July 19, 2023 • 70 mins
What if the key to creating a trusted, autonomous AGI lies in the core principle of temperance? Brace yourself as I plunge into the fascinating realm of AGI and self regulating binary systems to convey how a strategic balance of progression and regression can foster growth.
Bringing the power of ternary thinking to the forefront I explore concept of a global singularity being physically and digitally moated, considering its potential implications.
I also explore Elon Musk's Starlink satellites and their potential to enable real-time, trustless transactions with zero latency proving the concept using autonomous electric vehicles and the potential of a singularity capabale of calculating transactional risk, also in real time. Come with me as we explore the possibilities together.
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 is about the natureof temperance, and I'm going to
go into a few different topics.
On this one, I'm going to coverborderless nations, I'm going
to talk about how temperance canbe utilized to create a trusted
(00:26):
, autonomous AGI and, for thefirst time, I'm actually going
to share my full concept for amodel that is devoted to the
collective commons of everyhuman being on the planet, that
(00:48):
can be trusted by every humanbeing involved, that can serve
the collective commons.
It can evolve in a trusted way,understanding that temperance
is the mechanism that enablesthis.
And so I'm going to talk abouthow to imbue temperance into a
(01:08):
binary system, because that isthe essence of temperance is
binary.
It's actually the essence ofbinary.
Or you could say the essence ofbinary is temperance.
So when you think about binary,it's deterministic, it's
(01:32):
absolute.
You've got a 1 and you've got a0, and it's absolute.
The beginning is the extremesof both, the absolute extreme on
and off.
You have a 0 and a 1.
It's on and off.
(01:55):
Now, if you go back a stepbefore binary, if you think
about the symbols for 1 and 0,or an on and off switch, one of
them is a circle.
It's a 0, that's whole andcomplete.
There's no beginning, there'sno end, and the other is a line.
So you could say that it is a 0, but it's been cut.
(02:22):
One section of the 0 has beencut and flattened and now here's
a beginning and an end.
It's become binary.
But you could argue thatthey're the same thing from a
different perspective, but incontext of the beginning and the
(02:50):
ending.
With the circle there is nobeginning and end.
The beginning and the end isall one thing, and binary is
what enables there to be abeginning and an end.
And so in binary you begin withon and off.
It's absolute.
You begin with the absoluteextremes of both.
(03:15):
Now if you add, and so if youadd another 1, so you've got 0,
1, 1.
Then it's tilted and there ismore 1 than there is 0.
And you add another 0, 2, 0 is2, 1s and it's balanced, but
(03:45):
they both cancel each other out.
Equal measure of 1 and 0, of onand off, and you can keep going
on this.
Add another 10 zeros, add amillion zeros, add five ones,
and this is how you takesomething deterministic and
(04:05):
absolute when it begins as theextremes, the extremes of
polarity and separation, anddiversity is created by creating
imbalance, and so this is thenature of all of existence is,
(04:31):
it is perpetually becomingimbalanced.
And then it's reconciling thatimbalance to find homeostasis or
harmony.
And so how does that work?
And of course, the ternary isparadox, ternary is the solution
(04:54):
.
Paradox is the solution thatinfinity and binary are both
valid perspectives, and so ifthere is an absolute presence of
everything, it is the samething as an absolute absence of
(05:16):
all things.
It's experienced as no thing.
And this is where I want to leadinto temperance as a solution,
as the base foundation forbuilding an AGI that is
dependent on a trustless system.
(05:38):
Trustless meaning that thereare no intermediaries required
in that system that can't betrusted.
So you know, human beings as anexample.
For a system to be trustlessmeaning that it can be operated
without having to derisk it Thenit has to be devoid of
(06:03):
intermediaries.
That cannot be wholly trusted.
And so no human being on earthcan be wholly trusted, and it's
not because of the character ofhuman beings, it's because they
can be manipulated very easilythrough threatening or, you know
, bribery, corruption.
(06:25):
You know, fear Causes us to actin ways that wouldn't be our
first choice if we weren't underduress.
But everything changes oncewe're under duress for every
human being, and so human being,it cannot be part of a
(06:46):
trustless system, not possible,okay.
So in a scenario within whichwe have artificial intelligence
scaling like nothing we've everseen, then the scenario that we
(07:07):
actually want is temperance.
Temperance meaning that binaryis how we enable temperance to
happen.
If there are too many zeros,then we need more ones, and you
know, the more volume, thegreater the volume, the higher
(07:31):
we can increase the volume ofzeros and ones, the more
diversity is imbued into adeterministic system which is
binary, and so what we want todo is perpetually increase the
volume.
We want to increase the volume,but we want temperance.
(07:53):
We want all increases in volumeto be tempered by its polarity,
because there is only one inzero, there is only absolute,
and this is the nature of lifeitself.
Is that you, as a human being.
(08:14):
There is an aspect of yournature that is wholly vested in
life, in seeking the absolutezenith of life, and there is an
aspect of your nature seekingthe absolute zenith of death.
You know, there's a tippingpoint within your body whereby
it determines that if a cell isno longer has been rendered
(08:36):
obsolete or is no longer viable,if it's helpless and it's no
longer capable of helping itself, then it's reconstituted.
It's it is intentionally andpurposefully.
It's life is ended and it'sreconstituted.
(08:58):
And there's a part of your, anaspect of your nature, that is
determining that point.
For every form of life is anintelligence governing Every
aspect of your nature,determining at which point death
is viable.
And once that tipping point isreached, once the decision is
(09:22):
made, life will fight that theaspect of that cell.
It won't surrender to itsdemise.
However, there is another partof your nature.
I think it's called autophagyin the body.
(09:43):
There's an aspect of yournature that is cannibalizing
itself.
It's seeking to executehelpless cells that are no
longer viable and that fightthat the polarities of both of
(10:09):
those extremes.
One will fight for its lifewithout ever surrendering.
The other will force.
It will force death upon it,without question, through
domination and control, it willoverpower that cell and
(10:30):
reconstituted.
And this is the nature oftemperance.
The extreme of one thing iswhat enables the extreme of the
other to be experienced withoutabsolution, because the absolute
extreme of anything presentsits shadowy nature, even if you
(11:00):
look at the nature ofunconditional love, one of the
most purest form of emotions anddesirable emotions.
Unconditional love means thatif you were within an
environment that is, where youare wholly submersed in
unconditional love, then there'snever any reason to improve or
(11:22):
to become better.
You're accepted so wholly andcompletely that the desire to
want to become more, there'snothing agitating your own
personal transformation, and sowe would call this overcoddling.
When you're overcoddled,there's no desire to become more
and to challenge yourself.
(11:43):
And so what's the solution tothis?
Because we want to experienceunconditional life.
The experience is temperance, soan aspect of your nature that
is perpetually challenging.
It's perpetually challenging,and some may call this the inner
(12:04):
critic.
You know the aspect of yournature that is self-critical,
that's probing you, that'sgiving you negative self-talk,
that is agitating, and we tryand escape this agitator through
meditation or saying thingsthat are positive instead.
(12:26):
But that's not.
We're missing the point.
The purpose of the inner criticis to challenge the aspect of
our nature that is whollyaccepting of ourselves, so that
we're inspired to become moreand to change and to evolve.
(12:47):
You see, so rather thanresisting these things, we can
just notice them as symptoms ofa deeper desire to evolve and
become more and to challenge, tochallenge ourselves, to go
(13:09):
beyond what is comfortable, tobreak through the aspect of our
nature that is coddling us, thatis overcoddling us, in a way
that allows the part of ournature that wants to challenge
itself to express its nature.
(13:30):
Now, temperance.
What you don't want to do iscompletely dominate and control
the aspect of your nature thatis overcoddling you, that's
trying to protect you fromchallenge.
That's a resisting challenge.
That's resisting criticism.
(13:50):
You know self-critique is wheretransformation happens.
You know, if you haveconjecture, if you have a new
idea, if you have innovation,it's yet to be proven.
There's no evidence of it inthe physical world yet Every
assumption you make, what everyconcept you develop around, that
(14:11):
is conjecture and criticism isthe component that enables it to
have life.
The critique of that conceptand the challenging of it is it
is dependent on that in order tohave life.
So you see the beauty oftemperance.
(14:36):
And so, as a human being, it'shighly desirable to experience
the extremes of everything, butyou have to express your own
will, you have to use your willto create temperance.
(14:58):
Otherwise, the aspect of yournature that is unconditionally
loving, unconditionallyaccepting, you will overcoddle
yourself and you will becomeaverse to challenge.
Now the temperate state whatI've come to realise through my
(15:20):
own experimentation, is alongthe lines of the Fibonacci
sequence, whereby growth happensat a rate of the growth that
came before and the growth thatwe are comfortable expressing
(15:41):
now.
So compounding growth, withrest in between, with regression
included as well.
So the best metaphor to justsum up the Fibonacci sequence is
two steps forward, one stepback.
Two steps forward, one stepback.
Two steps forward, one stepback.
(16:04):
Now, if you were to take theextremes of taking a million
steps forward and refusing totake a step back, then what will
happen is you'll take a millionsteps forward and then you'll
(16:24):
take half a million steps back.
And so again, temperance,extreme growth has to be
tempered by consolidated growth.
