It's, I would say, close. Close enough.

Michelle Ellis would be the right one.

Yeah. So, actually, like yeah. I think one year ago, we met somehow, and, there was this idea around a little bit. But we it became more concrete, I think, November or at December, so someone somewhat around this time, I think.

Yeah. Right. Right. It's it's it's it's a feeling that I know very well. But but, I think I think there's maybe one one short story I can tell because, it was it was, I think, very, very important for for, like, why I'm also doing it now. Is, like, when I was in school, I think it was seventh or eighth grade or so, there was a teacher in politics. I think it was the first grade where we had politics as as a subject. And, he was, like, introducing or trying to, like, explain a little bit why or, like, motivate why why we have the democracy we have. And he was, like, explaining, like, so just just assume, like, you you that we have a society and you want to take decisions. It it was somehow framed already in a democratic setting. But the question was, if if we want to have a democratic decisions and if we want to have a democratic system, how can we do it? And he said, like, one of the obvious most obvious things is you just meet. I mean, if you're a smaller group of people, you sit together, discuss, find a solution, write it perhaps down, and execute But if you have a lot of people I mean, this was in Germany, so, like, 80,000,000 people, taking decisions together, it's just unfeasible. You cannot collect 80,000,000 people in a stadium and have a large discussion in some way, whatever way this should be. So so why he wanted to come to us to the point that, like, it's totally obvious to have representatives and to vote for representatives that kind of represent the the, the whole population and then force is is representative for some time and takes all these decisions in a smaller group where decisions are more feasible. But, but over time, I think it became clear that, like, I mean, already earlier than this, but for me, it became more and more clear that there are some problems with this approach, like, a lot of problems. And I I think a lot of people who will listen to this are probably well aware of this. And and put it, like, a little bit straight to the point, I would say it's, like, psychological biases that is, like, our problem we have. Like, people are not, like, rational people. They are not electing, like, good representatives in a way. I mean, we have a very well very, very good example now in The US. And, like like, this is a problem we have to handle, and this simple representation has some problems. And, also, like, the complexity that people are, like, like, globally, like, you elect them for four years, but within those four years, they have, like they they take they take responsibility for all the topics. Like, they really have to know everything, and the more complex the world becomes, the more problematic this becomes. So a lot of problems that are, yeah, well aware. But at the same time, we have, like, a lot of new technologies coming in. Like, we have the Internet. It's not not like not like, I don't know, one hundred years ago where people really needed to move physically to another place to discuss or to exchange opinions. Or maybe they could have done it with a letter, but this would still be very, like, inefficient. We can do this more efficient now, and we have a lot of tools available, social media, AI, blockchain, all this stuff. And, yeah, the question is from this perspective, or at least for me, this question is from this perspective, aren't we perhaps just in the very beginning of the democratic development or anti development of democracies? Isn't isn't the system we have not like the end of democracies what we sometimes believe to think when we're coming out of school, like, thinking, like, this is the perfect system, and this this is how it should be forever. But instead thinking, like, this is just the beginning. This was just the very first step of developing democracies. And this was, like, based on what we could do and was feasible to that time. But it's perhaps time to, like, advance from this point. And, yeah, I think this is this is for me what this podcast is about, like, starting to bring together all these new perspectives and, yeah, from from people who who thought a lot about about this already. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So so I I think I think there is an interesting point in this because, like like, you can you can go this I mean, even if we start, like, from this very societal level in a sense, we can, like, go down to the very basic, conversations you can have just with, like, one person. I mean, you can you can have a very tough discussion already with one person that can be very complicated. It can become very complicated, especially when, like I mean, often if you have a conflict and you're in a very, like, resource rich situations, and then it's mostly doable. But especially when, like, resources went down and you have, like, really not enough time, not enough, I don't know, money, whatever is missing, and then you have a conflict, then it starts to heat up very quickly. And the only thing that helps, like, to to to start this or to to, to, like, solve the conflicts is, like, a very good communication style training, a lot of information available, and stuff like this. And and this is, like, from like like, in in in two dimensions in a way. Like, the podcast could, like, go from from the very basic psychological way of solving conflicts up to, like, the societal level of, like, scaling up to this high level of solving conflicts because, I mean, eventually, all also on the high level, it all bases on discussions on a low level in a sense. And and yeah. And and so it's also interesting, like, to understand or find guests here in this podcast that could help us understanding in a way, like, how do these conflicts evolve? How can we solve them on a small level, and how can we solve them on a larger level? And, and how can we include, especially on larger levels, how can we include, like, technologies that we have, like AI? I don't know. Perhaps perhaps, blockchain, perhaps, I don't know, scientific, insights from collective intelligence, from complex social systems, whatever whatever is around there, or just politics science or economic science. Everything base basically.

