Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Octopusyarn's avatar

Very interesting. Some thoughts:

Outcome-based remuneration is rare and not sure if this is just about contract/measurement costs… other relevant factors could include that the outcome depends on external factors outside of the control of the contractual party (e.g. with gym membership vs. health benefits: will the customer actually go to the gym, train properly, not engage in unhealthy activities).

Really like the idea of accounting for group (and systemic) outcomes in general.

Market intermediaries seem like a different take on consumer unions, and those are actually becoming realistic due to AI. I would imagine that people would also have their personal agents, and those agents would negotiate with market intermediaries, who then interface with the supply side.

Expand full comment
Oliver Sourbut's avatar

I think this is a really fantastic initiative! I basically agree with the diagnosis. (I have a nit: 'redistribution' doesn't necessarily merely patch; if designed right it can internalise the externalities by increasing the cost of externally-harmful activities while subsidising externally-beneficial activities. Of course, redistribution rests on observation, adjudication, and enforcement, which can be (but don't have to be?) centralised.)

The Future of Life Foundation is currently running a fellowship on 'AI for Human Reasoning' (https://www.flf.org/fellowship). Improving human coordination capacity with innovative tech is squarely in scope! - we've gathered 30+ really talented folks from all kinds of backgrounds (industry software, startups, policy, ...).

Let me know if you'd be interested in running a lightning talk, breakout session, or other kind of discussion on this space.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts