June 17, 2023 • 43 mins
What does it truly mean to be sovereign in the digital age, and how can we navigate trustless transactions without sacrificing our freedom? Join me as I explore the implications of deferring authority within the realm of digital transactions. Discover the power of self-empowerment and the balance between risk, reward, and responsibility in the digital age.
I also delve into the complexities of sovereignty, dependency, and responsibility as they pertain to the ownership and stewardship of material possessions and how true sovereignty means maintaining responsibility even when we defer our authority, toucing on the idea of revoking delegated authority as a means of retaining our freedom and the potential impact of not doing so.
Lastly, I use the example of tech giants OpenAI and their responsibility to ensure the common good. I highlight the need for OpenAI to set the standard for transitioning their assets as a singularity back to the people, while still incentivising innovation and training for their models. I then delve into the potential for collaboration and building upon existing work to ensure that everyone benefits from the collective commons with the prevalence of self-sovereignty in the realm of data and identity. Don't miss this eye-opening deep dive into authority, trust, and the future of transactions.
Contact David Ding
Thanks for listening!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay.
So this one's about the natureof deferral and the context I
want to talk about deferral inis, in particular, the deferral
of authority, and we do thisinevently, all day, every day,
and we do it consciously.
However, the deferring ofauthority is a major issue,
(00:25):
especially within, in context oftransacting digitally in a
scenario within which you knowthe formal economy is heading
towards developing, you know aframework within which every
(00:49):
human being can transact in atrustless way.
Trustless meaning that themechanism is so rock solid and
watertight that the de-riskingof our decision making is done
for us entirely.
Now, at the moment, we havebanks that operate as
(01:13):
intermediaries.
We defer our authority to thebanks in order to imbue trust
into those transactions and intothat system.
This is what enables us to have, for example, any e-commerce
website.
Someone can purchase a productand service online and we have a
(01:34):
certain amount of trust thatthe person transacting with us
is verified and that the systemis has de-risked that
transaction to a certain degree,utilizing mechanisms such as
KYC or Know Your Customer andmore sophisticated systems,
(01:55):
proof of personhood.
And you know, i think in thecoming.
Well, it's already.
The technology already exists,but I think it's going to be
more and more normalized for forthere to be truly trustless
(02:20):
transactions utilizing a varietyof technologies that are
blockchain based or similar.
So we have confidence,deferring our authority, and so,
in a scenario within which thesystem we're utilizing doesn't
(02:42):
imbue that confidence doesn't,we don't feel as though we can
trust that system wholly thenwe're just not going to engage
with it.
There may be scenarios withinwhich we understand that there
is risk associated withtransacting on that system and
we may, in context, say well,this transaction is only $5.
(03:04):
So I weigh you weigh up thepros and cons of the risk versus
reward, understanding thatyou're willing to lose the $5 in
order to take the risk oftransacting.
And this is going on with everysystem.
It's going on with everytransaction that you have with a
(03:24):
human being, with the digitalsystem.
At some level, you're weighingup the pros and cons of the risk
versus the reward.
Now, some human beings they havea tendency to believe they're
entitled to be protected, thatthey're entitled to be protected
(03:49):
, that they have certain rights.
Unfortunately, the reality isthat it's actually a privilege
to have a transaction de-riskedon your behalf, and so what
you're actually doing whenyou're engaging with a third
party to facilitate an exchangeon your behalf is that they're
(04:14):
providing you a mechanism forde-risking a transaction and
understanding that nothing isperfect and that there is an
element of risk.
And so, in context of theliability, if there is an issue,
then, in truth, your decisionto utilize the platform is
(04:42):
actually the issue, in that youare unable to properly diligence
the mechanism for imbuing trustinto that system and you
decided to take the risk from aperspective of being entitled,
when, in reality, the system ithas not been entirely de-risked,
(05:02):
but it has been de-risked to arecommended standard by
regulators or otherwise.
Now it's a very importantmindset to shift into,
especially in the from theperspective of the economy that
is emerging, that is going to bemore and more based upon
(05:25):
self-governance andself-regulation more
decentralized, less deferring ofauthority, but more autonomous
de-risking.
So you know, back to the banks,you know, with the banks,
there's a lot of human beingsinvolved in de-risking
(05:46):
transactions, a lot ofdependencies, a lot of
interdependencies, and whatwe're seeing with blockchain and
distributed ledger technologyand other technologies emerging
in the space are scenarioswithin which people are trusting
the transactions because of how, how bulletproof the system is
(06:09):
and it's getting to the pointwhere Transactions can take
place that are entirely trustedand can even be anonymous, and
the technology exists right nowwhereby you can, rather than
providing your identity orrevealing your identity, you can
(06:33):
prove beyond shadow of a doubtthat you are the custodian of
the original identity documentsthat prove that you are who you
say you are, without revealingyour identity.
Even So, from this perspectiveand this is going to become more
(06:58):
and more prevalent you canleapfrog a whole bunch of layers
in the system, but inparticular, the mechanism of a
bank acting as an intermediaryto imbue trust into a
transaction.
That's in a scenario withinwhich that mechanism has been
rendered obsolete.
You have a much more directconnection.
(07:24):
There's no requirement for anintermediary such as a bank.
So what happens then?
Well, we defer our authority toa system.
In the beginning, we deferredour authority to banks.
You know way back when bankswere established.
(07:45):
We go to a bank and say here'sa bar of gold bullion.
I trust that you're going tokeep it safe in your vaults.
I'll go down, i'll check thevaults.
See the security that's inplace.
What is the mechanism that thatbank is utilizing to imbue
trust into the system?
They've got vaults, they've gotsecurity guards, they've got
cameras or whatever.
(08:05):
It is Okay, i trust your systemAnd I'm deferring the authority
for the stewardship of this barof gold bullion to you for its
care.
And in that scenario, you'resaying you're the expert, you're
(08:29):
the authority.
Now in the world, you know, in aworld within which everyone's
on a rampage aboutself-empowerment and
independence and sovereignty,people are so, so confused, so
confused about what that means.
Sovereignty in this context,when you want to defer your
(08:53):
authority and, believe me, youdo want to defer your authority
It's absolutely valid.