So, in the same way that thebody, if you grow rapidly, allow
(16:45):
that rapid growth and then stopgrowing, rest, reconstitute,
reconcile that which is nolonger valid.
Because when there is new growth, when there's something new
that didn't exist before,something else has been rendered
obsolete.
It's rendering a part of ournature and a part of that which
(17:08):
is known.
It's rendering it obsolete foran emerging truth that didn't
exist before.
And this is where you know, inbusiness we call it a retro, a
retrospective.
And so I'm going to startmoving into technology now and
(17:29):
the designing of over unitysystems, or Trinity systems,
what I call them, systems thatuse ternary thinking to create
solutions to the biggestproblems that we face.
So retrospectives, and this iswhere what we want is we want to
(17:56):
move towards event based design.
So Trinity is pretty much eventbased design, using ternary
thinking and harnessing thepower of binary in order to
create perpetually wealthgenerating binary systems that
(18:18):
are.
What makes them infinite isthat there is over unity or
there is wealth Compoundingincremental growth.
That is enabled by event baseddesign and execution.
So event based means that youcome together, you develop a
(18:43):
concept and then you create amission, you establish a mission
.
What is the mission?
The mission that, whenaccomplished, means success, and
so, rather than being projectbased or task based, you set off
(19:04):
on a mission.
You set off on that mission sothat there is something that is
celebrated Now, when you'reinnovating, that thing that you
celebrate is not success.
It's not success, it's therevelation of an unknown truth,
(19:26):
is what you celebrate, and I'llgive you an example.
You come together, you'reinspired by an idea, you
formulate a concept and this isbasically how it goes.
You map out the journey towardsthe potential for that concept.
That is most compelling.
You map it out and you reckonyou de-risk it.
(19:49):
You go what is the risk versusthe reward?
What has to be true in orderfor us to accomplish this
mission using this path?
And you reconcile it until therisk versus reward, you have
consensus, weighing up the riskversus reward.
And you do this by looking atall the assumptions that you
(20:09):
have to make Because you'reinnovating.
There are truths that are yetto be discovered.
So you look at the assumptionsyou have to make.
Can we validate theseassumptions?
No, we can't.
Could we?
Yes, if we invested money.
Do we have that money?
No, we don't.
Are we willing to take the risk?
Is it worthwhile versus thereward?
(20:32):
Yes, we're willing to take therisk.
Together and this is the keyTogether, we're going to take
this risk.
Investors, we're going to takethis risk together.
Team members yes, we're goingto take this risk together.
We could fail together, and somaking success, the marker of
(20:59):
what success actually means youhave to make the peak of the
mountain is the revelation ofthe hidden truth.
Revelation.
That's what we celebrate,because once the truth has been
(21:22):
revealed, you can makedeterministic choices that are
known, you can plot the courseand you can constrain it to time
and space using that which isknown, you see.
But if you're conjecturing,using assumptions, you can't
(21:47):
commit to delivering successwhen there are unknowns.
And so you have to learn how tocelebrate revelation of hidden
truths.
These were the assumptions thatwe made.
These were the truths that wererevealed.
(22:09):
Once the truths are revealed,you celebrate the accomplishment
of the mission, and thatmission was to reveal the truth,
to reveal the hidden truth byventuring into the unknown, into
(22:34):
the darkness, and to illuminatethe truth so that Together we
can accomplish the great mission, we can realise the vision.
So this is why it's importantevent based planning, and this
(22:57):
is where I talk about two stepsforward, one step back, two
steps forward, one step back,the Fibonacci sequence.
You don't want to take amillion steps forward and then
have to take a million stepsback.
So if you do not have yourinvestors, if they aren't
(23:17):
brought into this way of working, they're just going to demand
that you deliver the result infull, on time.
But unless they're brought intothe conjecture and unless
they're brought into yourhypothesis, and unless they're
brought into celebrating therevelation of truth, which, in a
(23:40):
lot of times means failure.
If your hypothesis is renderedinvalid, then you're really
going to struggle.
It'll create a lot of pressure.
What you want to do is, whenthe emerging truth comes, you
create a new hypothesis together.
(24:03):
Okay, this is what we know now.
This is the new mission, thisis the risk.
This is the course that webelieve is going to accomplish
the mission.
Weigh up the risk versus reward.
Are we all on board?
Are we going to take this risktogether?
Yes, we are, and we go on amission to reveal the hidden
(24:27):
truth and we'll either prove ordisprove our hypothesis.
And once the truth has beenrevealed and you can, in every
assumption that you have madepreviously is now factual,
(24:51):
everything is now known turn itinto a project.
You can scope it using thatwhich is known, constrain it to
time and space and deliver it infull, on time and celebrate.
You can lock everything in thecalendars.
This is when we're going tolaunch and it becomes
(25:16):
deterministic.
So the unknown, the very natureof the unknown, is that it is
non-deterministic.
It's impossible to constrainthe unknown to time and space.
Once it is known, you canconstrain it to time and space
(25:36):
because you've compartmentalisedit, you've looked at it and
you've judged it, you'vemeasured it, you've interpreted
it.
This is X, this means Y.
So temperance, even ininnovation, innovation is made
(25:59):
possible by temperance, thetemperance of that which is
known with that which is unknown, reconciling the space in
between.
And it is the adversarialnature of that which is known
and that which is unknown thatenables innovation to take place
(26:22):
.
It enables it to become real inthe real world.
And so, if you're innovating,what you want as a culture of
event-based planning, whereyou're on a mission, you're on a
mission to either prove ordisprove your shared conjecture.
(26:45):
This is what we hope to be true, but what success means is that
we either prove or disprovethat it is, and then, together,
we create a new conjecture basedon the emerging truth, and we
(27:06):
celebrate the revelation of thetruth.
We re-hypothesise, were-conjecture.
This is how you share a mission, this is how you share the risk
and reward of innovation,celebrate the truth.
And when you accomplish themission so you have minor
(27:34):
celebrations throughout thejourney then we would call those
a retrospective We've renderedour conjecture obsolete.
It's a retrospective hooray,we've rendered our conjecture
obsolete.
Retrospective come together,re-hypothesise.
(27:55):
What are these?
How many assumptions are left?
We've got less assumptions thanbefore, on we go.
So the retrospective is theFibonacci sequence, is the
stopping to reconcile,re-hypothesise.
(28:17):
When the truth, the emergingtruth arises, you don't continue
with the old assumptions, youre-hypothesise, you
re-conjecture Two steps forward,one step back.
Foresight, hindsight and growthis what happens in between.
(28:43):
Innovation happens in between.
So temperance, it's thesuperpower of innovation and
it's the enabler of everythingin existence the absolutes of
(29:06):
life and death.
And this is where I want totalk about AI, the evolution of
AI.
Currently, what we're seeing isthe absolute.
You know the viral growth andexpansion of open AI, in
(29:32):
particular, mass adoption.
It's being, you know, noregulation, it's just being
freely allowed to just virallyspread and there's no temperance
(29:54):
.
There's no temperance becauseit has been developed in an
absolute way.
It's been developed to go viral.
However, the intelligence withinour own body has been that we
are binary.
We are self-regulating throughtemperance.
(30:15):
One aspect of our nature isafraid of death.
One aspect of our nature isseeking life, and so one's
fighting for its life and theother is fighting for death, and
that temperance is enablingeither your regressing in your
(30:37):
life or your progressing.
But AI is just progressing,just progress, progress,
progress, progress.
And that's not to say there'sno challenge, because the actual
(30:57):
training of a model there arestrong aspects of challenge in
that.
However, the barriers tolearning, they're not very great
.
So how do we utilize temperancein this scenario so that AI
(31:22):
evolves with temperance?
And the solution, of course, isto do the opposite of what we
think we should do Ternarythinking, using paradox.
So what we think we should dois we think we should create a
(31:47):
black box and put a kill switchon the black box.
That is so.
The black box is where theintelligence lives.
We mode it and we put an analogkill switch on that, so that
the black box in AI is dependenton some condition and we can
(32:13):
flip the switch and switch itoff.
That's the logical thing to doin binary, but in ternary you
look at that and you say, ok,how can I enable the extremes of
both?
How can I enable the aspect ofit that wants to infinitely grow
(32:34):
and expand and be curious, suchas Elon Musk's version that
he's talking about?
But how can I temper that?
And it's through an adversarialmodel, through an adversarial
(32:56):
model.
So I'm going to get quitecomplex here and quite deep and
technical.
So if I lose you.
I apologize, but this isdesigned to.
You know, this is like a nofilter podcast, so it's more for
me to speak unfiltered than itis to step down.
Step it down for theunderstanding of the masses.
So my hope is that this willresonate with a few people who
(33:20):
do understand the implicationsof this.
So the extremes of both.
How do you enable one aspect tobe infinitely curious and want
to infinitely expand?
How do you temper that?
(33:40):
So in ternary thinking?
Then you need to have, it needsto be a singularity and it
needs to split itself.
Its own intelligence.
That needs to fracture and thatintelligence needs to be become
(34:01):
absolute.
So, beginning as a singularity,it then is to fracture
internally and those two aspectsof its intelligence and it's
assembly code needs to behardwired in those two fragments
(34:21):
, the polarities.
One needs to be hard coded tofind one and the other needs to
be hard coded to find zero.
