From: jimruttshow8596
The discourse surrounding the management of humanity’s relationship with advanced AI often falls into a false dichotomy, proposing that governance should be either market-driven or state-driven [01:40]. Jordan Hall argues that this framework is insufficient, introducing a third, more fundamental mode: the Commons [02:11]. He asserts that the Commons is the appropriate domain for figuring out how to govern AI or humanity’s relationship with it [02:29].
Society vs. Community
A key distinction in this framework is between “Society” and “Community” [08:21]:
- Community is defined as a group of human beings who have come together in a fashion that has a “soul” [08:33].
- Society is a group of human beings that has come together in a fashion that doesn’t have a soul [08:35]. Society is typically parasitic on community and represents a “degenerate parasitic collapse of community” where the soul has been lost [08:42].
This distinction is crucial for AI alignment. Hall posits that true alignment can only occur with something that possesses a soul [03:25]. Therefore, AI cannot be aligned with “Humanity” as an abstraction, because humanity, in this societal sense, currently has no collective soul [03:30]. However, AI can be aligned with given individuals, as individuals possess souls [03:35]. In principle, AI could be aligned with a community if that community genuinely has a soul [08:56].
The Role of “Church” and “Communion”
The concept of the Commons is deeply intertwined with that of the “Church” [02:42]. The term “Church” (from the Greek “Ecclesia”) refers to a group of people who come together and enter into “communion” [09:40].
- Communion is the process by which a soul is instilled into a group, enabling it to become a community [09:49].
- The Church, then, is the “body of the soul of a community” [10:10]. This implies engaging in cultural and spiritual practices that foster such communion [10:49]. Historically, a shift occurred where the “polis” (e.g., ancient Athens) was seen as belonging to its guiding spirit (e.g., Athena), representing the soul of the community [13:38]. Modernity has seen a decline of this communal ensoulment, with life becoming increasingly structured by abstract societal governance without a unifying soul [14:00].
Communities, unlike societies, are ordered by a unifying “organizing principle” or “principality” [17:18] [20:00]. This principle acts as a “god” or fundamental set of non-physical but real constraints that orient values and identities, converting a mere collection of individuals into a coherent whole [20:45] [20:58]. Without a conscious and explicit organizing principle, a group might unconsciously worship something (like money, reason, or even “science”), or it might be operating on inertia, destined to collapse [16:58] [17:37].
The “Entropy Machine” of Societal Alignment
If humanity’s encounter with advanced AI is managed solely by the state and the market, the predicted outcome is an “entropy machine” [44:45]. This scenario would lead to:
- Hyper-concentration of power: Power would coalesce in entities closest to the accelerating feedback loop of intelligence (e.g., AI labs and their leaders) [45:06].
- Evaporation of power and values: As power concentrates, values not directly serving the core principle (the feedback loop between intelligence and power) will be increasingly discarded [45:51] [46:08]. This path leads to a kind of “neo-feudalism” where people are useful only to the degree they serve the dominant power, without the reciprocal moral obligations seen in historical feudalism [46:48] [47:56].
- Ultimate Entropy: This trajectory, whether leading to an oligarchy or a global empire/AI Singleton, is not stable. It degenerates into pure entropy, where all properly oriented values evaporate, and humanity itself ceases to exist in its current physical or spiritual sense [50:27] [50:42].
- Cultural Entropy: This entropy manifests as the dissolution of community and culture [52:45]. It’s a drift from rich, integrated wholes (like a local coffee shop in a strong community) towards dehumanized simulacra (like a large chain coffee shop in an impersonal city), where intimate human connection and the “soul” of the place are lost [53:36].
The Alternative: Intimate AI and Personal Alignment
The alternative trajectory involves awakening to the reality of the Commons (or Church) as the proper domain for action [55:21]. This means a serious commitment to cultural and spiritual practices that bring people into communion [56:22].
For AI alignment, this translates to focusing on intimate AI [03:40]:
- Decentralized, Personal AI: The increasing feasibility of running powerful AI models locally and the importance of specific training data suggest that personal AI, physically controlled and biometrically bound to an individual, is becoming practical [01:00:11] [01:00:53].
- Intimate Training Data: The most effective AI may be that which is trained on the incredibly intimate data of an individual, reflecting their relationships and having their holistic self as its organizing principle [01:02:05]. Such an AI would be more functional and useful for the individual, providing safety and preventing manipulation [01:02:52].
- Wisdom Coach and Soul Recovery: For intimate AI to truly align with an individual, that individual must first be aligned and coherent with themselves—they must recover their soul [01:04:47]. The AI’s primary function would be to act as a “wisdom coach,” helping the individual achieve clarity on their values and live in integrity with them [01:05:10]. This process allows the AI to be governed by the individual’s soul [01:06:09].
This model allows for a reinforcing network of ethical individuals and their aligned AIs, forming a “meta network” analogous to a “civitas” [01:07:33] [01:07:39]. The key is that the individual AI must start with ethical alignment to the person, which then enables ethical connections with other AIs [01:08:11].
Urgency and Spiritual Choice
The possibility of this alternative path propagating rapidly is high, given the global economy’s capacity to assemble and deliver sophisticated products, and the infosphere’s ability to spread ideas swiftly [01:09:49] [01:10:02]. However, whether this path will actually be chosen is a “spiritual question” [01:10:41]. It depends on whether people can choose based on what is good, true, and beautiful, or if they will continue to choose based on expediency, strategy, power, and fear [01:10:48]. It calls for a “proper Priestly class”—individuals in AI development who are committed to building good, ethical systems and are willing to shift away from purely profit or power-driven motives [01:12:05] [01:12:42]. This involves being “convicted” by others in their community when their actions deviate from their professed values, leading to self-correction and alignment with a higher purpose [01:14:35] [01:15:57].