If you want to thrive as anindividual, if you want to
realize a vision that you havefor any aspect of your life or
anything you want to create inthe world, you have to defer
your authority.
You have to.
And when you defer authority,you are surrendering the fact
(09:22):
that you, that the other person,is the authority, and so that
means you entrust them with howto do it.
You're saying I actually haveno idea how to look after this
bar of gold bullion.
I have no idea how to create asystem that can take care of the
gold bullion.
I have no inclination.
(09:44):
I'm deferring my authority toyou And I'm surrendering to the
fact that you are the authority.
But sovereignty in this contextmeans that you know that you're
still responsible for the barof gold bullion.
You're still responsible forthe bar of gold bullion.
(10:05):
That's what sovereignty means.
Now, a person who is not actingfrom their sovereignty.
Let's use that same scenario ofthe gold bullion.
Let's say you go to a bank youknow it's back in back in the
(10:25):
old days, go to a bank with abar of gold bullion.
You say, please, please, takecare of a bar of gold bullion.
I just want to diligence yourprocess first.
Can you walk me around thepremises, show me the vaults,
explain to me the system ofsecurity that you have on?
Cool, i'm going to defer myauthority to you for the care of
(10:47):
this bar of gold bullion.
I'm entrusting you with itscare And I'm deferring the
authority on how to care for itto you.
It means I won't question it.
I won't ever question yourauthority If you ever have to
(11:07):
make changes.
I understand.
I'm deferring my authority toyou.
And now, let's say a week later, that bank gets broken into and
the bar of gold bullion isstolen And you lose the bar of
gold bullion.
(11:27):
Now, someone who is not actingfrom their sovereignty, someone
who is acting disempowered orfrom a victimhood mentality,
will blame the security company.
They'll blame them.
They'll say you said this andyou said you've got this measure
of security on board and yourvaults are too weak to deal with
(11:51):
the dynamite.
It's like well, you willinglydeferred your authority to us.
We're doing the best we can.
We've got a track record of 100years of never having an issue.
And now we have had an issue.
You deferred your authority tous, you entrusted us, we did the
(12:12):
best we can, and they may havedone an imperfect job, it
actually doesn't matter.
Someone who's sovereign, someoneacting from their sovereignty,
has insurance.
They have insurance And they goto the insurance company and
they say the bank was brokeninto, my bar of gold bullion was
(12:35):
stolen.
I need to make a claim, please.
And they say, yes, certainly.
Can you give us the details?
Now, when that person who ownsthe bar of gold bullion went to
the insurance company, theyshared with the insurance
company.
This is how I've de-risked thestewardship of this bar of gold
(12:57):
bullion.
I went to this bank.
These are the methods that theyuse.
This is the system that they'reusing.
This is how their securityworks.
And the insurance company saysoh, that's impressive, you've
gone to great lengths to de-riskthis, so we'll give you a
discount on your premiums.
We're very happy with that.
(13:19):
And the insurance company sayshere you go, here's your bar of
gold bullion.
That's what a sovereign humanbeing does.
That's what sovereignty meansThat you own your own risk
profile.
You know that nothing is notentitled to anything in this
(13:41):
world.
Every the shirt on your back,the shoes you're wearing, the
life you're living, all of it isa privilege.
You're not entitled to any ofit.
Your life can be taken in anymoment.
Your shirt could accidentallycatch on flames and it's gone.
(14:01):
It's not an entitlement, it's aprivilege, and you are the
steward of everything in yourpossession, everything that's
outside the surface of the earth.
It's come out of the earth andhas formed some other object of
material size.
(14:22):
It's only above the earthtemporarily.
At some point it's going to goback in the earth and then come
out again.
So there is no entitlement.
There is no entitlement,there's just a privilege, and
(14:46):
everything in your custody is anobligation that you have for
its care.
And so deferring your authorityto people who are more equipped
to make decisions on your behalfdoesn't mitigate the risk.
It doesn't mitigate theresponsibility And really the
(15:15):
nature of deferral.
It's all about responsibility.
It's about understanding thatyou're wholly responsible for
everything, for every aspect ofyour life, for every aspect of
your experience.
Very important to understandthis, especially for people who
(15:37):
are on a crusade of empowermentWho are you trying to claim your
power of?
It's yours right now.
Who are you trying to preachfreedom to?
You're free right now.
If you feel restricted, you justhave to look around you and
(15:59):
figure out how you'veinadvertently given your power
away and forgotten that you'restill responsible for yourself.
Understand this.
Understand this.
If you lose something in yourlife, you're still responsible.
(16:23):
No one else is responsible forit, not the government, not even
your parents.
Having parents is a privilege.
You're not entitled to parents.
A child is an entitled to becared for.
It's a privilege granted thatchild by the parent.
(16:48):
That parent is free to be asloving or unloving as they
choose, despite any human lawsthat are in place, they're part
of nature.
You are wholly responsible foryour life, for the quality of
your life and for everything.
You are the steward ofeverything in your possession.
(17:09):
You are wholly responsible forthat, and so I want to talk
about so.
When you defer your authority,understand you're wholly
responsible.
So I want to talk about this incontext of dependency.
(17:31):
And there's so much confusionaround dependency, codependency,
being independent versuscodependent, versus
interdependent, and then peopleget confused about well, how can
I depend on someone and stillbe free and still be sovereign?
(17:56):
The freedom is in the right ofrevocation of all delegated or
deferred authority.
You can claim it back at anytime.
That's what makes you free, butno human being is ever going to
thrive by being whollyindependent or refusing to
(18:17):
depend.
It's very, very simple.
Interdependency means thatthere is an ecosystem of
component parts that arechoosing to defer their
authority to other componentparts, which means they've
prepared to weight up the prosand cons of the risk versus the
(18:42):
risk, which means they'veprepared to weight up the pros
and cons of the risk versus thereward of being dependent, and
they've chosen to defer theirauthority, whether or not those
components are going to blameanother component in that system
if they abandon them or if oneof them gets hit by a bus or if
(19:07):
they make a mistake.
That's where you give your poweraway.
That's where you give yourpower away.
Oh, xyz happened, abc happened,covid happened.
Well, you know the government'sresponse to COVID.
It's a choice.
(19:31):
It's a choice.
The government is not perfect.
The government doesn't have acrystal ball.