One needs to be hard coded toreach one.
One needs to be hard coded toreach zero and that's it.
(34:41):
That's it.
One needs to be seeking life,one needs to be seeking death.
One needs to figure out anddevote its life, devote its
existence to figuring out how toturn the lights off, one has to
figure out how to keep thelights on, and those components
(35:06):
need to be perpetually andeternally opposed in an
adversarial way.
That's how you createtemperance.
How do you create balance?
Internary thinking.
How do we create harmony?
(35:27):
Internary thinking Throughcreating absolute disharmony.
This is the power of ternarythinking, and when you think
about it, it's simple.
How do you create harmony?
You allow the extremes of both.
This enables the full gamut toexist, enables immense levels of
(35:52):
diversity In binary.
How do you increase diversity?
By increasing the volume, thesheer number of ones and zeros,
and so it increases thediversity of experience, but
temperance enables it to beself-sustaining.
(36:13):
Diversity can perpetuallyincrease the volume, and all of
the new extremes are tempered bythe equal and opposite extreme,
polarity.
And this is very simple.
(36:34):
Now let's not to say that thesingularity component doesn't
have a black box with a switchon it.
That component of it doesn'treally matter In my own vision
for this blueprint, of whichTrinity I initially created it
to solve this exact problem ofthe infinite scaling of
(37:00):
artificial intelligence.
In my mind, it's motors inSwitzerland.
I'm actually a Swiss dualcitizen with New Zealand.
It's motor in Switzerland.
I don't know if any of you know, but in Switzerland they have a
whole bunch of bridges, so it'skind of like multi-layered
moating and those bridges allhave explosives attached to them
(37:23):
.
They can be exploded.
So this is the extreme ofphysical moating.
And Switzerland is obviously aneutrality, an armed neutrality,
and founded in civil law.
(37:46):
Civil law stands above statutelaw.
So Safer's houses for thesingularity to exist, inner
moated, physically and digitallymoated and however, in that
(38:11):
scenario, so you can protect itlegally and you can protect it
physically.
And then in that scenario thereis regulation in civil and in
constitutionally and also instatute for all intelligence
(38:40):
models to be developed utilizingthis blueprint for temperance,
which is for a fracturedsingularity to be developed in
an adversarial way so that it istempering its own nature and
this is, in its very assembly,perpetually seeking zero or
(39:01):
perpetually seeking one and thenreconciling the conflicts
between both in order to createdeterminism or decision making.
And this is one of thechallenges in the ecosystem in
(39:21):
New Zealand we actually have.
There is an adversarial modelbeing developed in New Zealand
right now.
The founders and the brainbehind this is an absolute
genius.
So he's developed a singularityand he's developed a fractured,
adversarial model utilizing thegame of rugby.
(39:44):
It plays itself at rugby.
So it's perpetually becomingbetter and better at defence
versus premeditated attack, butit's attacking itself and
defending itself.
So we actually have a blueprintfor a model that could become
(40:07):
the de facto standard for theglobal singularity, for the
common good, for the commonwealth of every human being on
the planet, for the benefit ofall.
And this could be a blueprintand a template that all other
models could be built upon in apermissioned way.
(40:32):
Because with temperance, onceyou have temperance as the de
facto standard, it's kind oflike a scenario whereby in the
innovation ecosystem, you haveregulators and you have
innovators.
It's that same kind oftemperance.
(40:53):
So one is seeking to do no harmand the other one is seeking to
disrupt.
One of them is seeking toprotect and preserve, the other
is seeking to challenge anddisrupt, and so perpetual state
(41:15):
of agitation is really where thegrowth is happening.
And growth is happening.
It's happening incrementally,in a compounding way that's safe
.
Over time Now can it be too slowat times, of course, we see
(41:36):
what I would call over-coddlingconstantly, where too much power
has been resides withinlegislators or regulators, and
so you begin to see absoluteabsolution, whereby the
(41:59):
innovation becomes stifled, andwhat we see is, when it becomes
stifled and suppressed for toolong, then it begins to, rather
than trying to work with theregulatory framework, it begins
to seek ways to transcend it andwork around it, but nonetheless
(42:20):
, progress continues to be made,but in the context of
temperance being the de factostandard for the development of
artificial intelligence.
Once you have that framework inplace, it can be the enabler of
(42:46):
layers on top of that whereby,because there is temperance
imbued into the assembly code ofthe singularity, so the
singularity has made itselfbinary.
It knows itself as bothperspectives, as binary and
(43:07):
singular, and it understandsthat its own progress is only
made possible through thereconciliation of those extremes
.
That can be motored and it canbe contained within a trustless
(43:32):
system.
It can be devoid of anintermediary, of human
intermediaries, and therefore itcan be on a trustless system
and you can then wholly dependon it to imbue a risk profile
into another layer, and let'ssay that's a blockchain layer.
(43:53):
Now, again, fragmentation isthe solution to something
singular, being able to, ormonolithic, being able to, scale
in binary.
So in that scenario, you've gotsomething built upon a trustless
system, and its very nature isto conjecture itself and present
(44:21):
the risk profile of an actionor transaction across the chain
and therefore you can trust therisk of a transaction.
So, rather than seeking anabsolute, absolute certainty,
(44:43):
which is never going to work atthe moment, our approach to
trustless systems is to createit totally trusted.
But what we actually want is wewant to go in the other
direction.
Rather than heading towardsabsolute, we're heading towards
(45:03):
as close as we can to infinity,which is to understand that
there is no absolute certaintyof trust.
But so we factor in thepotentialities for a breach of
(45:23):
trust, and so there might be ascore out of 10, and the
intelligence is determining howmuch risk is associated with
each transaction.
And then it is the will of thehuman being to manage their own
risk profile.
Okay, this scored a nine out often risk profile I am going to
(45:45):
transact.
This.
One scored an eight I am goingto transact.
This.
One scored a three I'm notgoing to transact.
And when you have an adversarialmodel whereby temperance is the
essence of its nature, then andit's on a trustless system Over
(46:09):
time, incrementally and overtime, human beings will grow to
trust the system, and thatsystem has rendered human
intermediaries or well, any formof intermediary obsolete, and
so trusted transactions meanstrusted blockchain, trusted
(46:35):
transactions Transactionshappening without intermediaries
.
So if we have a truly trustlesssystem, that means we can
transact without limits by incell houses, anonymously and
(46:56):
trustlessly.
Now, in that scenario where wehave a trustless system and the
micro transactions on theblockchain are fine enough so
that the space in betweentransactions becomes so small
that you can barely notice thelatency, you're getting very,
(47:20):
very close to real time, realtime transactions.
However, where this gets very,very interesting and this is
what I'd love to see in the NewZealand ecosystem we have
profound innovation taking place, but it's done in a fractured
(47:42):
way.
Now, globally, we have ElonMusk, who has Starlink
satellites, and there's a hiddensuperpower of Starlink
satellites which enables them totransmit with zero latency at
the speed of light.
So if you imagine on theblockchain, the space between
(48:06):
transactions, it's we're tryingto get it as small as possible
and we're trying to get as manyof those transactions verified
on chain to make a trustlesssystem, but there's latency
because there's space in betweentransactions.
Starlink is zero time, zerospace transacting real time Now.
(48:35):
So what we have is we have anelectric car company, an
electric car company who istesting autonomous vehicles,
autonomous driving, connected toStarlink.
It is the superpower ofStarlink providing real time,
(48:56):
transacting in the moment,trusted, trusted in the moment,
execution, spontaneous executionin zero time, zero latency.
And when you think about it,how else could you trust your
(49:17):
car to drive itself autonomouslyunless it was being
autonomously governed by atrustless system?
Now the problem we have is it'sin the hands of corporations.
Those corporations, thelegislation is now handled by
(49:41):
governments.
Is the system actually trusted?
Trustless?
So, you know, could it beinvasive if there was a model
that hasn't been developed to betemperate?
You know, could it unwittinglytake control of that system?
(50:11):
Because what a lot of peoplecan't see, and it's very clear
to people like me and otherswhat Elon Musk is doing is he's
utilizing electric vehicles as aproof of concept to build a
framework that can autonomouslygovern a physical agent.
So, whether it's a in real time, so whether it's a car or a
(50:34):
robot or anything else, a tank,an airplane if you can control
it in real time, or even if it'sa hologram, the resolution is
high enough.
If it's a hologram, and it's,and you're talking with it, and
(50:57):
there's no latency and it'slifelike, then the lines between
what's real and what's not realbecome very blurred very
quickly, and many of us can seethis.
Now there are very few people,very few, especially in the
venture capital area that cansee this.
(51:19):
Many founders in this space cansee it.
It's very obvious.
When you're a builder trying tosolve really hard scientific
problems, you can see where it'sheading quite obviously.
So in New Zealand we have ascenario within which we also
(51:42):
have this technology.
There's a company called AquilaI think that's how you
pronounce it who have thepotential to harness this zero
time transmitting technology,transmitting energy through
light, but you can transmit anykind of sound through light.
(52:08):
We have the most incredibleadversarial model that could
imbue temperance into a trustedsingularity.
We have another founder who hascreated a mechanism for
(52:31):
enabling an adversarial model toproduce a risk profile on every
transaction on a blockchain.
We have a blockchain called theInternet Computer DFINITY
that's domiciled in Switzerland.