Yeah. Absolutely. With everything that is, like, concerned with the society. Yeah. Absolutely. And and and and as a like like, also, like, from from what I said, like, if if we're talking about society, is it, of course, includes also the individual and how the individual works. Yeah. Yeah. And and and I think I think there's another interesting point in what you said because it brings brings us back also to this point, where you said that there's sometimes this feeling of, like, feeling a little bit crazy of what we're doing, you know, like, engaging for, like, new democratic development, but actually no one has asked for it. I mean, you know, everyone is just asking for we need to, like, stay strong in our democratic approach in principle, whatever this means. But, there's not much around like that politicians are saying, like, we need a new way of thinking democracy. This simply does not happen. So no one I mean, no one is asking for reinventing democracy in a sense. So that's why it feels a little bit crazy, like, investing significant amount of time often, like, in our case, but also in the case of many other people with, like, very few or perhaps even no funding at all available thinking about these things. And I think, actually, this is also an interesting thing of this podcast. What is also kind of my expectation expectation, actually, is that, like, when we hear two more voices in this, in this in this, like, space of people who are thinking about things, maybe over time, it it feels a little bit more common. You know? Like, hearing to someone who has worked in this space for, like, five, ten years, perhaps. Maybe in a small niche and another one in a small niche working on this for three years and another one in like, one perhaps in more tech technological niche, the other one maybe in a little bit more, I don't know, sociological niche, whatever. But then hearing all these voices together after some time, I think, they will they will stay the impression of I mean, we're not alone. I mean, there are a lot of people thinking about this, a lot of people innovating things in this direction, and I think this will help us also to not feel so crazy anymore.