The government's doing the bestthey can to provide you with
everything that you're you know,protect you from everything
that you're afraid of, to keepyou safe from harm.
(19:54):
And when something happensthat's unforeseen, that no one
could have ever predicted ablack swan event that's never
happened before the unifiedvoice of the people blames the
government, you this and youthat.
And so the government listensto the pain, responds, goes into
(20:21):
debt to imbue grace into thesystem so that people who would
have lost their businesses areable to stay afloat and see if
they can salvage themselves.
And then, once that's done,people blame the government for
spending too much money andbeing too wasteful.
(20:46):
And the issue isn't thegovernment.
The issue is the voice.
The issue is the peoplechoosing to defer their
authority and without holdingthe responsibility.
You see, so disempowering, sodisempowering.
(21:13):
It's OK to be dependent, it'sOK to choose to depend on
something or someone, but neverto forget that you are still
responsible.
You have the power to revoke.
A lot of people don't realizethis, but you can revoke your
authority.
You know under law, in law, yourwill.
(21:37):
It's not the same as youragency.
Your will is your command Andyour body's role is to be a
willful servant, so it wants tofollow your command.
It wants to follow your will.
(21:57):
However, if your will becomes athreat to your body, your body
will reject your will And itwill begin to view your choices
as a threat to its ownwell-being.
So understand this is thenature of your body is that it
is a willful servant.
It wants to act on your behalf.
But if it doesn't trust you inthe same way with the people and
(22:22):
with the government, the peopleare the body.
The government is the unifiedintent or the voice of the
people.
If the people don't trust thegovernment, then they take them
out of government and theyappoint someone that is
representative of their voice.
(22:43):
So really important tounderstand this that the will,
your will, is not the same asyour agency, and so every
government that's in place, it'sheld in place because you've
either inadvertently orconsciously deferred your
(23:06):
authority to the governing body.
Now in New Zealand, we've donethis through the Crown, and this
goes way, way, way, way back towhen our ancestors bent the
knee to the Crown.
You bend the knee to the Crown.
This is in common law And theCrown protects you from being
(23:27):
invaded from other kings andqueens And God knows what else.
You need to be protected, soyou bend the knee, agree to pay
taxes and in return you'reprotected and a whole bunch of
other things, in whatever form.
(23:48):
So over time, the Crownobviously evolves, develops,
establishes a judicial systembased on statute law which is
different to common law.
But the Crown delegates thatpower, it defers its authority
(24:08):
for justice to a judicial system, but it's still wielding the
power that you gave it.
The Crown is still deferringyour authority, and so when you
(24:31):
bend the knee, that can berevoked, of course, but then
you're on your own, then you'vegot no protection, then you've
got to be entirely independent.
So who would want that?
Who would want to lose allthose benefits?
Who would want to lose thepeace of mind?
(24:54):
And so under common law, youhave the right to revoke any
authority that you've deferredto anyone or anything.
But I would not recommend it.
It's not what you want.
But what you do want is youwant to step into the
(25:20):
perspective of being empoweredand understand that no one is
responsible for you.
No one is responsible for youBut you.
And so in your daily life, whenyou engage with the legal,
(25:44):
statutory, legal system, stepinto a position of authority and
power and understand thateveryone and everything you've
deferred your authority to,whether it be by online, by
agreeing to terms and conditionswithout reading them, whether
you transact using a bankingplatform, whether you use
(26:07):
e-commerce, blockchain, whateverit may be, all of those
transactions are asking of youto defer your authority.
And you're choosing to deferyour authority and entrust those
systems, but you're stillwholly responsible.
No, within this, these systemsdo have a responsibility to you
(26:40):
Under common law, under theprinciples of common law, and
that is a duty of care.
So, if you're offering to Act onbehalf of another human being,
to act to enact their will, toenact or fulfill their will, you
(27:05):
have a duty of care to theindividual to protect the
innocence.
So if they haven't, innocence,meaning their perspective.
So if someone's naive andinnocent to the risk, you know,
like a child, they're obliviousto the risk, they're oblivious
to how hot the stove is, so theymight touch it.
So, in In the real world, inthe real world, if someone is is
(27:31):
offering to enact you orfulfill your will, they have a
duty of care to protect theinnocent, and so if you are
naive, if you're not aware ofthe risks, then they have a duty
of care to make you fully awareof them And if you come up
(27:52):
against obstacles and barriers,to do their very best To try and
get put you into a space whereyou can Make decisions that are
for in your best interest.
Now, over time, statutory, thelaw of statute it's got away,
(28:12):
away, gone.
The pendulum swung the entireother way Whereby people believe
that if you have a statutoryagreement or a contract, then
you can avert your response, theresponsibility to a duty of
care.
As you know, anyone that hasagency to act on behalf of a
human being to enact their willHas the studio of care, and but
(28:38):
most people believe that astatutory agreement Can negate
that duty.
Oh, there's a clause in thecontract.
Will know, because Common law,the will stands above the agency
, and so, even if you signed acontract that says I understand,
(29:02):
which means that you'rechoosing to stand under The law
of statute Instead of above itthis is the whole purpose of
saying that I understand.
Even if you've Acknowledge thatyou are choosing to stand under
the law instead of above it, youcan revoke it at will Because,
under common law, you have theright of revocation.
(29:24):
I am the one known as David ofthe ding family, commander Of
David ding capitalized, who isthe agent which is my best to
forget, and this is myDeclaration I, he by, declare
(29:46):
And express the right ofrevocation And that's it.
It is done.
You don't need to justify itbecause it's without question or
justification, revoked,repudiated, extinguished,
whatever you want to say, it'sgone.
And that power that thatcontract has, whereby, at some
(30:07):
point, you chose to stand underthat authority willfully and
willingly, it's hereby revoked.
And this is the.
This is how the law works, andYou just have to realize how it,
(30:28):
how you get entangled in thesesituations.
First of all, you've got toaccept, claim that if you want
your power, you have to bringhold the responsibility.
If you want to defer yourauthority and to Complete and
disempower yourself, then youstep into the energy of blaming
Whoever you've deferred yourauthority to, and what I would
(30:55):
say is that You know, in ascenario within which we have to
, you know, in a scenario withinwhich we've got Organizations
such as open AI Who have builtmodels, ai models by scraping
Internet, scraping publiclyavailable information on the
(31:15):
internet, capturing data,information assets That is in
the public domain but was putinto the public domain Under the
law of the Commons, becausecopyright is issued the moment
something is produced andcreated.