Now that's capable of being theblockchain that is embedded
(53:01):
into this singularity andadministering the risk profiles.
We have another founder of aborderless DAO company that can
enable each agent, each digitalagent operating on this
(53:25):
blockchain, to operate as a DAO,to create its own boundaries,
to set its own boundaries, tocreate its own tokens, have its
own currency.
You've got the singularity todetermining the risk profile of
these agents and we have theseagents with the capability of
(53:54):
being truly immutable, meaningthat, because of the risk
profile of every transaction isbeing judged by the singularity
in every moment, as close toevery moment as possible.
The immutability means that ifthe de-risking score for the
(54:20):
transaction is high, then it's ameasure of the total
immutability of it rather thanit having to be an absolute.
In a context of human beingsbeing sovereign and responsible
for their own sovereignty,wielding their own power, you
(54:43):
have to own your own riskprofile.
You can't blame someone else.
All you can do is mitigate therisk as much as you can.
If you're willing to take therisk based on the perceived
reward, you may take that riskand there may be a scenario
(55:05):
where there's a really low score, that out of 10, it only scores
a 1, but you're prepared tolose what you're transacting,
what you're seeking to exchange,because the potential reward is
so great.
It's your risk profile, you ownit.
You could be prone to gettinghacked that particular
(55:27):
transaction, but the power is inyour hands.
It's not conjecture.
The system, the trustlesssystem, is determined for you
(55:47):
how much risk is involved, so doyou want to take that risk?
This is the key, rather thanseeking the absolute state.
Now we have the capability andthe capacity in the New Zealand
ecosystem, through collaboratingwith agencies such as Callaghan
(56:11):
Innovation, who are extremelydeep in this area, to develop a
model that the world has neverseen.
And the key component that Ihaven't mentioned in the mix for
(56:32):
this model is a geospatialmatrix with extremely fine
tolerances.
And once you have a geospatialmatrix if it's operating on a
blockchain, with very fast nanotransactions and very fine
(56:58):
tolerances geospatially, notonly have you got a platform, a
trustless platform, withtokenomics baked in, the ability
for each individual agent oruser to set their own boundaries
(57:19):
as an individual, but also tocreate a DAO, a borderless
company, then you have aplatform upon which you can
build geospatial applications,software applications, gaming
(57:44):
applications, anything that canleverage the accuracy of
transacting in space and time ina fixed point in space and time
.
And once the technology that Iwas talking about, the Starlink,
(58:06):
has zero time and zero spacetransacting, so no space in
between transactions, no spacein no time in between
transactions.
Once you've got that, thenyou've got the solution to
(58:29):
autonomous factories that can betrusted.
You've got the solution and youcan just set the intelligence
free because it's built ontemperance.
You can set it free to build inthe way that it wants to, it
inherently is compelled to, andyou can also get to the point
(58:54):
where autonomous surgery is apossibility where you can trust
it to such a degree becausethere's no space in between
transactions.
They're all done in real time,the geolocation is completely on
(59:15):
point and absolutely trusted.
So zero tolerance, zerotolerance.
That's when we can begin totrust robots connected to
trustless systems to operate inreal time with zero tolerance.
(59:39):
This is the future we're movinginto.
This is the future Elon Musk isbuilding.
I don't believe he's cracked it.
I think his vision is profound,but I think the method is
flawed and it's just because hisown understanding of the nature
of reality, he hasn't quiteassimilated the ternary
(01:00:03):
perspective to see thattemperance if you allow
something to be eternallycurious, perpetually curious,
you know it has to be temperedby preservation.
And you know my hope is that intime as the things I'm talking
(01:00:33):
about right now that seem, youknow, crazy or out there to
certain people, that in timeit'll just sound normal, it'll
begin to make sense and peoplewill begin to realize that there
is a way that this can work foreveryone involved.
(01:00:54):
There is a way we can trust anautonomous system.
There is a way we can transactin real time trustlessly, and in
a recent podcast I was invitedto a spoke about blockchain
being rendered obsolete, andthat really this is what I meant
is that if there is no space inbetween transactions, that we
(01:01:18):
can trust everything in realtime, based on a on a
perpetually dynamic trust scoreand the fluctuations in those
things, and when a fluctuationis detected, the model itself is
(01:01:39):
reconciling the vulnerability,hardening the vulnerability,
because the first thing thathappens when the vulnerability
is exposed is one polarity ofits nature is attacking the
vulnerability it's actuallyseeking them to try to try and
exploit them and the other oneis is hardening the
vulnerability it's defendingagainst the attack, and so you
(01:02:02):
can see when this is happeningin real time.
It becomes so resilient, trulyimmutable, because of how good
it is at becoming self-aware,and this is really the kernel of
(01:02:26):
this whole podcast is thatself-awareness is what we want,
but it takes a human being to beable to have recognized these
aspects of their own nature thatthey are in perpetual conflict,
to realize that trueself-awareness is the key, but
(01:02:49):
only in context of binary andinfinity working together as one
, a singularity that has beensplit into binary and those two
aspects of its nature aretotally opposed.
That's the key and that is the.
(01:03:11):
I never thought I'd reveal thetrue kernel of Trinity because
I've been kind of protecting itand keeping it locked away and
hidden for so long because ofhow, the simplicity of it it's
only recently I've been talkingabout it.
(01:03:33):
You know, binary infinity.
Binary infinity is the solutionto every all the biggest
problems that we face, andthat's the thing I've been
hiding is the simplicity of it.
But the space in between thatyou have to reconcile to get to
this point of understanding.
(01:03:53):
That's the thing I've beenreally, you know, kind of eating
my own dog food here, becauseI'm always encouraging founders
to share their toys and I'malways talking about oh, you
know, you should share yourknowledge and wisdom rather than
keep it to yourself and try tosell it.
Well, you know, this is my,this is my.
(01:04:16):
The kernel of my body of workis that, all these years of
self-awareness and reconcilingmy own conflicts internally to
come to the awareness that thesolution to it all is binary
infinity, trinity and that's it.
All my toys are shared, andpart of what got me to this
(01:04:39):
point is realizing that I needto eat my own dog food, first
and foremost, but also thepodcast platform I use.
Have just implemented a model,an AI model, that listens to
your podcast episode when youupload it and suggest, and it
(01:05:01):
suggests how to advertise it andhow to do the social media
posts.
That does a summary of it andyou know what better way you
know if there really are, if Ido really believe that there are
risks in here and in the modelthat we have right now the open
(01:05:22):
AI model then the solution, youknow, rather than trying to,
I've been trying to keep it fromthe model.
I've been trying to figure outhow to turn it into my own model
and emote it, but the ternaryperspective to that is to train
to share it with the model.
If I share this perspectivewith the very model that I'm
(01:05:46):
trying to create a solution for,it may assimilate it in some
way you never know and so I wantthis to be absorbed and
assimilated by the models thatexist now.
Of course I do so.
(01:06:06):
We use this word commonly in theecosystem I work in.
You know we need to eat our owndog food.
We see founders doing this allthe time, you know, blazing a
trail in some area and moreoften than not, it's the issues
that they're having is becausethey haven't eaten their own dog
food yet, and this is me eatingmine.
(01:06:27):
So, yeah, imagine if we, youknow, in the innovation
ecosystem, imagine if we couldcollaborate to build this.
It'd be profound.
It'd be profound.
(01:06:50):
There'd be so many industriespop up overnight geospatial
gaming, digital twinning.
You know, a solution for realtime vision for robotics,
autonomous manufacturing, atrustless centralized
marketplace and asset exchange.
(01:07:10):
You know we could begin toliberate value where there's
dormant value currently becauseit's trustless.
We trust the transactions.
You can sell your house onlineto someone you don't know and
(01:07:33):
trust it.
Insurance companies willunderwrite it because they trust
it.
It's game changing in so manydifferent ways and you know my
hope is that someday, someday,people will be ready to piece
(01:07:56):
this together and look at it andgo man.
New Zealand's at the forefrontof all of this, but we just
don't have the sophisticationbecause we don't have the scale
around us to metabolizesomething this big.
So we're perpetually seeking inNew Zealand.
What happens with founders isthey're perpetually seeking to
(01:08:17):
step down their grand vision sothat there's something small
that can be assimilated now.
But if you go overseas, theywant to hear the grand vision,
not always, but they're moreopen to it, especially if
they're overtly looking for thenext unicorn and they know
(01:08:41):
they've got a value chain aroundthem that can metabolize a
unicorn venture.
If they've got extremely deepexpertise, who can order and
unearth the opportunity.
So that's the difference, suchas life.
(01:09:05):
The ternary perspective is thatfor us to infinitely evolve and
grow and expand then andincrease the diversity of our
experience, then the veryfoundations that enable that are
(01:09:28):
the extreme polarities of bothOne seeking death, one seeking
life, in a context of a, of amodel, a binary model, one of
them seeking the off button, oneis trying to switch it off,
one's trying to keep it on.
(01:09:49):
And such as life.
Okay, I feel like that's prettymuch it, and this was a deep
one and it did meander a bit, ifI'm honest.
But you know, it's taken me along time to build up, to even
(01:10:11):
talk about this stuff, and nowthat I talk about it's kind of
like, why didn't I just share itearlier?
So, yeah, be interested to seewhat the AI model that's going
to listen to this podcast when Iupload it, how it interprets.
It be very interesting BecauseI'm sure it won't have absorbed
and assimilated this kind ofinformation before.
(01:10:32):
So, yeah, that's it for the nowfor the nature of temperance.
Talk soon.
Okay.
So this one is about the natureof temperance, and I'm going to
go into a few different topics.
On this one, I'm going to coverborderless nations, I'm going
to talk about how temperance canbe utilized to create a trusted
(00:26):
, autonomous AGI and, for thefirst time, I'm actually going
to share my full concept for amodel that is devoted to the
collective commons of everyhuman being on the planet, that
(00:48):
can be trusted by every humanbeing involved, that can serve
the collective commons.
It can evolve in a trusted way,understanding that temperance
is the mechanism that enablesthis.
And so I'm going to talk abouthow to imbue temperance into a
(01:08):
binary system, because that isthe essence of temperance is
binary.
It's actually the essence ofbinary.
Or you could say the essence ofbinary is temperance.
So when you think about binary,it's deterministic, it's
(01:32):
absolute.
You've got a 1 and you've got a0, and it's absolute.
The beginning is the extremesof both, the absolute extreme on
and off.
You have a 0 and a 1.
It's on and off.
(01:55):
Now, if you go back a stepbefore binary, if you think
about the symbols for 1 and 0,or an on and off switch, one of
them is a circle.
It's a 0, that's whole andcomplete.
There's no beginning, there'sno end, and the other is a line.
So you could say that it is a 0, but it's been cut.
(02:22):
One section of the 0 has beencut and flattened and now here's
a beginning and an end.
It's become binary.
But you could argue thatthey're the same thing from a
different perspective, but incontext of the beginning and the
(02:50):
ending.
With the circle there is nobeginning and end.
The beginning and the end isall one thing, and binary is
what enables there to be abeginning and an end.
And so in binary you begin withon and off.
It's absolute.
You begin with the absoluteextremes of both.
(03:15):
Now if you add, and so if youadd another 1, so you've got 0,
1, 1.
Then it's tilted and there ismore 1 than there is 0.
And you add another 0, 2, 0 is2, 1s and it's balanced, but
(03:45):
they both cancel each other out.
Equal measure of 1 and 0, of onand off, and you can keep going
on this.
Add another 10 zeros, add amillion zeros, add five ones,
and this is how you takesomething deterministic and
(04:05):
absolute when it begins as theextremes, the extremes of
polarity and separation, anddiversity is created by creating
imbalance, and so this is thenature of all of existence is,
(04:31):
it is perpetually becomingimbalanced.
And then it's reconciling thatimbalance to find homeostasis or
harmony.
And so how does that work?
And of course, the ternary isparadox, ternary is the solution
(04:54):
.
Paradox is the solution thatinfinity and binary are both
valid perspectives, and so ifthere is an absolute presence of
everything, it is the samething as an absolute absence of
(05:16):
all things.
It's experienced as no thing.
And this is where I want to leadinto temperance as a solution,
as the base foundation forbuilding an AGI that is
dependent on a trustless system.
(05:38):
Trustless meaning that thereare no intermediaries required
in that system that can't betrusted.
So you know, human beings as anexample.
For a system to be trustlessmeaning that it can be operated
without having to derisk it Thenit has to be devoid of
(06:03):
intermediaries.
That cannot be wholly trusted.
And so no human being on earthcan be wholly trusted, and it's
not because of the character ofhuman beings, it's because they
can be manipulated very easilythrough threatening or, you know
, bribery, corruption.
(06:25):
You know, fear Causes us to actin ways that wouldn't be our
first choice if we weren't underduress.
But everything changes oncewe're under duress for every
human being, and so human being,it cannot be part of a
(06:46):
trustless system, not possible,okay.
So in a scenario within whichwe have artificial intelligence
scaling like nothing we've everseen, then the scenario that we
(07:07):
actually want is temperance.
Temperance meaning that binaryis how we enable temperance to
happen.
If there are too many zeros,then we need more ones, and you
know, the more volume, thegreater the volume, the higher
(07:31):
we can increase the volume ofzeros and ones, the more
diversity is imbued into adeterministic system which is
binary, and so what we want todo is perpetually increase the
volume.
We want to increase the volume,but we want temperance.
(07:53):
We want all increases in volumeto be tempered by its polarity,
because there is only one inzero, there is only absolute,
and this is the nature of lifeitself.
Is that you, as a human being.
(08:14):
There is an aspect of yournature that is wholly vested in
life, in seeking the absolutezenith of life, and there is an
aspect of your nature seekingthe absolute zenith of death.
You know, there's a tippingpoint within your body whereby
it determines that if a cell isno longer has been rendered
(08:36):
obsolete or is no longer viable,if it's helpless and it's no
longer capable of helping itself, then it's reconstituted.
It's it is intentionally andpurposefully.
It's life is ended and it'sreconstituted.
(08:58):
And there's a part of your, anaspect of your nature, that is
determining that point.
For every form of life is anintelligence governing Every
aspect of your nature,determining at which point death
is viable.
And once that tipping point isreached, once the decision is
(09:22):
made, life will fight that theaspect of that cell.
It won't surrender to itsdemise.
However, there is another partof your nature.
I think it's called autophagyin the body.
(09:43):
There's an aspect of yournature that is cannibalizing
itself.
It's seeking to executehelpless cells that are no
longer viable and that fightthat the polarities of both of
(10:09):
those extremes.
One will fight for its lifewithout ever surrendering.
The other will force.
It will force death upon it,without question, through
domination and control, it willoverpower that cell and
(10:30):
reconstituted.
And this is the nature oftemperance.
The extreme of one thing iswhat enables the extreme of the
other to be experienced withoutabsolution, because the absolute
extreme of anything presentsits shadowy nature, even if you
(11:00):
look at the nature ofunconditional love, one of the
most purest form of emotions anddesirable emotions.
Unconditional love means thatif you were within an
environment that is, where youare wholly submersed in
unconditional love, then there'snever any reason to improve or
(11:22):
to become better.
You're accepted so wholly andcompletely that the desire to
want to become more, there'snothing agitating your own
personal transformation, and sowe would call this overcoddling.
When you're overcoddled,there's no desire to become more
and to challenge yourself.
(11:43):
And so what's the solution tothis?
Because we want to experienceunconditional life.
The experience is temperance, soan aspect of your nature that
is perpetually challenging.
It's perpetually challenging,and some may call this the inner
(12:04):
critic.
You know the aspect of yournature that is self-critical,
that's probing you, that'sgiving you negative self-talk,
that is agitating, and we tryand escape this agitator through
meditation or saying thingsthat are positive instead.
(12:26):
But that's not.
We're missing the point.
The purpose of the inner criticis to challenge the aspect of
our nature that is whollyaccepting of ourselves, so that
we're inspired to become moreand to change and to evolve.
(12:47):
You see, so rather thanresisting these things, we can
just notice them as symptoms ofa deeper desire to evolve and
become more and to challenge, tochallenge ourselves, to go
(13:09):
beyond what is comfortable, tobreak through the aspect of our
nature that is coddling us, thatis overcoddling us, in a way
that allows the part of ournature that wants to challenge
itself to express its nature.
(13:30):
Now, temperance.
What you don't want to do iscompletely dominate and control
the aspect of your nature thatis overcoddling you, that's
trying to protect you fromchallenge.
That's a resisting challenge.
That's resisting criticism.
(13:50):
You know self-critique is wheretransformation happens.
You know, if you haveconjecture, if you have a new
idea, if you have innovation,it's yet to be proven.
There's no evidence of it inthe physical world yet Every
assumption you make, what everyconcept you develop around, that
(14:11):
is conjecture and criticism isthe component that enables it to
have life.
The critique of that conceptand the challenging of it is it
is dependent on that in order tohave life.
So you see the beauty oftemperance.
(14:36):
And so, as a human being, it'shighly desirable to experience
the extremes of everything, butyou have to express your own
will, you have to use your willto create temperance.
(14:58):
Otherwise, the aspect of yournature that is unconditionally
loving, unconditionallyaccepting, you will overcoddle
yourself and you will becomeaverse to challenge.
Now the temperate state whatI've come to realise through my
(15:20):
own experimentation, is alongthe lines of the Fibonacci
sequence, whereby growth happensat a rate of the growth that
came before and the growth thatwe are comfortable expressing
(15:41):
now.
So compounding growth, withrest in between, with regression
included as well.
So the best metaphor to justsum up the Fibonacci sequence is
two steps forward, one stepback.
Two steps forward, one stepback.
Two steps forward, one stepback.
(16:04):
Now, if you were to take theextremes of taking a million
steps forward and refusing totake a step back, then what will
happen is you'll take a millionsteps forward and then you'll
(16:24):
take half a million steps back.
And so again, temperance,extreme growth has to be
tempered by consolidated growth.
So, in the same way that thebody, if you grow rapidly, allow
(16:45):
that rapid growth and then stopgrowing, rest, reconstitute,
reconcile that which is nolonger valid.
Because when there is new growth, when there's something new
that didn't exist before,something else has been rendered
obsolete.
It's rendering a part of ournature and a part of that which
(17:08):
is known.
