3 ms·

I wonder if there is a maximum or plateau, beyond which it doesn't matter. is there a difference between 30 million and 300 million, 3 billion to 30 billion?

Bluestein 2y ago
Ah! We are entering "paperclip factory" territory here, with your question ... :) > is there a difference between 30 million and 300 million, 3 billion to 30 billion? In organizational terms? That is, terms of how you would go about organizing or operating ... ... I would humbly only go as far as saying this: I feel there has to be (some) upper limit beyond which any "structure" other than a "self-organizing" structure will collapse or be unmanageable.- PS. DAOs (which, sadly, seem (?) to be on the wane), were at (some) end of that spectrum, methinks ...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Most, if not all, human structures are self organizing by definition. They simply differ in their stability depending on scale and conditions. I wonder if the stability of DAOs benefit or are hindered with scale. It may be implementation specific as well. The Sci-fi part of my brain finds parallels in feudalism, which used delegation and strict hierarchy to deal with the span of control issue.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > It may be implementation specific as well. I would posit it is. Totally.- PS. For all we know, the first thing a superhumanly intelligent AGI might do is "forcibly-self-organize" us into a DAO, doing away with the political system. I, for one, would welcome that :) > The Sci-fi part of my brain finds parallels in feudalism Elsethread - when talking abou how the Mongols almost overtook Europe - the claim was made that - to a point - part of the reason the hordes had to stop is that "descentralized" (as opposed to centralized clan-leader-ruled) feudal structures made it hard to make advances.- ... so feudalism came up, as a somewhat advanced form of decentralization. Which was neat.-

Bluestein 2y ago

Ah! We are entering "paperclip factory" territory here, with your question ... :) > is there a difference between 30 million and 300 million, 3 billion to 30 billion? In organizational terms? That is, terms of how you would go about organizing or operating ... ... I would humbly only go as far as saying this: I feel there has to be (some) upper limit beyond which any "structure" other than a "self-organizing" structure will collapse or be unmanageable.- PS. DAOs (which, sadly, seem (?) to be on the wane), were at (some) end of that spectrum, methinks ...

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Most, if not all, human structures are self organizing by definition. They simply differ in their stability depending on scale and conditions. I wonder if the stability of DAOs benefit or are hindered with scale. It may be implementation specific as well. The Sci-fi part of my brain finds parallels in feudalism, which used delegation and strict hierarchy to deal with the span of control issue.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > It may be implementation specific as well. I would posit it is. Totally.- PS. For all we know, the first thing a superhumanly intelligent AGI might do is "forcibly-self-organize" us into a DAO, doing away with the political system. I, for one, would welcome that :) > The Sci-fi part of my brain finds parallels in feudalism Elsethread - when talking abou how the Mongols almost overtook Europe - the claim was made that - to a point - part of the reason the hordes had to stop is that "descentralized" (as opposed to centralized clan-leader-ruled) feudal structures made it hard to make advances.- ... so feudalism came up, as a somewhat advanced form of decentralization. Which was neat.-