(31:35):
You don't have to apply for it,it just is.
And so if someone's innocentlyput Assets into the public
domain and they've been scrapedAnd then commercialized to
produce an intelligence set, andthen someone cottons on to the
(31:58):
fact that, oh, i innocently putthat into public domain by
accident, where was the duty ofcare to the person that was
meant to make me aware of whatcould happen?
Now think about the commercialgains that have come from The
collective Commons Inadvertentlydeferring their authority To
(32:22):
commercialize Their assets, andit's now sitting at open AI, and
open AI have averted their dutyof care.
They've averted their duty ofcare to the collective Commons,
(32:44):
and so now we're seeing themcall for regulation.
Now we're seeing them offeringgrants To Communities who have
solutions to Democratising Allthe information.
Now that's a great step.
It's a great step in the rightdirection, for sure, and let's
(33:08):
hope it continues to movetowards that space.
But the exposure that they haveis, it's absolutely monumental,
and so they really need to sortsomething out, because it could
get very, very complex and messyIf they really don't lean into
(33:32):
this straightaway And look toreconcile it with something
quite radical, i would say interms of You know, open AI was
meant to be open in the verybeginning.
It then became closed Andreally it's got to become open
again.
It's got to become open again.
The collective Commons, thecommon good of the people, their
(33:58):
collective assets wereinadvertently, have
inadvertently, fared the model.
The innocence of theirperspective is irrefutable.
Had they known, had they known,would they have chosen to allow
(34:19):
that to be scraped?
Of course not.
It's a very simple, it's kindof like very easy to come, draw
that conclusion.
And so they need to set thestandard.
Now.
They, rather than deferringtheir authority to regulators,
(34:40):
which is what they're doing now,trying to defer the
responsibility to regulators Oh,this needs to be regulated to
keep everyone safe.
No, you are the innovators atthe bleeding edge.
You initiated it, you createdit.
You chose to move forward.
You have a duty of care.
(35:02):
You are responsible for theharm.
Understand this, understandthis To get out in front of this
, like right now, and you setthe standard.
How do you believe this shouldgo forward?
You're the ones at the bleedingedge.
(35:22):
You set the standard and askfor help to maintain the
standard.
You democratize the platform.
You come up with the innovationthat transitions and that
transfers this ginormous assetdrawn from the common good.
(35:48):
You come up with a solution totransition that asset back to we
, the people, where it belongs,and you request humbly request
the privilege to be the stewardsof that on our behalf, and you
(36:14):
will be handsomely rewarded.
Understand this, get thereyourself.
You've got to get to thisposition yourself.
This is the only way.
This is the only way, becauseif you can't see what's coming,
(36:34):
other models who are settingstandards are going to rise and
who are seeking permission tocultivate the intelligence of
the human beings, training theirmodels.
They're going to replace youand supersede you, and all of
that, everything that you'vedone, which is astonishing, will
(36:54):
be lost.
Get in front of this, bringeveryone on board.
How can we?
How can we do this together?
How can you incentivize us tocontinue training the model?
How can you compensate peoplefor sharing their culture?
How can we grow and build andevolve and develop and be
(37:17):
incentivized to grow the commongood?
How can we grow the commonintelligence?
It could change the planet, itcould change the world if you
get in front of this And you'llcontinue to grow and thrive
because every human being on theplanet will be incentivized to
(37:38):
continue training the model, tocontinue sharing their culture.
They won't see their culture asbeing at risk of being
appropriated And they'llsimultaneously let go of the
fear of losing their culturebecause it'll be captured
forever within the intelligence.
(37:58):
It'll be there for as a legacyforever.
There's a massive opportunityfor you to flip this round.
Speaking directly to OpenAI,there's a massive opportunity
for you to flip this on its head.
Otherwise, you're going to drawout an army of antagonists who
(38:24):
are going to knock you off yourperch.
Take the ternary perspectiveand move towards the conflict
where it's arising and createsolutions within that That work
for everyone.
There's no brainer that thecommon people are going to want
(38:47):
you to defer their authority forthe stewardship of it To
Microsoft or to OpenAI To nobrainer.
Of course, we want the best ofthe best to be the stewards, but
it's not yours.
The asset is not yours, and youknow this.
You can see the potential harm.
(39:07):
You're aware of the potentialharm.
You chose to go ahead anyway.
It's time to set the standard.
You set the standard and submitit to the public for their
perspectives And figure out away for the common people to
(39:32):
thrive and to be incentivised tocontinue training the model,
but the common people paying forthe privilege.
In the way that it'sestablished now, it's not ideal.
You need to disentangle thetraining of the model, of the
(39:58):
model absorbing the intelligenceof the people.
That needs to be disentangledfrom leveraging and
commercialising it Two verydifferent things And very easy
to create symbiotically.
So the deferring of authority Weinadvertently defer our
(40:21):
authority all the time And then,when we slip into victimhood,
it means we were wanting todefer the responsibility, when
in truth it's impossible todefer responsibility because the
ultimate truth is that you'rethe only one that's responsible
for your life, for the qualityof your life, for your own care.
(40:46):
If you want help in your life,you have no way to receive that
help without deferring theauthority for that care to
somebody else.
It's not an agent to act onyour behalf To fulfil your will,
(41:11):
but you determine and have torun your own risk profile.
In any risk, any loopholes, youhave to mitigate those yourself
Or you have to be prepared tolose everything at risk in order
to receive the benefit of thatagency.
So it feels like the rightplace to finish.
(41:36):
I'm going to talk about thistopic quite a bit more in future
, especially as the emergingtechnologies are coming on board
.
A lot of you know, i work for agovernment agency called
Callahan Innovation in NewZealand And I have the privilege
of seeing a lot of theseemerging technologies coming
through now, and what I wouldsay is that self-sovereignty of
(42:01):
data and identity and so manyother things it's just going to
be commonplace Within the nexttwo years for sure, and I'm just
very interested to see ifcompanies like OpenAI can see
this, if they're truly aware ofwhat's coming in the emerging
(42:22):
software space and the threatthat poses, and whether they'll
get ahead of that or not, orwhether they're going to resist
what's coming And just battle itout in court for the next god,
i don't know how many years,yeah.