but yeah. But but they are then then then also, like like, of course, some I I I just added in now. Add some some some practical things, in in terms of expectations, like, like, just to get inspired, of course, by some others. So, I mean, I had the the the lucky chance to hear to the first recordings you have you have done so far. And for me, it was very interesting to hear those voices. I it actually much more than I've expected. And, and really, like, people and and also, like, what what is also a little bit surprising for me, it's not like just just like people are, like, coming up for, like I don't know. They've just started half a year ago, and it's, like, like, you know, just a hype thing, and then they leave again. But there are some people who are really, like, years of the time investing and thinking in this direction. And this really feels like there's something going on, and there's a chance to to develop things. And also, like, on the technological side. I mean, this is something where, yeah, this podcast will probably evolve a lot in the future, but also, like, in introducing all the, the technological developments. Because, like, when we talk about AI, we're talking about the risks. We're talking about how it can change industry. Maybe we talk about how it can harm social media. It can how it can harm society, but not so much the opportunities. And, perhaps we can put some effort or some more perspective on this.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So shall I start or so would you like yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. I can okay. So, yeah, a little bit to my background. So, actually, I have a quite long kind of, I would say, academic background. So, that that's started a little bit earlier, perhaps. So after school, I was one of the last, years where, like, the military service was mandatory in Germany. And, I, in in Germany, it was at that time possible to do, like, a social year somehow, voluntary social year as replacement for this military service where I decided for. And I was, like, always interested in understanding, like, how the, like, how the humans work in a way, but also in how the world works in a way. But the humans were a little bit more in my my, focus. And then I decided to do this voluntary social year in a, like, addiction therapy institution, like, therapy institution for drug addicted people for a year, and this was quite interesting. And I stuck with this idea. Like, within this year, I, I, like, strongly decided that I would like to study psychology, but I also and that was quite interesting develop development for me, decided to definitely not willing to be to to do therapy, because I always had the feeling, like, you know, if if you're working with drug addicted people, you realize at some point that all these problems that happen in their life, and these were, like, adults, are like like the the problems secured already in their childhood or at or latest in their youth. So if you look at their, like, life history, you realize, okay. That's a clear reason why they they end up ended up there where where they are now. And I always always felt like it's good that we have therapists. It's very important to have therapists. No question. But for me as an individual, I always felt like I'm too late. You know? I'm I'm I I I don't want to, like, help people at a stage where you cannot really help anymore. You can just make it a little bit more comfortable, but perhaps you can also help a little bit. But for me, it always felt like I'm too late. And then I was always thinking, okay, how like, where's where's the excess? And actually, I mean, you you mentioned this already at some point before. Actually, I thought I would like to improve education, like the educational system, because I thought this is like where, like, as a society, you can have most access in, like, improving the abilities and skills of people. But over time, this changed. Anyhow, I still decided to start psychology, which was a good choice, I think. But within the first year, I re I realized, like, it's, somehow not no. No. The the methodology was not, like, resonated not enough with me. So so psychology is in social science already a quite, like, statistical, method, like, field, but, it was still not enough. And, I I've had always, like, I need more, like, hard skills in a sense. And then I started to also, like, studying physics. And at the same time around this time, I also developed this hypocrisy project I'm working on, like, how, like, decision making could be scaled. And then, like, I did somehow everything at the same time. I was also working as a freelancer at that time for web development to, like, fund my studies. And, after around five years, I was able to, like, finish both, like, a bachelor in psychology and a bachelor in physics. And, also, the advocacy project was, like, going on and, like, I developed my my, web development skills. But I wanted to go I think I wanted to go a little bit deeper into the, like, method methodology. Yeah. The the methods part. And, I I I saw at that time that, like, I had different things, of course, in my mind. It was never that clear. But at that time, I I had the feeling, like, that perhaps science is the way I would like to go. And if I would look, like, the go to the way of science, then, like, statistics is what you need because this is, like, kind of the language of science. I mean, it's not only the language of science. If you want to to understand how things, like, work in the nature, it's always good to have statistics available because it gives you a little bit, like, certainty about what, you know, what correlates and what doesn't correlate in a way. Like, helps a little bit to overcome psychological biases in a way. And, that was a very good choice, I think, because I was not only learning a lot about about statistics in general, it also helped me to, like, like, get a solid math understanding. Because even though I studied physics in my bachelor, I I think in my physics bachelor, I was not able to really grasp the essence of math math, so of mathematics. But this was came then on in in this statistics master. And I also, got first insights into machine learning, and this was also quite interesting and very unexpected because I had not thought about machine learning at the time. But that was the time around, I think it was 2015, 2016, 2017, somewhat around, where, like, deep learning started to, come up. And it was, for me, quite interesting time in in, like, digging into this. And I learned Python. I learned, like, various building very simple neural networks. And then during my masters, I realized there is something interesting, like an interesting field called computational neuroscience. I was never hearing from this before, but at the time, I was, like it was the first time that I heard of it. And, in this field, I thought it I I found an opportunity in a way because I thought, okay. This is perhaps, like, the best chance to understand, like, human nature in a way because you're going down to the neurons, simulating them on your computer, and can check if it works or if it doesn't work. You know, you have a really good, like, check-in a way. And you can always you'll get inspirations from biologic from biology, some from, like, experimental neuroscience, and you get results from your computer simulations, and you can always compare it. In the end, it turned out that I was, during that time, always not so sure if it was really a good choice. I was like, like, probably every PhD is struggling struggling a lot during PhD time if it's really a good thing to to continue with it or to just drop it. Eventually, I made it and I finished it, but I'm still today not not sure if it really, like, was a good benefit for me or if it would have been better to, like, start something else earlier. But I don't know. I for sure, I gained a lot of insights that were that that are valuable in any way. Yeah. So in in in in any case. And, yeah, after that, I moved to Sweden with my family. That was just, like, about one to two years just pure survival. There was not much going on in my life otherwise than just trying to handle my two kids and, like, renovating the house and trying to, yeah, kind of survive the situation. And it was just last year that I started to think about, like, okay. What what next in a sense? You know? What do I want to take a job? I mean, with a PhD in this field, you have good job opportunities, but it also means you have to work full time and not much time at home. Or would you like to focus on freelancing? Or would you, yeah, like like to be the crazy guy that tries to to help improving democracy? And I somehow decided mostly for the latter, and I activated some like, I I I tried to to go back a little bit into science, but this time from totally another direction, like, a little bit more from the direction of applied IT design processes, like, collective intelligence perspective, which is still, like, somehow connected, but, yeah, very different in a sense. I made good contacts with professors who started to support me a little bit, but still without funding and, still freelancing to to keep me, like, to keep me surviving, with the hope that this sometimes plays out. Also looking a little bit into, like, entrepreneurship, like, if I'm I'm not part of a company and perhaps finding another one this year. Let's see. Yeah. But this is this is where I'm now, and I'm I'm kind of just starting. And, actually, when when when I met you with this idea of the having the podcast, for me, it was quite clear that this is kind of an opportunity. Not not only because you're like, like, I always thought you're, like, the perfect person of, like, interviewing people in this topic, but also, like, because it it could bring me into a position of talking a little bit of what I'm thinking, could, like, benefit my project a little bit, even if it's just indirectly, but still. And, yeah, and also, like, bring this as as we said before in our expectations part in a sense, like, bring this whole topic forward in a sense, and and making it a little bit more public and also, like, get insights from other people, making connections, collaborations. I mean and and this this is not something that is only for me a benefit or for you. This is hopefully also a benefit of for all the other people, like, for all the other listeners, but also for the guests who maybe realize that there's someone else around doing the same same thing for five years, and they were just not aware of it perhaps. Yeah. This is, was probably a little bit long.

Yes. Absolutely. That's that's what I also always say. So, like, I I met some people who said that, yeah, like, with your project, aren't you afraid that someone just copies your code when you do everything open source and you, like, document everything and every everyone can understand what you're doing? And I'm like, no. I mean, I would be happy if people would do it. Like

walk in the room. Of course. Yeah.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's it it it it it it doesn't cost any additional resources to share it in a way. Yeah.

Yeah. But but but but, before we start, like, drifting in another direction, what about you? So your background and

Yeah. No. No. I mean I mean, this this gives already a good impression, actually. Yeah. It's it's interesting. I I like it really. I like this, or, yeah, I like this combination of, like, history and technology. I think this is not probably not very common. I mean, actually, I experienced something very similar. Like, when I, like, studied psychology and then started, like, a second subject in physics, it was also, like, many people were I mean, me too, of course, were confused of, like, this is, like, very different. I mean, it's not too uncommon that people study two things, but then it's normally very related to each other. But, like, physics and psychology are I mean, both are more or less natural science, but, you know, it's quite far and distant. And and, I mean, if you if you study two things which are which is quite close to each other, you can always do most mostly you have courses that you can can use for the other subject. You know, if if you want to have a bachelor in this and a bachelor in this, and you can take some courses here and take some courses here and you can you can, like, interchange them in a way and save that save save some time. But if you study physics and psychology, you cannot exchange anything. It's, like, completely different. And it was also, like, quite a crazy feeling because, like, one day sitting in a lecture psychology lecture and one day sitting in a physics or math lecture, you have totally different people around you, like, thinking in totally different ways. Like, I mean, not totally different, but you certainly feel there's a difference. And I could imagine that, like, the difference between computer science and history is probably similar. Like, you know, we have to deal with completely different perspectives. People, I don't know, setting, I don't know, frame the the whole framework is different in thinking and seeing the world.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. And and it's it is this this brought up an interesting perspective for me because, like, I mean, this is also an at least in my perception, like, a quite problematic thing of our time because as you mentioned, like, there are so many, like, technologies available, tools available, knowledge basically, information available. And, in my perception, it is really hard, like, to come up with all of this. And you need to learn more tools, not just to be able to control these tools, but also to be able to, like, like work through all this information that exists in our very, very complex world right now. And I, I think, I really think that this is also very, important part of the problem of our modern democracies in a way that there's so much information available. And it is so hard to come up with, like, filtering this information, and, like, finding the good information in it. I I I think I recently heard in the podcast, I forgot with who it was, but it was like, he he stated that, like, like, getting information is not a problem. You know, you can get information very quickly, very much. No no issue at all. The problem is getting high quality information. This is what is hard. Like, like, distinguishing, like, the few information pieces that are really relevant between this ocean of information pieces, which are not really relevant. And I think this is something which is so hard in our times and also so hard for democracies because it's so easy to, like, like, bring peep people in directions where, like, your whole perception of the whole world starts to be different from what it really is actually. And it is so hard to, like, extract the the relevant information in the sense of what really is actually. Yeah. And and this this is also something where I think, like, the traditional democratic systems are not functioning actually anymore because they are not designed to to, like, tackle this problem. And, yeah, this is where we definitely need new approaches. So it's just just like, your perspective just brought me back actually to this, democracy thing.