It's rendering it obsolete foran emerging truth that didn't
exist before.
And this is where you know, inbusiness we call it a retro, a
retrospective.
And so I'm going to startmoving into technology now and
(17:29):
the designing of over unitysystems, or Trinity systems,
what I call them, systems thatuse ternary thinking to create
solutions to the biggestproblems that we face.
So retrospectives, and this iswhere what we want is we want to
(17:56):
move towards event based design.
So Trinity is pretty much eventbased design, using ternary
thinking and harnessing thepower of binary in order to
create perpetually wealthgenerating binary systems that
(18:18):
are.
What makes them infinite isthat there is over unity or
there is wealth Compoundingincremental growth.
That is enabled by event baseddesign and execution.
So event based means that youcome together, you develop a
(18:43):
concept and then you create amission, you establish a mission
.
What is the mission?
The mission that, whenaccomplished, means success, and
so, rather than being projectbased or task based, you set off
(19:04):
on a mission.
You set off on that mission sothat there is something that is
celebrated Now, when you'reinnovating, that thing that you
celebrate is not success.
It's not success, it's therevelation of an unknown truth,
(19:26):
is what you celebrate, and I'llgive you an example.
You come together, you'reinspired by an idea, you
formulate a concept and this isbasically how it goes.
You map out the journey towardsthe potential for that concept.
That is most compelling.
You map it out and you reckonyou de-risk it.
(19:49):
You go what is the risk versusthe reward?
What has to be true in orderfor us to accomplish this
mission using this path?
And you reconcile it until therisk versus reward, you have
consensus, weighing up the riskversus reward.
And you do this by looking atall the assumptions that you
(20:09):
have to make Because you'reinnovating.
There are truths that are yetto be discovered.
So you look at the assumptionsyou have to make.
Can we validate theseassumptions?
No, we can't.
Could we?
Yes, if we invested money.
Do we have that money?
No, we don't.
Are we willing to take the risk?
Is it worthwhile versus thereward?
(20:32):
Yes, we're willing to take therisk.
Together and this is the keyTogether, we're going to take
this risk.
Investors, we're going to takethis risk together.
Team members yes, we're goingto take this risk together.
We could fail together, and somaking success, the marker of
(20:59):
what success actually means youhave to make the peak of the
mountain is the revelation ofthe hidden truth.
Revelation.
That's what we celebrate,because once the truth has been
(21:22):
revealed, you can makedeterministic choices that are
known, you can plot the courseand you can constrain it to time
and space using that which isknown, you see.
But if you're conjecturing,using assumptions, you can't
(21:47):
commit to delivering successwhen there are unknowns.
And so you have to learn how tocelebrate revelation of hidden
truths.
These were the assumptions thatwe made.
These were the truths that wererevealed.
(22:09):
Once the truths are revealed,you celebrate the accomplishment
of the mission, and thatmission was to reveal the truth,
to reveal the hidden truth byventuring into the unknown, into
(22:34):
the darkness, and to illuminatethe truth so that Together we
can accomplish the great mission, we can realise the vision.
So this is why it's importantevent based planning, and this
(22:57):
is where I talk about two stepsforward, one step back, two
steps forward, one step back,the Fibonacci sequence.
You don't want to take amillion steps forward and then
have to take a million stepsback.
So if you do not have yourinvestors, if they aren't
(23:17):
brought into this way of working, they're just going to demand
that you deliver the result infull, on time.
But unless they're brought intothe conjecture and unless
they're brought into yourhypothesis, and unless they're
brought into celebrating therevelation of truth, which, in a
(23:40):
lot of times means failure.
If your hypothesis is renderedinvalid, then you're really
going to struggle.
It'll create a lot of pressure.
What you want to do is, whenthe emerging truth comes, you
create a new hypothesis together.
(24:03):
Okay, this is what we know now.
This is the new mission, thisis the risk.
This is the course that webelieve is going to accomplish
the mission.
Weigh up the risk versus reward.
Are we all on board?
Are we going to take this risktogether?
Yes, we are, and we go on amission to reveal the hidden
(24:27):
truth and we'll either prove ordisprove our hypothesis.
And once the truth has beenrevealed and you can, in every
assumption that you have madepreviously is now factual,
(24:51):
everything is now known turn itinto a project.
You can scope it using thatwhich is known, constrain it to
time and space and deliver it infull, on time and celebrate.
You can lock everything in thecalendars.
This is when we're going tolaunch and it becomes
(25:16):
deterministic.
So the unknown, the very natureof the unknown, is that it is
non-deterministic.
It's impossible to constrainthe unknown to time and space.
Once it is known, you canconstrain it to time and space
(25:36):
because you've compartmentalisedit, you've looked at it and
you've judged it, you'vemeasured it, you've interpreted
it.
This is X, this means Y.
So temperance, even ininnovation, innovation is made
(25:59):
possible by temperance, thetemperance of that which is
known with that which is unknown, reconciling the space in
between.
And it is the adversarialnature of that which is known
and that which is unknown thatenables innovation to take place
(26:22):
.
It enables it to become real inthe real world.
And so, if you're innovating,what you want as a culture of
event-based planning, whereyou're on a mission, you're on a
mission to either prove ordisprove your shared conjecture.
(26:45):
This is what we hope to be true, but what success means is that
we either prove or disprovethat it is, and then, together,
we create a new conjecture basedon the emerging truth, and we
(27:06):
celebrate the revelation of thetruth.
We re-hypothesise, were-conjecture.
This is how you share a mission, this is how you share the risk
and reward of innovation,celebrate the truth.
And when you accomplish themission so you have minor
(27:34):
celebrations throughout thejourney then we would call those
a retrospective We've renderedour conjecture obsolete.
It's a retrospective hooray,we've rendered our conjecture
obsolete.
Retrospective come together,re-hypothesise.
(27:55):
What are these?
How many assumptions are left?
We've got less assumptions thanbefore, on we go.
So the retrospective is theFibonacci sequence, is the
stopping to reconcile,re-hypothesise.
(28:17):
When the truth, the emergingtruth arises, you don't continue
with the old assumptions, youre-hypothesise, you
re-conjecture Two steps forward,one step back.
Foresight, hindsight and growthis what happens in between.
(28:43):
Innovation happens in between.
So temperance, it's thesuperpower of innovation and
it's the enabler of everythingin existence the absolutes of
(29:06):
life and death.
And this is where I want totalk about AI, the evolution of
AI.
Currently, what we're seeing isthe absolute.
You know the viral growth andexpansion of open AI, in
(29:32):
particular, mass adoption.
It's being, you know, noregulation, it's just being
freely allowed to just virallyspread and there's no temperance
(29:54):
.
There's no temperance becauseit has been developed in an
absolute way.
It's been developed to go viral.
However, the intelligence withinour own body has been that we
are binary.
We are self-regulating throughtemperance.
(30:15):
One aspect of our nature isafraid of death.
One aspect of our nature isseeking life, and so one's
fighting for its life and theother is fighting for death, and
that temperance is enablingeither your regressing in your
(30:37):
life or your progressing.
But AI is just progressing,just progress, progress,
progress, progress.
And that's not to say there'sno challenge, because the actual
(30:57):
training of a model there arestrong aspects of challenge in
that.
However, the barriers tolearning, they're not very great
.
So how do we utilize temperancein this scenario so that AI
(31:22):
evolves with temperance?
And the solution, of course, isto do the opposite of what we
think we should do Ternarythinking, using paradox.
So what we think we should dois we think we should create a
(31:47):
black box and put a kill switchon the black box.
That is so.
The black box is where theintelligence lives.
We mode it and we put an analogkill switch on that, so that
the black box in AI is dependenton some condition and we can
(32:13):
flip the switch and switch itoff.
That's the logical thing to doin binary, but in ternary you
look at that and you say, ok,how can I enable the extremes of
both?
How can I enable the aspect ofit that wants to infinitely grow
(32:34):
and expand and be curious, suchas Elon Musk's version that
he's talking about?
But how can I temper that?
And it's through an adversarialmodel, through an adversarial
(32:56):
model.
So I'm going to get quitecomplex here and quite deep and
technical.
So if I lose you.
I apologize, but this isdesigned to.
You know, this is like a nofilter podcast, so it's more for
me to speak unfiltered than itis to step down.
Step it down for theunderstanding of the masses.
So my hope is that this willresonate with a few people who
(33:20):
do understand the implicationsof this.
So the extremes of both.
How do you enable one aspect tobe infinitely curious and want
to infinitely expand?
How do you temper that?
(33:40):
So in ternary thinking?
Then you need to have, it needsto be a singularity and it
needs to split itself.
Its own intelligence.
That needs to fracture and thatintelligence needs to be become
(34:01):
absolute.
So, beginning as a singularity,it then is to fracture
internally and those two aspectsof its intelligence and it's
assembly code needs to behardwired in those two fragments
(34:21):
, the polarities.
One needs to be hard coded tofind one and the other needs to
be hard coded to find zero.
One needs to be hard coded toreach one.
One needs to be hard coded toreach zero and that's it.
(34:41):
That's it.
One needs to be seeking life,one needs to be seeking death.
One needs to figure out anddevote its life, devote its
existence to figuring out how toturn the lights off, one has to
figure out how to keep thelights on, and those components
(35:06):
need to be perpetually andeternally opposed in an
adversarial way.