So how can we?
(42:43):
how can we collaborate Andbuild upon all this work that's
already been done?
You know you've broken theboundaries, you pioneered the
way forward, but it's not for acompany to benefit from, it's
for the collective commons.
So how can we?
Okay, that's it for now, forthe nature of the Fero, talk
(43:05):
soon.
Okay.
So this one's about the natureof deferral and the context I
want to talk about deferral inis, in particular, the deferral
of authority, and we do thisinevently, all day, every day,
and we do it consciously.
However, the deferring ofauthority is a major issue,
(00:25):
especially within, in context oftransacting digitally in a
scenario within which you knowthe formal economy is heading
towards developing, you know aframework within which every
(00:49):
human being can transact in atrustless way.
Trustless meaning that themechanism is so rock solid and
watertight that the de-riskingof our decision making is done
for us entirely.
Now, at the moment, we havebanks that operate as
(01:13):
intermediaries.
We defer our authority to thebanks in order to imbue trust
into those transactions and intothat system.
This is what enables us to have, for example, any e-commerce
website.
Someone can purchase a productand service online and we have a
(01:34):
certain amount of trust thatthe person transacting with us
is verified and that the systemis has de-risked that
transaction to a certain degree,utilizing mechanisms such as
KYC or Know Your Customer andmore sophisticated systems,
(01:55):
proof of personhood.
And you know, i think in thecoming.
Well, it's already.
The technology already exists,but I think it's going to be
more and more normalized for forthere to be truly trustless
(02:20):
transactions utilizing a varietyof technologies that are
blockchain based or similar.
So we have confidence,deferring our authority, and so,
in a scenario within which thesystem we're utilizing doesn't
(02:42):
imbue that confidence doesn't,we don't feel as though we can
trust that system wholly thenwe're just not going to engage
with it.
There may be scenarios withinwhich we understand that there
is risk associated withtransacting on that system and
we may, in context, say well,this transaction is only $5.
(03:04):
So I weigh you weigh up thepros and cons of the risk versus
reward, understanding thatyou're willing to lose the $5 in
order to take the risk oftransacting.
And this is going on with everysystem.
It's going on with everytransaction that you have with a
(03:24):
human being, with the digitalsystem.
At some level, you're weighingup the pros and cons of the risk
versus the reward.
Now, some human beings they havea tendency to believe they're
entitled to be protected, thatthey're entitled to be protected
(03:49):
, that they have certain rights.
Unfortunately, the reality isthat it's actually a privilege
to have a transaction de-riskedon your behalf, and so what
you're actually doing whenyou're engaging with a third
party to facilitate an exchangeon your behalf is that they're
(04:14):
providing you a mechanism forde-risking a transaction and
understanding that nothing isperfect and that there is an
element of risk.
And so, in context of theliability, if there is an issue,
then, in truth, your decisionto utilize the platform is
(04:42):
actually the issue, in that youare unable to properly diligence
the mechanism for imbuing trustinto that system and you
decided to take the risk from aperspective of being entitled,
when, in reality, the system ithas not been entirely de-risked,
(05:02):
but it has been de-risked to arecommended standard by
regulators or otherwise.
Now it's a very importantmindset to shift into,
especially in the from theperspective of the economy that
is emerging, that is going to bemore and more based upon
(05:25):
self-governance andself-regulation more
decentralized, less deferring ofauthority, but more autonomous
de-risking.
So you know, back to the banks,you know, with the banks,
there's a lot of human beingsinvolved in de-risking
(05:46):
transactions, a lot ofdependencies, a lot of
interdependencies, and whatwe're seeing with blockchain and
distributed ledger technologyand other technologies emerging
in the space are scenarioswithin which people are trusting
the transactions because of how, how bulletproof the system is
(06:09):
and it's getting to the pointwhere Transactions can take
place that are entirely trustedand can even be anonymous, and
the technology exists right nowwhereby you can, rather than
providing your identity orrevealing your identity, you can
(06:33):
prove beyond shadow of a doubtthat you are the custodian of
the original identity documentsthat prove that you are who you
say you are, without revealingyour identity.
Even So, from this perspectiveand this is going to become more
(06:58):
and more prevalent you canleapfrog a whole bunch of layers
in the system, but inparticular, the mechanism of a
bank acting as an intermediaryto imbue trust into a
transaction.
That's in a scenario withinwhich that mechanism has been
rendered obsolete.
You have a much more directconnection.
(07:24):
There's no requirement for anintermediary such as a bank.
So what happens then?
Well, we defer our authority toa system.
In the beginning, we deferredour authority to banks.
You know way back when bankswere established.
(07:45):
We go to a bank and say here'sa bar of gold bullion.
I trust that you're going tokeep it safe in your vaults.
I'll go down, i'll check thevaults.
See the security that's inplace.
What is the mechanism that thatbank is utilizing to imbue
trust into the system?
They've got vaults, they've gotsecurity guards, they've got
cameras or whatever.
(08:05):
It is Okay, i trust your systemAnd I'm deferring the authority
for the stewardship of this barof gold bullion to you for its
care.
And in that scenario, you'resaying you're the expert, you're
(08:29):
the authority.
Now in the world, you know, in aworld within which everyone's
on a rampage aboutself-empowerment and
independence and sovereignty,people are so, so confused, so
confused about what that means.
Sovereignty in this context,when you want to defer your
(08:53):
authority and, believe me, youdo want to defer your authority
It's absolutely valid.
If you want to thrive as anindividual, if you want to
realize a vision that you havefor any aspect of your life or
anything you want to create inthe world, you have to defer
your authority.
You have to.
And when you defer authority,you are surrendering the fact
(09:22):
that you, that the other person,is the authority, and so that
means you entrust them with howto do it.
You're saying I actually haveno idea how to look after this
bar of gold bullion.
I have no idea how to create asystem that can take care of the
gold bullion.
I have no inclination.
(09:44):
I'm deferring my authority toyou And I'm surrendering to the
fact that you are the authority.
But sovereignty in this contextmeans that you know that you're
still responsible for the barof gold bullion.
