Gus

So say if a government published a tool for online sensemaking, a lot of people would be sort of skeptical of using that to develop their views.

yeah yeah wikipedia is an interesting example it is sort of the the crowning achievement of human knowledge creation but it's also so on the one hand anyone can participate on the other hand it's wikipedia as it exists is quite elitist in a sense if there's there's a hierarchy and people

You know, you need to be a trusted contributor in order to for your contributions to actually count.

And as you mentioned, there's a very few people contribute almost all of the content.

Is that how you see sort of is that the default state of human sensemaking that that you have this elite and it's not actually

It's not actually everyone participating.

It's actually almost no one participating.

Everyone being a consumer of information rather than a producer of information.

Yeah.

And much of this will probably be written by AI.

Will it also be read by AI?

So will it also be ingested by my agent that's then presenting it to me in a way that's easier for me to understand or perhaps easier for me to digest quickly?

Can you paint us a picture of sort of the perfect state or the ideal vision for AI for human reasoning?

What does the future look like in say 10 years if this project really takes off?

But it might just become much cheaper to negotiate using AI.

Right.

Yeah.

It's just much cheaper to send a bunch of messages back and forth.

And maybe my agent can take my preferences, negotiate on my behalf, and there can be a whole workflow there that I'm not involved in.

It would be too costly for me to negotiate directly.