Yes. Yeah. I mean Yeah. It yeah. It is like it is like this. Yes. Yeah. I mean yeah. It's, I I mean I mean, as as I said in the beginning, it's it's already very hard on a personal level, but, it's even harder if you have, like, groups of people and, like, group group dynamic dynamics coming into. I think I think also, like, there was another, another I think it's, this this this British economist who was like, a trader before at this, at this bank in in, Citibank, I think. He's I forgot his name. But he was, he was also also mentioning, that, like, we should we should see it more like this that, like, the unstable situation, I think it was from him, that, like, unstable and unequal situation in societies is much more common than a stable situation and an equal situation. So, like, like, when we grew up in, like, the nineties, let's say, nineties, early twenty February, it was very common. It it the perspective was was always like there is, like, democracy is on the rise. This is the way to go. This is where eventually every country will come up. Every country will live in wealth, and every single people will be wealthy in the end. So this is like the story that society was telling us in a way. But the actual story is, like, if you go back in time, it was, like, most of the time, like, inequality killing, like, some peoples with much with much, much, much more power and money than others. And, it was like, we have to be careful that it that it's not just, like, that we're not just like, after World War two, we had a small phase of perhaps fifty years where everything was wealthy and equal in a sense, at least sufficiently, and that things turned round back not to, like and, I mean, not only to an undesirable, state, but to a more stable, unequal state, like, in a sense that perhaps inequality is a more stable state than equality is. And, we have to be careful because keeping, like, equality costs a lot of effort all the time. Like, you know, you keep the fire running in a way. If you're if you're if you're not doing something, it just goes off, and that's it. And I think this is also a perspective that is, for me at least, quite new because, like, I grew up in a world where until perhaps some few years ago, everything was still in this perspective of, like, everything becomes just better every year. There's no way back in a way, But there's no guarantee that it's it will be this way. Absolutely not.

Yeah. I'm I'm I'm actually I'm actually very sure, but only if it's, like, if it's, like, done in a good way. One remark, perhaps, I just found that Gary Stevenson was the name of the guy who was, who's dealing a lot with inequality at the moment. Anyway, so, the point was sorry. No. I I thought you were stuck. Yeah. Yeah. Bring me bring me back to the topic. I was my my my my part of bringing in Gary was, like, confusing me. Bring me back to the topic.

podcast. Yeah. I yeah. No. No. I'm I I remember. I remember it was, like, the technology will definitely help. And, Oh, yeah. And I think it will because, like, from a very, like, abstract perspective, I like, this is a little bit like a perspective that I I gained from, like, my studies in a way. It's like, a world is very high dimensional. Very, very, very, very high dimensional in a sense. I mean, not not in in in the dimensions, in spatial dimensions, but in, again, general, a lot of dimensions. Like, a lot like, these informations are nested in a lot of dimensions. But we can imagine like, our like, our brain can only imagine, like, up to three spatial dimensions. So our vision, our like, what we can what we can imagine is, like, stops after three dimensions. And this makes a makes a big makes a big problem in a sense because very complicated or even complex things, we can only like, we cannot really grasp them because we can only see them in a line and, like, small drawing on two dimensions or maximum in three dimensions. So what we actually do when we do science or when we think or when we observe is, like, bring this high dimensional information space into, like, two or three maximum three dimensions. And this, of course, is always wrong very, very wrong. So we need to be very careful to, like, get the correct perspective on these two, three dimensions to make as, like, as least error as possible in a sense. And I think what, like, what the or the the opportunity of technology is to help us doing this dimensionally dimensional reduction in a very good way. So this is this is definite so I'm 100% sure, actually, that this is the opportunity. But the danger is that we, like and I'm I'm not sure. I mean, this is probably your point in a sense. The danger is that we use it in the wrong way. Because what I said only holds if we use it in the right way, if you use it as an assistant. Like, perhaps I'm I'm spoiling a little bit, but in the first episodes, I think there's a common sense between the guests that, like, technology should, in at least in in the society and and democratic processes, only be an assistant and never, like, take over the the process and, completely. But I I I I certainly see some danger that this could happen. Like, that someone says, okay. Let's build an AI that actually is doing the these these decisions for us. It will be better than what we do in whatever way, or that we I don't know. Whatever system we develop and, like, just leave it to the system because we're lazy, you know, often humans. Like, we are very lazy, so it's very easy to do it. And then it then I think it can be it can become a danger. But as as as long as we use it as an assistant that helps us to, like, reduce the information space to, to, like, what we can understand and to, like, make use of the information we have and extract the useful information, I think it will benefit definitively.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And and I think I think to to add here some some point is, like, if if an AI would take over the democratic decision making process, it would basically bring the power to those who decide what kind of data is used to train the AI because, like, the data that is used to train the AI decides eventually what the AI will do in a sense. And, I think I think it's it's basically just a shift of power, not like a change of power in a sense. There will be some company organization, whatever, that has, like, the power of of training this AI, and this those are the ones who have the power of maybe not deciding, but at least influencing in which way, decisions will come out. And even though so even if this this organization that is behind has good intentions, it's still, from a from perspective of the process, a questionable thing if if we if we really would like have that way. And I think in principle, this this this points out a very, deep problem, actually, I think, because I think I think I think the the problem is to, to develop democracy. And I think this is the stage where where we are right now, to develop a new democracy which bring out out kind of collectively intelligent results without sacrificing the opportunity from everyone to take part. Because you can easily build a technocracy, you know, where you have some experts, however you decide on these experts, but you have some experts deciding on what is best to do. I'm I'm I bet that probably if, like, a group of scientists would sit together for every, like, topic and would decide on that, like, independent from company decisions, independent from other irrational processes, biases, whatever, would focus on finding a good solution. It would not be the best ever, but it would be much better than what we have now. But it would ask the question of, legitimacy, like like, who is the one deciding who the experts are in a way? But in principle, this is what we need. So we need some way of system that allows us to have, like, more intelligent collective decisions without sacrificing the the democratic part in it. I and I think this is the challenge we have to face, and this is where we may use technology for. May maybe I mean, when when I said technology, I I always also include signs in a way that you know, when we talk about technology, we always only think on, like, computers or industry or stuff like this, like, more or less physical things. But when when I say this, I also mean, like, insights about, like, us humans in a way. You know, if if neuroscience makes progress, if the understanding of our brain makes progress, this also helps a lot. Or or or like like like if if science and direction of complex social systems make progress, this helps a lot of designing new systems because we better know how we interact. Like like, for example, game theory, you know, this brings a lot of lot of insights about how humans interact under certain conditions, and it does helps to design systems where you can bring out the best for everyone in a way.

Yeah. Absolutely. And at the same time, like, at the same time, bringing out, like, kind of better results, like like, better in I mean, it's it's hard to define better, but I would say better in the sense that if you include a lot of people in the process, it should be like, it it it the result should come out in a in, like, like, a reasonable time in a sense. You know? You I mean, you can have, like, with 100 people, a consensus based discussion with a very good result in the end, but it will take so much time, that you're perhaps willing to sacrifice a little bit of the result. Perhaps the result is even better with another system, to to gain, like, 100, like, 100 times faster process in a way. But, yeah, but but but but it it has we have to find a sweet point in that sense. You know? We we we don't want to sacrifice too much of of the result, of the quality of the result, and we don't want to sacrifice too much, of the efficiency, of the speed of the process. But, like, actually, in my perception, the current democratic systems are like the kind of both is not fulfilled. You know, it's it's, yeah, it's it's not that fast, not that good results, not that efficient. I mean, I mean, it's not bad. I mean, we can happy we can be happy that we have it, but I think there's a lot of, like, room for improvement,