You're still responsible forthe bar of gold bullion.
(10:05):
That's what sovereignty means.
Now, a person who is not actingfrom their sovereignty.
Let's use that same scenario ofthe gold bullion.
Let's say you go to a bank youknow it's back in back in the
(10:25):
old days, go to a bank with abar of gold bullion.
You say, please, please, takecare of a bar of gold bullion.
I just want to diligence yourprocess first.
Can you walk me around thepremises, show me the vaults,
explain to me the system ofsecurity that you have on?
Cool, i'm going to defer myauthority to you for the care of
(10:47):
this bar of gold bullion.
I'm entrusting you with itscare And I'm deferring the
authority on how to care for itto you.
It means I won't question it.
I won't ever question yourauthority If you ever have to
(11:07):
make changes.
I understand.
I'm deferring my authority toyou.
And now, let's say a week later, that bank gets broken into and
the bar of gold bullion isstolen And you lose the bar of
gold bullion.
(11:27):
Now, someone who is not actingfrom their sovereignty, someone
who is acting disempowered orfrom a victimhood mentality,
will blame the security company.
They'll blame them.
They'll say you said this andyou said you've got this measure
of security on board and yourvaults are too weak to deal with
(11:51):
the dynamite.
It's like well, you willinglydeferred your authority to us.
We're doing the best we can.
We've got a track record of 100years of never having an issue.
And now we have had an issue.
You deferred your authority tous, you entrusted us, we did the
(12:12):
best we can, and they may havedone an imperfect job, it
actually doesn't matter.
Someone who's sovereign, someoneacting from their sovereignty,
has insurance.
They have insurance And they goto the insurance company and
they say the bank was brokeninto, my bar of gold bullion was
(12:35):
stolen.
I need to make a claim, please.
And they say, yes, certainly.
Can you give us the details?
Now, when that person who ownsthe bar of gold bullion went to
the insurance company, theyshared with the insurance
company.
This is how I've de-risked thestewardship of this bar of gold
(12:57):
bullion.
I went to this bank.
These are the methods that theyuse.
This is the system that they'reusing.
This is how their securityworks.
And the insurance company saysoh, that's impressive, you've
gone to great lengths to de-riskthis, so we'll give you a
discount on your premiums.
We're very happy with that.
(13:19):
And the insurance company sayshere you go, here's your bar of
gold bullion.
That's what a sovereign humanbeing does.
That's what sovereignty meansThat you own your own risk
profile.
You know that nothing is notentitled to anything in this
(13:41):
world.
Every the shirt on your back,the shoes you're wearing, the
life you're living, all of it isa privilege.
You're not entitled to any ofit.
Your life can be taken in anymoment.
Your shirt could accidentallycatch on flames and it's gone.
(14:01):
It's not an entitlement, it's aprivilege, and you are the
steward of everything in yourpossession, everything that's
outside the surface of the earth.
It's come out of the earth andhas formed some other object of
material size.
(14:22):
It's only above the earthtemporarily.
At some point it's going to goback in the earth and then come
out again.
So there is no entitlement.
There is no entitlement,there's just a privilege, and
(14:46):
everything in your custody is anobligation that you have for
its care.
And so deferring your authorityto people who are more equipped
to make decisions on your behalfdoesn't mitigate the risk.
It doesn't mitigate theresponsibility And really the
(15:15):
nature of deferral.
It's all about responsibility.
It's about understanding thatyou're wholly responsible for
everything, for every aspect ofyour life, for every aspect of
your experience.
Very important to understandthis, especially for people who
(15:37):
are on a crusade of empowermentWho are you trying to claim your
power of?
It's yours right now.
Who are you trying to preachfreedom to?
You're free right now.
If you feel restricted, you justhave to look around you and
(15:59):
figure out how you'veinadvertently given your power
away and forgotten that you'restill responsible for yourself.
Understand this.
Understand this.
If you lose something in yourlife, you're still responsible.
(16:23):
No one else is responsible forit, not the government, not even
your parents.
Having parents is a privilege.
You're not entitled to parents.
A child is an entitled to becared for.
It's a privilege granted thatchild by the parent.
(16:48):
That parent is free to be asloving or unloving as they
choose, despite any human lawsthat are in place, they're part
of nature.
You are wholly responsible foryour life, for the quality of
your life and for everything.
You are the steward ofeverything in your possession.
(17:09):
You are wholly responsible forthat, and so I want to talk
about so.
When you defer your authority,understand you're wholly
responsible.
So I want to talk about this incontext of dependency.
(17:31):
And there's so much confusionaround dependency, codependency,
being independent versuscodependent, versus
interdependent, and then peopleget confused about well, how can
I depend on someone and stillbe free and still be sovereign?
(17:56):
The freedom is in the right ofrevocation of all delegated or
deferred authority.
You can claim it back at anytime.
That's what makes you free, butno human being is ever going to
thrive by being whollyindependent or refusing to
(18:17):
depend.
It's very, very simple.
Interdependency means thatthere is an ecosystem of
component parts that arechoosing to defer their
authority to other componentparts, which means they've
prepared to weight up the prosand cons of the risk versus the
(18:42):
risk, which means they'veprepared to weight up the pros
and cons of the risk versus thereward of being dependent, and
they've chosen to defer theirauthority, whether or not those
components are going to blameanother component in that system
if they abandon them or if oneof them gets hit by a bus or if
(19:07):
they make a mistake.
That's where you give your poweraway.
That's where you give yourpower away.
Oh, xyz happened, abc happened,covid happened.
Well, you know the government'sresponse to COVID.
It's a choice.
(19:31):
It's a choice.
The government is not perfect.
The government doesn't have acrystal ball.
The government's doing the bestthey can to provide you with
everything that you're you know,protect you from everything
that you're afraid of, to keepyou safe from harm.
(19:54):
And when something happensthat's unforeseen, that no one
could have ever predicted ablack swan event that's never
happened before the unifiedvoice of the people blames the
government, you this and youthat.
And so the government listensto the pain, responds, goes into
(20:21):
debt to imbue grace into thesystem so that people who would
have lost their businesses areable to stay afloat and see if
they can salvage themselves.
And then, once that's done,people blame the government for
spending too much money andbeing too wasteful.
