Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
I have written a few blog posts arguing that we need to strengthen democracy. One of my key takeaways from the current US Presidential election is that the primary election system must be reformed. I am surprised by how many people don’t know this today but the nationwide adoption of a binding primary system for the presidential election happened only after the 1968 Democratic Convention. So it is a relatively new thing and an example that not all innovations are good.
What would be a better way of doing it? There is a variety of proposals that have been debated. Personally I would like to see an open system where primary voting participation is not restricted by party affiliation. The goal of the primary should be to surface the two best candidates independent of party affiliation with the general election being a runoff between the two. This system would also make it easier for independents to run for president.
No voting system is perfect of course. And thanks to Arrow’s impossibility theorem we know that no perfect system can exist. So all voting systems make trade-offs. That alone is an argument for shaking things up because over time the benefits of any one system tend to attenuate and be overwhelmed by the downsides.
I have written a few blog posts arguing that we need to strengthen democracy. One of my key takeaways from the current US Presidential election is that the primary election system must be reformed. I am surprised by how many people don’t know this today but the nationwide adoption of a binding primary system for the presidential election happened only after the 1968 Democratic Convention. So it is a relatively new thing and an example that not all innovations are good.
What would be a better way of doing it? There is a variety of proposals that have been debated. Personally I would like to see an open system where primary voting participation is not restricted by party affiliation. The goal of the primary should be to surface the two best candidates independent of party affiliation with the general election being a runoff between the two. This system would also make it easier for independents to run for president.
No voting system is perfect of course. And thanks to Arrow’s impossibility theorem we know that no perfect system can exist. So all voting systems make trade-offs. That alone is an argument for shaking things up because over time the benefits of any one system tend to attenuate and be overwhelmed by the downsides.
No comments yet