We can see you're heading in the right direction. Please come back in a little bit later when it's a little bit more mature.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So, oh, what, this this really opens up a new new part. I'm I'm I'm perhaps we should we should not extend too much on this because we are already, like, much much, later. Like, this is much longer than we have expected. Anyhow, I I have to put something in here. So, I think I think this this relates a little bit to this phrase, code is law, which is especially relevant in, like, this blockchain web three community where, like, if you write a smart contract, it somehow defines how peep people behave. I'm still very impressed. Like, for example, if you look at the, Ethereum staking mechanism or also from from, like, from other projects, the staking mechanisms, this is, like, really a in in my perception, this is, like, already a very well developed collective intelligence mechanism in a way because, like, it counterbalances I I I don't know if it's intelligence in that way, but it's it's like a a social algorithm. That's perhaps a better word. Like, you know, it it counterbalances so many interests. I mean, Bitcoin was probably the first one, but but now it's gone a completely different level. It it counterbalances all interests in a way that, like, the the whole group benefits from it. And I find this super interesting, and I think there's a lot of more potential in the future. Yeah. And and I I think it also has the potential to, like, bring code into law in some some way. But this, of course, is then, like, brings up the question, like, who's deciding about the code, of course. But as you mentioned, this is then the question, like, we would then be required to collaboratively write code. This is then the core of the decisions in a sense. So we have to find ways to code together in a way, to indirectly define our laws, that that we, like, yeah, that we use.

Yeah. And Yeah. And I I think that that lies also, like, the question of, like, power again in it because, like, for example, if, like, you would write, like, like, code that is law in a sense, for for example, in blockchain systems, it really, like, asks the question, who is capable or who has the power of, like, taking part in this? I mean, this is something that, for example, Primavera de Filippi, interestingly, I've I've a book here lying around. I wanted to start reading it soon. Hopefully, I have some time soon. Or also, like, for example, who are, like, warning I mean, Primavera de Filippi, but in primaverity, but in principle of warning, like in saying, okay, like if, if we write like, like law in code in a sense, we need to be careful of who is like doing it actually. And, and like, who's governing this in a way. And if it's only like a few, let's say, male programmers that have the power to take part, because the, those are the only ones understanding like how to code smart contracts, for example, then, yeah, then you have, again, like a small group of people who can decide on how like code is is coming into existence. And and probably much more complex power structures structures especially in the blockchain world. You know? Like, a lot some people have a lot more tokens or coins than others and have more power in deciding what comes in and what is not coming in and so on. Yeah. So this is also a very complicated topic. Eventually, I think it's like this. Before we, like, should start implementing democracy and blockchains, we should make sure that, like, the participation process is, like, at at least sufficiently equal in a way.

Probably. Yeah. But we can we can take this as a chance to to add to our let's let's say it this way. I mean, this is anyhow an idea we had. Like, we just we just rescheduled it. So for us, we stop here and we just continue, I don't know, in some time again, because there was anyhow this idea of, like, having some reflections on some episodes. And I really I really think there are in the in the upcoming episodes, there are some very interesting things that we could discuss and that could could influence our discussion. Yeah. Let's let's stop here perhaps. I I I quickly just wanted to drop, like, like, if people are already listening to this, I would ask them to subscribe. And if they are listening on YouTube, I would ask them to like, to subscribe and to ring the notification bell, of course. Okay. I quickly wanted to, to motivate this. And with this, I think we can close. Right?

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. Perhaps one one thing that just comes to my mind, to, like, the listeners to just to just, understand the roles because they may ask during this episode. So, like, Alessandro will be the one, like, asking the questions and doing the interviews, and I would occasionally be here for discussions and things like we did now. Yeah, just just to have this clarify that people are not confused when, like, for the next few episodes, they are not seeing my face again.

thank you too. Bye bye. Bye bye.