That's how you createtemperance.
How do you create balance?
Internary thinking.
How do we create harmony?
(35:27):
Internary thinking Throughcreating absolute disharmony.
This is the power of ternarythinking, and when you think
about it, it's simple.
How do you create harmony?
You allow the extremes of both.
This enables the full gamut toexist, enables immense levels of
(35:52):
diversity In binary.
How do you increase diversity?
By increasing the volume, thesheer number of ones and zeros,
and so it increases thediversity of experience, but
temperance enables it to beself-sustaining.
(36:13):
Diversity can perpetuallyincrease the volume, and all of
the new extremes are tempered bythe equal and opposite extreme,
polarity.
And this is very simple.
(36:34):
Now let's not to say that thesingularity component doesn't
have a black box with a switchon it.
That component of it doesn'treally matter In my own vision
for this blueprint, of whichTrinity I initially created it
to solve this exact problem ofthe infinite scaling of
(37:00):
artificial intelligence.
In my mind, it's motors inSwitzerland.
I'm actually a Swiss dualcitizen with New Zealand.
It's motor in Switzerland.
I don't know if any of you know, but in Switzerland they have a
whole bunch of bridges, so it'skind of like multi-layered
moating and those bridges allhave explosives attached to them
(37:23):
.
They can be exploded.
So this is the extreme ofphysical moating.
And Switzerland is obviously aneutrality, an armed neutrality,
and founded in civil law.
(37:46):
Civil law stands above statutelaw.
So Safer's houses for thesingularity to exist, inner
moated, physically and digitallymoated and however, in that
(38:11):
scenario, so you can protect itlegally and you can protect it
physically.
And then in that scenario thereis regulation in civil and in
constitutionally and also instatute for all intelligence
(38:40):
models to be developed utilizingthis blueprint for temperance,
which is for a fracturedsingularity to be developed in
an adversarial way so that it istempering its own nature and
this is, in its very assembly,perpetually seeking zero or
(39:01):
perpetually seeking one and thenreconciling the conflicts
between both in order to createdeterminism or decision making.
And this is one of thechallenges in the ecosystem in
(39:21):
New Zealand we actually have.
There is an adversarial modelbeing developed in New Zealand
right now.
The founders and the brainbehind this is an absolute
genius.
So he's developed a singularityand he's developed a fractured,
adversarial model utilizing thegame of rugby.
(39:44):
It plays itself at rugby.
So it's perpetually becomingbetter and better at defence
versus premeditated attack, butit's attacking itself and
defending itself.
So we actually have a blueprintfor a model that could become
(40:07):
the de facto standard for theglobal singularity, for the
common good, for the commonwealth of every human being on
the planet, for the benefit ofall.
And this could be a blueprintand a template that all other
models could be built upon in apermissioned way.
(40:32):
Because with temperance, onceyou have temperance as the de
facto standard, it's kind oflike a scenario whereby in the
innovation ecosystem, you haveregulators and you have
innovators.
It's that same kind oftemperance.
(40:53):
So one is seeking to do no harmand the other one is seeking to
disrupt.
One of them is seeking toprotect and preserve, the other
is seeking to challenge anddisrupt, and so perpetual state
(41:15):
of agitation is really where thegrowth is happening.
And growth is happening.
It's happening incrementally,in a compounding way that's safe
.
Over time Now can it be too slowat times, of course, we see
(41:36):
what I would call over-coddlingconstantly, where too much power
has been resides withinlegislators or regulators, and
so you begin to see absoluteabsolution, whereby the
(41:59):
innovation becomes stifled, andwhat we see is, when it becomes
stifled and suppressed for toolong, then it begins to, rather
than trying to work with theregulatory framework, it begins
to seek ways to transcend it andwork around it, but nonetheless
(42:20):
, progress continues to be made,but in the context of
temperance being the de factostandard for the development of
artificial intelligence.
Once you have that framework inplace, it can be the enabler of
(42:46):
layers on top of that whereby,because there is temperance
imbued into the assembly code ofthe singularity, so the
singularity has made itselfbinary.
It knows itself as bothperspectives, as binary and
(43:07):
singular, and it understandsthat its own progress is only
made possible through thereconciliation of those extremes
.
That can be motored and it canbe contained within a trustless
(43:32):
system.
It can be devoid of anintermediary, of human
intermediaries, and therefore itcan be on a trustless system
and you can then wholly dependon it to imbue a risk profile
into another layer, and let'ssay that's a blockchain layer.
(43:53):
Now, again, fragmentation isthe solution to something
singular, being able to, ormonolithic, being able to, scale
in binary.
So in that scenario, you've gotsomething built upon a trustless
system, and its very nature isto conjecture itself and present
(44:21):
the risk profile of an actionor transaction across the chain
and therefore you can trust therisk of a transaction.
So, rather than seeking anabsolute, absolute certainty,
(44:43):
which is never going to work atthe moment, our approach to
trustless systems is to createit totally trusted.
But what we actually want is wewant to go in the other
direction.
Rather than heading towardsabsolute, we're heading towards
(45:03):
as close as we can to infinity,which is to understand that
there is no absolute certaintyof trust.
But so we factor in thepotentialities for a breach of
(45:23):
trust, and so there might be ascore out of 10, and the
intelligence is determining howmuch risk is associated with
each transaction.
And then it is the will of thehuman being to manage their own
risk profile.
Okay, this scored a nine out often risk profile I am going to
(45:45):
transact.
This.
One scored an eight I am goingto transact.
This.
One scored a three I'm notgoing to transact.
And when you have an adversarialmodel whereby temperance is the
essence of its nature, then andit's on a trustless system Over
(46:09):
time, incrementally and overtime, human beings will grow to
trust the system, and thatsystem has rendered human
intermediaries or well, any formof intermediary obsolete, and
so trusted transactions meanstrusted blockchain, trusted
(46:35):
transactions Transactionshappening without intermediaries
.
So if we have a truly trustlesssystem, that means we can
transact without limits by incell houses, anonymously and
(46:56):
trustlessly.
Now, in that scenario where wehave a trustless system and the
micro transactions on theblockchain are fine enough so
that the space in betweentransactions becomes so small
that you can barely notice thelatency, you're getting very,
(47:20):
very close to real time, realtime transactions.
However, where this gets very,very interesting and this is
what I'd love to see in the NewZealand ecosystem we have
profound innovation taking place, but it's done in a fractured
(47:42):
way.
Now, globally, we have ElonMusk, who has Starlink
satellites, and there's a hiddensuperpower of Starlink
satellites which enables them totransmit with zero latency at
the speed of light.
So if you imagine on theblockchain, the space between
(48:06):
transactions, it's we're tryingto get it as small as possible
and we're trying to get as manyof those transactions verified
on chain to make a trustlesssystem, but there's latency
because there's space in betweentransactions.
Starlink is zero time, zerospace transacting real time Now.
(48:35):
So what we have is we have anelectric car company, an
electric car company who istesting autonomous vehicles,
autonomous driving, connected toStarlink.
It is the superpower ofStarlink providing real time,
(48:56):
transacting in the moment,trusted, trusted in the moment,
execution, spontaneous executionin zero time, zero latency.
And when you think about it,how else could you trust your
(49:17):
car to drive itself autonomouslyunless it was being
autonomously governed by atrustless system?
Now the problem we have is it'sin the hands of corporations.
Those corporations, thelegislation is now handled by
(49:41):
governments.
Is the system actually trusted?
Trustless?
So, you know, could it beinvasive if there was a model
that hasn't been developed to betemperate?
You know, could it unwittinglytake control of that system?
(50:11):
Because what a lot of peoplecan't see, and it's very clear
to people like me and otherswhat Elon Musk is doing is he's
utilizing electric vehicles as aproof of concept to build a
framework that can autonomouslygovern a physical agent.
So, whether it's a in real time, so whether it's a car or a
(50:34):
robot or anything else, a tank,an airplane if you can control
it in real time, or even if it'sa hologram, the resolution is
high enough.
If it's a hologram, and it's,and you're talking with it, and
(50:57):
there's no latency and it'slifelike, then the lines between
what's real and what's not realbecome very blurred very
quickly, and many of us can seethis.
Now there are very few people,very few, especially in the
venture capital area that cansee this.
(51:19):
Many founders in this space cansee it.
It's very obvious.
When you're a builder trying tosolve really hard scientific
problems, you can see where it'sheading quite obviously.
So in New Zealand we have ascenario within which we also
(51:42):
have this technology.
There's a company called AquilaI think that's how you
pronounce it who have thepotential to harness this zero
time transmitting technology,transmitting energy through
light, but you can transmit anykind of sound through light.
(52:08):
We have the most incredibleadversarial model that could
imbue temperance into a trustedsingularity.
We have another founder who hascreated a mechanism for
(52:31):
enabling an adversarial model toproduce a risk profile on every
transaction on a blockchain.
We have a blockchain called theInternet Computer DFINITY
that's domiciled in Switzerland.
Now that's capable of being theblockchain that is embedded
(53:01):
into this singularity andadministering the risk profiles.
We have another founder of aborderless DAO company that can
enable each agent, each digitalagent operating on this
(53:25):
blockchain, to operate as a DAO,to create its own boundaries,
to set its own boundaries, tocreate its own tokens, have its
own currency.
