to me, as I'm not sure what simulated thinking is meant to be, but I do think that they are correct in the notion that the modern infrastructure has severely damaged the human organism.
"As Jordan Hall describes, a Game B environment will probably be around 1,500 to 3,000 people. It is somewhere in the range of a village to a small town, but it has all of it. It has kids being born, it has kids going to school, it has old people, it has people dying, it has food production, it has energy. For the moment, it will still need to interface with Game A, if only in an asymmetrical way. For example, goods are sold into Game A. Think of it as a Google village, where the capacity to generate high-value products into Game A is asymmetrically high, producing the output that generates the influx of resources necessary to be able to get the things you cannot get out of the community. The community is continually looking for ways to use its capacities and its relationship with the larger world to become increasingly local and increasingly autonomous."
There's a degree of satisfaction that not only did they come to the same conclusion that you did Sys, but that I did as well. Around 1500-3000 people as a single "unit" is a logical beginning point. I don't like the direction it went in though in this description, as I feel this is severely reductive in scope. For the goal of a Game B player, they merely suggest ongoing participation with Game A and lack a transition mechanism thats sufficiently motivating enough to get away from it. If anything, to me this reads like Game B players again colonizing Game A players. That's my read though, and comes from my own space of knowing. I do appreciate that they talk about embodied being - this is genuinely an area of interest for me.
Looking at their overall goals, their toolsets, and what they wanted to achieve, I think that what we're seeing is a seed of similar impulses. People who understand systems thinking are looking at the world, comprehending it is deeply broken, and trying to find alternatives. Difference being, the fracture in Game B happened because they weren't following their own principles.
https://www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=G...onstraints this is probably the best take away from the document. And this, "
The flag on the hill for Game B is an anti-fragile, scalable, increasingly omni-win-win civilisation" is a decent objective to focus on.
To that end, we could use their criteria for examining humanityOS (and my own system) to see how it lands:
- Game B is the flag on the hill for an omni-win civilization that maximizes human flourishing.
- Game B is the environment that maximizes collective intelligence, collaboration, and increasing omni-consideration.
- Game B is building or developing the capacity to navigate complexity without resorting to complicated systems.
- Game B is establishing coherence within complex systems.
- Game B is a meta-protocol for hyper-collaboration.
- Game B is the infinite game where the purpose is to continue playing. Game A is the finite game where the purpose is to win.
- Game B is the theoretically optimal condition for creative collaboration and, thus, for maximal innovation.
- Game B must orient its primary innovation capacity towards cultivating individual and collective sovereignty. It must foster awareness of how choices show up and are decided, more than it augments individual and collective power.
- Game B is a new mode of societal, economic, and political organization that leverages people's authentic, long-term interests towards a healthier, more cooperative society and improved well-being. A Game B system is any cooperative, mutually-beneficial system that can outcompete exploitative, adversarial systems through manifest appeal and willful, voluntary participation.
Note: reading that it disbanded to internal conflict is disappointing. They had the understanding of the field, but it still fell apart anyways.
edit:
https://becomingdenizen.substack.com/p/25-game-b this is from 2025???? Maybe their wiki is just very old?? They talk about it more in the podcast - The dissolution of the original Game B cohort / shifting to "spore mode" [12:38] ( transcripts a little lower
https://www.becomingdenizen.com/podcast/game-b )
![[-]](https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/images/tek/collapse.png)