(20:46):
And the issue isn't thegovernment.
The issue is the voice.
The issue is the peoplechoosing to defer their
authority and without holdingthe responsibility.
You see, so disempowering, sodisempowering.
(21:13):
It's OK to be dependent, it'sOK to choose to depend on
something or someone, but neverto forget that you are still
responsible.
You have the power to revoke.
A lot of people don't realizethis, but you can revoke your
authority.
You know under law, in law, yourwill.
(21:37):
It's not the same as youragency.
Your will is your command Andyour body's role is to be a
willful servant, so it wants tofollow your command.
It wants to follow your will.
(21:57):
However, if your will becomes athreat to your body, your body
will reject your will And itwill begin to view your choices
as a threat to its ownwell-being.
So understand this is thenature of your body is that it
is a willful servant.
It wants to act on your behalf.
But if it doesn't trust you inthe same way with the people and
(22:22):
with the government, the peopleare the body.
The government is the unifiedintent or the voice of the
people.
If the people don't trust thegovernment, then they take them
out of government and theyappoint someone that is
representative of their voice.
(22:43):
So really important tounderstand this that the will,
your will, is not the same asyour agency, and so every
government that's in place, it'sheld in place because you've
either inadvertently orconsciously deferred your
(23:06):
authority to the governing body.
Now in New Zealand, we've donethis through the Crown, and this
goes way, way, way, way back towhen our ancestors bent the
knee to the Crown.
You bend the knee to the Crown.
This is in common law And theCrown protects you from being
(23:27):
invaded from other kings andqueens And God knows what else.
You need to be protected, soyou bend the knee, agree to pay
taxes and in return you'reprotected and a whole bunch of
other things, in whatever form.
(23:48):
So over time, the Crownobviously evolves, develops,
establishes a judicial systembased on statute law which is
different to common law.
But the Crown delegates thatpower, it defers its authority
(24:08):
for justice to a judicial system, but it's still wielding the
power that you gave it.
The Crown is still deferringyour authority, and so when you
(24:31):
bend the knee, that can berevoked, of course, but then
you're on your own, then you'vegot no protection, then you've
got to be entirely independent.
So who would want that?
Who would want to lose allthose benefits?
Who would want to lose thepeace of mind?
(24:54):
And so under common law, youhave the right to revoke any
authority that you've deferredto anyone or anything.
But I would not recommend it.
It's not what you want.
But what you do want is youwant to step into the
(25:20):
perspective of being empoweredand understand that no one is
responsible for you.
No one is responsible for youBut you.
And so in your daily life, whenyou engage with the legal,
(25:44):
statutory, legal system, stepinto a position of authority and
power and understand thateveryone and everything you've
deferred your authority to,whether it be by online, by
agreeing to terms and conditionswithout reading them, whether
you transact using a bankingplatform, whether you use
(26:07):
e-commerce, blockchain, whateverit may be, all of those
transactions are asking of youto defer your authority.
And you're choosing to deferyour authority and entrust those
systems, but you're stillwholly responsible.
No, within this, these systemsdo have a responsibility to you
(26:40):
Under common law, under theprinciples of common law, and
that is a duty of care.
So, if you're offering to Act onbehalf of another human being,
to act to enact their will, toenact or fulfill their will, you
(27:05):
have a duty of care to theindividual to protect the
innocence.
So if they haven't, innocence,meaning their perspective.
So if someone's naive andinnocent to the risk, you know,
like a child, they're obliviousto the risk, they're oblivious
to how hot the stove is, so theymight touch it.
So, in In the real world, inthe real world, if someone is is
(27:31):
offering to enact you orfulfill your will, they have a
duty of care to protect theinnocent, and so if you are
naive, if you're not aware ofthe risks, then they have a duty
of care to make you fully awareof them And if you come up
(27:52):
against obstacles and barriers,to do their very best To try and
get put you into a space whereyou can Make decisions that are
for in your best interest.
Now, over time, statutory, thelaw of statute it's got away,
(28:12):
away, gone.
The pendulum swung the entireother way Whereby people believe
that if you have a statutoryagreement or a contract, then
you can avert your response, theresponsibility to a duty of
care.
As you know, anyone that hasagency to act on behalf of a
human being to enact their willHas the studio of care, and but
(28:38):
most people believe that astatutory agreement Can negate
that duty.
Oh, there's a clause in thecontract.
Will know, because Common law,the will stands above the agency
, and so, even if you signed acontract that says I understand,
(29:02):
which means that you'rechoosing to stand under The law
of statute Instead of above itthis is the whole purpose of
saying that I understand.
Even if you've Acknowledge thatyou are choosing to stand under
the law instead of above it, youcan revoke it at will Because,
under common law, you have theright of revocation.
(29:24):
I am the one known as David ofthe ding family, commander Of
David ding capitalized, who isthe agent which is my best to
forget, and this is myDeclaration I, he by, declare
(29:46):
And express the right ofrevocation And that's it.
It is done.
You don't need to justify itbecause it's without question or
justification, revoked,repudiated, extinguished,
whatever you want to say, it'sgone.
And that power that thatcontract has, whereby, at some
(30:07):
point, you chose to stand underthat authority willfully and
willingly, it's hereby revoked.
And this is the.
This is how the law works, andYou just have to realize how it,
(30:28):
how you get entangled in thesesituations.
First of all, you've got toaccept, claim that if you want
your power, you have to bringhold the responsibility.
If you want to defer yourauthority and to Complete and
disempower yourself, then youstep into the energy of blaming
Whoever you've deferred yourauthority to, and what I would
(30:55):
say is that You know, in ascenario within which we have to
, you know, in a scenario withinwhich we've got Organizations
such as open AI Who have builtmodels, ai models by scraping
Internet, scraping publiclyavailable information on the
(31:15):
internet, capturing data,information assets That is in
the public domain but was putinto the public domain Under the
law of the Commons, becausecopyright is issued the moment
something is produced andcreated.
(31:35):
You don't have to apply for it,it just is.
And so if someone's innocentlyput Assets into the public
domain and they've been scrapedAnd then commercialized to
produce an intelligence set, andthen someone cottons on to the
(31:58):
fact that, oh, i innocently putthat into public domain by
accident, where was the duty ofcare to the person that was
meant to make me aware of whatcould happen?