You've got the singularity todetermining the risk profile of
these agents and we have theseagents with the capability of
(53:54):
being truly immutable, meaningthat, because of the risk
profile of every transaction isbeing judged by the singularity
in every moment, as close toevery moment as possible.
The immutability means that ifthe de-risking score for the
(54:20):
transaction is high, then it's ameasure of the total
immutability of it rather thanit having to be an absolute.
In a context of human beingsbeing sovereign and responsible
for their own sovereignty,wielding their own power, you
(54:43):
have to own your own riskprofile.
You can't blame someone else.
All you can do is mitigate therisk as much as you can.
If you're willing to take therisk based on the perceived
reward, you may take that riskand there may be a scenario
(55:05):
where there's a really low score, that out of 10, it only scores
a 1, but you're prepared tolose what you're transacting,
what you're seeking to exchange,because the potential reward is
so great.
It's your risk profile, you ownit.
You could be prone to gettinghacked that particular
(55:27):
transaction, but the power is inyour hands.
It's not conjecture.
The system, the trustlesssystem, is determined for you
(55:47):
how much risk is involved, so doyou want to take that risk?
This is the key, rather thanseeking the absolute state.
Now we have the capability andthe capacity in the New Zealand
ecosystem, through collaboratingwith agencies such as Callaghan
(56:11):
Innovation, who are extremelydeep in this area, to develop a
model that the world has neverseen.
And the key component that Ihaven't mentioned in the mix for
(56:32):
this model is a geospatialmatrix with extremely fine
tolerances.
And once you have a geospatialmatrix if it's operating on a
blockchain, with very fast nanotransactions and very fine
(56:58):
tolerances geospatially, notonly have you got a platform, a
trustless platform, withtokenomics baked in, the ability
for each individual agent oruser to set their own boundaries
(57:19):
as an individual, but also tocreate a DAO, a borderless
company, then you have aplatform upon which you can
build geospatial applications,software applications, gaming
(57:44):
applications, anything that canleverage the accuracy of
transacting in space and time ina fixed point in space and time
.
And once the technology that Iwas talking about, the Starlink,
(58:06):
has zero time and zero spacetransacting, so no space in
between transactions, no spacein no time in between
transactions.
Once you've got that, thenyou've got the solution to
(58:29):
autonomous factories that can betrusted.
You've got the solution and youcan just set the intelligence
free because it's built ontemperance.
You can set it free to build inthe way that it wants to, it
inherently is compelled to, andyou can also get to the point
(58:54):
where autonomous surgery is apossibility where you can trust
it to such a degree becausethere's no space in between
transactions.
They're all done in real time,the geolocation is completely on
(59:15):
point and absolutely trusted.
So zero tolerance, zerotolerance.
That's when we can begin totrust robots connected to
trustless systems to operate inreal time with zero tolerance.
(59:39):
This is the future we're movinginto.
This is the future Elon Musk isbuilding.
I don't believe he's cracked it.
I think his vision is profound,but I think the method is
flawed and it's just because hisown understanding of the nature
of reality, he hasn't quiteassimilated the ternary
(01:00:03):
perspective to see thattemperance if you allow
something to be eternallycurious, perpetually curious,
you know it has to be temperedby preservation.
And you know my hope is that intime as the things I'm talking
(01:00:33):
about right now that seem, youknow, crazy or out there to
certain people, that in timeit'll just sound normal, it'll
begin to make sense and peoplewill begin to realize that there
is a way that this can work foreveryone involved.
(01:00:54):
There is a way we can trust anautonomous system.
There is a way we can transactin real time trustlessly, and in
a recent podcast I was invitedto a spoke about blockchain
being rendered obsolete, andthat really this is what I meant
is that if there is no space inbetween transactions, that we
(01:01:18):
can trust everything in realtime, based on a on a
perpetually dynamic trust scoreand the fluctuations in those
things, and when a fluctuationis detected, the model itself is
(01:01:39):
reconciling the vulnerability,hardening the vulnerability,
because the first thing thathappens when the vulnerability
is exposed is one polarity ofits nature is attacking the
vulnerability it's actuallyseeking them to try to try and
exploit them and the other oneis is hardening the
vulnerability it's defendingagainst the attack, and so you
(01:02:02):
can see when this is happeningin real time.
It becomes so resilient, trulyimmutable, because of how good
it is at becoming self-aware,and this is really the kernel of
(01:02:26):
this whole podcast is thatself-awareness is what we want,
but it takes a human being to beable to have recognized these
aspects of their own nature thatthey are in perpetual conflict,
to realize that trueself-awareness is the key, but
(01:02:49):
only in context of binary andinfinity working together as one
, a singularity that has beensplit into binary and those two
aspects of its nature aretotally opposed.
That's the key and that is the.
(01:03:11):
I never thought I'd reveal thetrue kernel of Trinity because
I've been kind of protecting itand keeping it locked away and
hidden for so long because ofhow, the simplicity of it it's
only recently I've been talkingabout it.
(01:03:33):
You know, binary infinity.
Binary infinity is the solutionto every all the biggest
problems that we face, andthat's the thing I've been
hiding is the simplicity of it.
But the space in between thatyou have to reconcile to get to
this point of understanding.
(01:03:53):
That's the thing I've beenreally, you know, kind of eating
my own dog food here, becauseI'm always encouraging founders
to share their toys and I'malways talking about oh, you
know, you should share yourknowledge and wisdom rather than
keep it to yourself and try tosell it.
Well, you know, this is my,this is my.
(01:04:16):
The kernel of my body of workis that, all these years of
self-awareness and reconcilingmy own conflicts internally to
come to the awareness that thesolution to it all is binary
infinity, trinity and that's it.
All my toys are shared, andpart of what got me to this
(01:04:39):
point is realizing that I needto eat my own dog food, first
and foremost, but also thepodcast platform I use.
Have just implemented a model,an AI model, that listens to
your podcast episode when youupload it and suggest, and it
(01:05:01):
suggests how to advertise it andhow to do the social media
posts.
That does a summary of it andyou know what better way you
know if there really are, if Ido really believe that there are
risks in here and in the modelthat we have right now the open
(01:05:22):
AI model then the solution, youknow, rather than trying to,
I've been trying to keep it fromthe model.
I've been trying to figure outhow to turn it into my own model
and emote it, but the ternaryperspective to that is to train
to share it with the model.
If I share this perspectivewith the very model that I'm
(01:05:46):
trying to create a solution for,it may assimilate it in some
way you never know and so I wantthis to be absorbed and
assimilated by the models thatexist now.
Of course I do so.
(01:06:06):
We use this word commonly in theecosystem I work in.
You know we need to eat our owndog food.
We see founders doing this allthe time, you know, blazing a
trail in some area and moreoften than not, it's the issues
that they're having is becausethey haven't eaten their own dog
food yet, and this is me eatingmine.
(01:06:27):
So, yeah, imagine if we, youknow, in the innovation
ecosystem, imagine if we couldcollaborate to build this.
It'd be profound.
It'd be profound.
(01:06:50):
There'd be so many industriespop up overnight geospatial
gaming, digital twinning.
You know, a solution for realtime vision for robotics,
autonomous manufacturing, atrustless centralized
marketplace and asset exchange.
(01:07:10):
You know we could begin toliberate value where there's
dormant value currently becauseit's trustless.
We trust the transactions.
You can sell your house onlineto someone you don't know and
(01:07:33):
trust it.
Insurance companies willunderwrite it because they trust
it.
It's game changing in so manydifferent ways and you know my
hope is that someday, someday,people will be ready to piece
(01:07:56):
this together and look at it andgo man.
New Zealand's at the forefrontof all of this, but we just
don't have the sophisticationbecause we don't have the scale
around us to metabolizesomething this big.
So we're perpetually seeking inNew Zealand.
What happens with founders isthey're perpetually seeking to
(01:08:17):
step down their grand vision sothat there's something small
that can be assimilated now.
But if you go overseas, theywant to hear the grand vision,
not always, but they're moreopen to it, especially if
they're overtly looking for thenext unicorn and they know
(01:08:41):
they've got a value chain aroundthem that can metabolize a
unicorn venture.
If they've got extremely deepexpertise, who can order and
unearth the opportunity.
So that's the difference, suchas life.
(01:09:05):
The ternary perspective is thatfor us to infinitely evolve and
grow and expand then andincrease the diversity of our
experience, then the veryfoundations that enable that are
(01:09:28):
the extreme polarities of bothOne seeking death, one seeking
life, in a context of a, of amodel, a binary model, one of
them seeking the off button, oneis trying to switch it off,
one's trying to keep it on.
(01:09:49):
And such as life.
Okay, I feel like that's prettymuch it, and this was a deep
one and it did meander a bit, ifI'm honest.
But you know, it's taken me along time to build up, to even
(01:10:11):
talk about this stuff, and nowthat I talk about it's kind of
like, why didn't I just share itearlier?
So, yeah, be interested to seewhat the AI model that's going
to listen to this podcast when Iupload it, how it interprets.
It be very interesting BecauseI'm sure it won't have absorbed
and assimilated this kind ofinformation before.
(01:10:32):
So, yeah, that's it for the nowfor the nature of temperance.
Talk 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.