X : What is web 3.0?
Me : A set of worthwhile experiments being tightly coupled to specific forms of crypto for reasons of greed leading to a dystopian society of excessive control and inequality through decentralisation and "choice" that most will be excluded from.
X : I thought Web 3.0 was semantic web?
Me : Did you really expect it to be called "More economic slavery for the masses","Neoliberalism a gogo" or "Our next business model is your children"? Web 3.0 gives it more "legitimacy". Tim BL talked about Web 3.0 and so it must be good.
X : The term has been co-opted?
Me : Yep and bundled with a healthy dose of crypto and greed. I would consider the term toxic despite any worthwhile experiments and noble intentions.
X : Will it succeed though?
Me : Will the pursuit of greed lead society along horrendous paths?
X : Anyway to fix it?
Me : Sure. Do what China does. Put a few shells through the good ship bitcoin and all who sail in her, preferably before they persuade most pension funds to invest and the changes become impossible to disentangle.
X : What about Meta?
Me : I'm all for adapting to a more virtual world. I wrote a report on this - leadingedgeforum.turtl.co/story/on-indus… ... I just want to avoid living in the matrix with Zuckerberg as the architect.
X : You don't like crypto?
Me : No. I don't like the current forms of crypto. Bitcoin for example is an economic weapon with a payload of laissez faire and delivery mechanism of greed. I haven't liked it for almost a decade - blog.gardeviance.org/2013/11/a-spoi…
X : If you had invested in bitcoin then ...
Me : ... I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. I have a defective hypocrisy gene which would normally enable a person to claim that they are an environmentalist by buying a Tesla whilst paying for it through bitcoin investments.
X : Web3 != Web 3.0
Me : Good luck with that. It'll end up meaning exactly what those with large financial investments gain the most advantage from.
X : What is neoliberalism?
Me : It's an idea that all human interactions can be described through transactions combined with a belief that it would a good idea to do so through a market.
X : You're not a fan of neoliberalism?
Me : No. Ignoring the blatant duplicity i.e. transactions are based upon property which is based upon exclusion, so when when someone says "choice" they actually mean "exclusion" ...
... there is unfortunately no limits or constraints in their thinking. Hence 18th century laissez faire (the goal of neoliberalism) economists argued strongly in favour of slavery - 3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2… ...
... and it wasn't the market that tried to stop that practice but non transactional forms of human activity i.e. Government.
Oh hang on, you think when I said "Our next business model is your children" that I was joking?
I wish.
X : Are you a communist?
Me : Socialist. I view the market as a useful tool applied in the right contexts. I don't agree with abolition of the market (communists) nor replacement of society by the market (neoliberals). I'm more the Smith / Keynes / Hayek school (non US version).
X : Why do you have economists at different positions on those lines?
Me : Quite simply, it's the perception of those economists in different regions sticking within Western philosophy.
X: The references to slavery are uncalled for.
Me : Ok. As long as we recognise that neoliberals argued voiciferously for it. On another note, 600 hours in-game to get an NFT. You thought you were just playing a game and having fun. Web 3.0 in action - kotaku.com/ubisoft-boss-t…
X : So what?
Me : The future you are being conditioned for. At the end, in your very final days, after a lifetime of work ... you too will be able to pass on an image of the hammer of majikthise to your descendants with the words "this is all I have, change the world".
X : So, you're against Web 3.0?
Me : I'm against the neoliberal ideas being baked into this toolchain. As I said, there are some interesting experiments and uses. We just need to seperate them out from this greed driven dystopian future.
X : so.. much like Web 2.0 then?
Me : Unfortunately. I more than understand the futility of arguing within the system against the dystopian future of excessive control and inequality that greed will create. Any change will have to come from outside.
X : Any ideas?
Me : I'm hopeful that over the next few decades as China far surpasses the West in both economy and technology whilst simultaneously creating a more equal society ... we might be forced to reflect.
Ah ... what a wonderful, on point, tweet by @jack -
X : China will not create a more equal society.
Me : The thing you need to learn about China is that policies are not aspirations or targets but absolute minimums it expects to far exceed - bbc.co.uk/news/business-… ... same with climate emissions, reduction of poverty etc.
China plays a long game with high levels of situational awareness. It is impressive -
X : Isn't that true everywhere?
Me : What is true?
X : Targets are minimums.
Me : Err .... I don't now how to respond, I'm sort of speechless. The norm is more ... try -
Tree is up and decorated, presents bought and wrapped, logs chopped, ... all the basics done. Today, some "me" time - hmmm, modding Skyrim. Oh, look a new update AE ... OMG, WTF, are they trying to kill off the modding community again just to force some creation club content?
One of these days, there will be a gaming company that doesn't try to regularly kill off its modding community in order to peddle some crap for a bit of extra cash but instead takes a radical approach of working with the community to improve the game ... I know, it's too radical.
But could you imagine what Skyrim could have become if Bethesda had actively worked with the community ... and yes, Bethesda is probably the best example of a company working with a community.
X : What machine do you use?
Me : For what?
X : PC?
Me : Fairly bog standard ... tower case, i9-10900K, 32Gb RAM, 1TB SSD, RTX 3070ti, liquid cooled, dual nics etc. It does everything I need it to. I like fiddling with machines so I build myself a new rig every few years.
X : So you built it?
Me : Bizarrely, this was a base unit that I just upgraded a few things on. I didn't have much time, I needed to build the wee lad a gaming machine.
X : What's the specs on that?
Me : Stonking. It's a beast.
X : Any advice on building a PC?
Me : Don't. Especially not now ... components can be difficult to get.
X : You said you stopped researching on organisational structure ...
Me : ... I stopped experimenting (i.e. running organisations) in 2007. PST is where I got to. If you want to go beyond pioneer - settler - town planner then you'll need to find some experimenting in that space.
X : But you research on leadership?
Me : No, I more observe using population studies how organisations behaviour is changing. Hence - leadingedgeforum.turtl.co/story/on-indus…
X : So, surveying CEOs?
Me : No. Simpson's paradox. Take something like cloud, if you summarise the majority view they will tell you the wrong future i.e. the future is hybrid including on premise versus serverless in 2015 ...
On pioneer, settler and town planner ... ok, first apologies for the awful naming. When I used the model fifteen years ago, I was thinking of more Viking settlers in Greenland and not the genocidal varieties. Still need to find better names ...
... there are some really important basics with this model.
2) Everyone gets to choose and to change. This is about attitudes required for a particular component / project. People change ... often. Allow them to choose and change their attitude as much as they need to. FFS don't tell someone what they are, ask them and let them change.
I do learn new and interesting terms from the wee lad. Apparently on the school ground today, "based" is a term used by fascists to describe someone with offensive views as being cool. I'm not sure what context I'd ever use that in but still ... language is always evolving.
Still, it's interesting to note that quite a bit of slang is used to communicate identity and membership of a group rather than to impart some other meaning and that children are becoming so aware of this. Maybe this has always been the case.
X : In what context was it used?
Me : As in ... "No-one likes [xyz], he calls things based" ... to which I had to ask what "based" meant.
X : Will AI do research?
Me : Odd question. AI is already involved in research - from literature searches to finding correlations to even creating hypothesis. It's quite far from the general purpose intelligence you need for causation but maybe in fifty years or so. Why?
X : How do you industrialise research?
Me : Well, you can industrialise components around research but if you're talking about genuine core research then it's in that genesis phase. You literally can't industrialise it.
X : What bits can you industrialise?
Me : Any surrounding components that use defined / known models i.e. publishing, finance, marketing, legal (contracts to patents), HR, admin ... even things like sales. Those would seem like obvious targets. You'd have to map it.