Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
0xdusk
@0xdusk
This is a piece by @alexmurray, @ivolver, and me. We are implementing a governance AI agent for Nouns. The agent will be purely transparent. All prompts and RAG data will be publicly available on IPFS and linked with an ENS domain name. Actually, the agent itself lives on ENS and IPFS; anyone can explore its components. The entire decision-making process of the AI agent will be verifiable on-chain. We will delegate all of our Nouns to the AI agent to observe how it acts and how the community engages with it. Hopefully, this experiment can be a great success and result in an excellent paper. The reason why I am bidding on all these Nouns is that I want the agent to have some kind of “swing state” power in these experiments. This way, people will want to engage with it and try to win its votes. We are newcomers to the community and have a lot to learn about the DAO. Any feedback would be appreciated! Many thanks! https://substack.com/inbox/post/153783194
9 replies
0 recast
28 reactions
wylin
@wylin
interesting to see the experiment, tbh not in love with the concept in the context of Nouns the DAO does arguably have an issue with relationship/ friend based voting rather than meritocratic, ie: assessing the prop for what it is, and i can see how agents would help there am personally a believer in civic engagement, ie: humans having agency to express their opinion and guide outcomes through democratic processes, and that if we get our culture right, that Nouns is a means to prove out that civic engagement works and blockchain is viable for real government applications am optimistic about agents as advisors to humans and for automating functions, worry about overly broad application of them in civic processes though either way, stoked to see you engage with the DAO & bring new perspectives + experiments. seems like a good crew of people
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Ivo Entchev
@ivolver
Good points @wylin. Def agree with you that we should avoid outsourcing civic engagement to AI agents. @alexmurray’s research suggests that there is way to leverage agents that enhances the deliberative process, which is what I find most compelling.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Alex Murray
@alexmurray
Thanks for the input @wylin. Agree completely. Human actors should remain active in civic engagement and discourse. Recent research theorizes AI agents can augment and enhance this human-centric process such that humans are prompted to engage more substantively in civic discourse, not only with the agent but with one another. Please keep the comments and considerations coming! Loving the dialogue thus far.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I am a bit of a curious skeptic like Wylin. In my opinion, the way agent based governance has been presented has been a bit contradictory. Typically it goes like “you’re too busy to vote, so the agent votes for you!” I think the only reason you vote for things is because you care. So, you either care enough to vote, or you don’t care, and there’s no reason to even enlist an agent on your behalf because why bother? You don’t even care in the first place. I like the idea of AI helping augment and enhance the voting process though. Maybe it AI can summarize a proposal, summarize community sentiment, and help folks feel informed we will have healthy governance with higher participation across the board. Thanks for doing this! Excited to follow this line of work
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