Now think about the commercialgains that have come from The
collective Commons Inadvertentlydeferring their authority To
(32:22):
commercialize Their assets, andit's now sitting at open AI, and
open AI have averted their dutyof care.
They've averted their duty ofcare to the collective Commons,
(32:44):
and so now we're seeing themcall for regulation.
Now we're seeing them offeringgrants To Communities who have
solutions to Democratising Allthe information.
Now that's a great step.
It's a great step in the rightdirection, for sure, and let's
(33:08):
hope it continues to movetowards that space.
But the exposure that they haveis, it's absolutely monumental,
and so they really need to sortsomething out, because it could
get very, very complex and messyIf they really don't lean into
(33:32):
this straightaway And look toreconcile it with something
quite radical, i would say interms of You know, open AI was
meant to be open in the verybeginning.
It then became closed Andreally it's got to become open
again.
It's got to become open again.
The collective Commons, thecommon good of the people, their
(33:58):
collective assets wereinadvertently, have
inadvertently, fared the model.
The innocence of theirperspective is irrefutable.
Had they known, had they known,would they have chosen to allow
(34:19):
that to be scraped?
Of course not.
It's a very simple, it's kindof like very easy to come, draw
that conclusion.
And so they need to set thestandard.
Now.
They, rather than deferringtheir authority to regulators,
(34:40):
which is what they're doing now,trying to defer the
responsibility to regulators Oh,this needs to be regulated to
keep everyone safe.
No, you are the innovators atthe bleeding edge.
You initiated it, you createdit.
You chose to move forward.
You have a duty of care.
(35:02):
You are responsible for theharm.
Understand this, understandthis To get out in front of this
, like right now, and you setthe standard.
How do you believe this shouldgo forward?
You're the ones at the bleedingedge.
(35:22):
You set the standard and askfor help to maintain the
standard.
You democratize the platform.
You come up with the innovationthat transitions and that
transfers this ginormous assetdrawn from the common good.
(35:48):
You come up with a solution totransition that asset back to we
, the people, where it belongs,and you request humbly request
the privilege to be the stewardsof that on our behalf, and you
(36:14):
will be handsomely rewarded.
Understand this, get thereyourself.
You've got to get to thisposition yourself.
This is the only way.
This is the only way, becauseif you can't see what's coming,
(36:34):
other models who are settingstandards are going to rise and
who are seeking permission tocultivate the intelligence of
the human beings, training theirmodels.
They're going to replace youand supersede you, and all of
that, everything that you'vedone, which is astonishing, will
(36:54):
be lost.
Get in front of this, bringeveryone on board.
How can we?
How can we do this together?
How can you incentivize us tocontinue training the model?
How can you compensate peoplefor sharing their culture?
How can we grow and build andevolve and develop and be
(37:17):
incentivized to grow the commongood?
How can we grow the commonintelligence?
It could change the planet, itcould change the world if you
get in front of this And you'llcontinue to grow and thrive
because every human being on theplanet will be incentivized to
(37:38):
continue training the model, tocontinue sharing their culture.
They won't see their culture asbeing at risk of being
appropriated And they'llsimultaneously let go of the
fear of losing their culturebecause it'll be captured
forever within the intelligence.
(37:58):
It'll be there for as a legacyforever.
There's a massive opportunityfor you to flip this round.
Speaking directly to OpenAI,there's a massive opportunity
for you to flip this on its head.
Otherwise, you're going to drawout an army of antagonists who
(38:24):
are going to knock you off yourperch.
Take the ternary perspectiveand move towards the conflict
where it's arising and createsolutions within that That work
for everyone.
There's no brainer that thecommon people are going to want
(38:47):
you to defer their authority forthe stewardship of it To
Microsoft or to OpenAI To nobrainer.
Of course, we want the best ofthe best to be the stewards, but
it's not yours.
The asset is not yours, and youknow this.
You can see the potential harm.
(39:07):
You're aware of the potentialharm.
You chose to go ahead anyway.
It's time to set the standard.
You set the standard and submitit to the public for their
perspectives And figure out away for the common people to
(39:32):
thrive and to be incentivised tocontinue training the model,
but the common people paying forthe privilege.
In the way that it'sestablished now, it's not ideal.
You need to disentangle thetraining of the model, of the
(39:58):
model absorbing the intelligenceof the people.
That needs to be disentangledfrom leveraging and
commercialising it Two verydifferent things And very easy
to create symbiotically.
So the deferring of authority Weinadvertently defer our
(40:21):
authority all the time And then,when we slip into victimhood,
it means we were wanting todefer the responsibility, when
in truth it's impossible todefer responsibility because the
ultimate truth is that you'rethe only one that's responsible
for your life, for the qualityof your life, for your own care.
(40:46):
If you want help in your life,you have no way to receive that
help without deferring theauthority for that care to
somebody else.
It's not an agent to act onyour behalf To fulfil your will,
(41:11):
but you determine and have torun your own risk profile.
In any risk, any loopholes, youhave to mitigate those yourself
Or you have to be prepared tolose everything at risk in order
to receive the benefit of thatagency.
So it feels like the rightplace to finish.
(41:36):
I'm going to talk about thistopic quite a bit more in future
, especially as the emergingtechnologies are coming on board
.
A lot of you know, i work for agovernment agency called
Callahan Innovation in NewZealand And I have the privilege
of seeing a lot of theseemerging technologies coming
through now, and what I wouldsay is that self-sovereignty of
(42:01):
data and identity and so manyother things it's just going to
be commonplace Within the nexttwo years for sure, and I'm just
very interested to see ifcompanies like OpenAI can see
this, if they're truly aware ofwhat's coming in the emerging
(42:22):
software space and the threatthat poses, and whether they'll
get ahead of that or not, orwhether they're going to resist
what's coming And just battle itout in court for the next god,
i don't know how many years,yeah.
So how can we?
(42:43):
how can we collaborate Andbuild upon all this work that's
already been done?
You know you've broken theboundaries, you pioneered the
way forward, but it's not for acompany to benefit from, it's
for the collective commons.
So how can we?
Okay, that's it for now, forthe nature of the Fero, talk
(43:05):
soon.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.