The reservations expressed here are fair and Peter hasn't exactly distinguished himself as a holistic empathy-espousing human. However, extra-institutional pro

The reservations expressed here are fair and Peter hasn't exactly distinguished himself as a holistic empathy-espousing human. However, extra-institutional process is already a fixture in corporate law, for example arbitration. I'm dealing with a small US state-level jurisdiction at the moment and they can't even get their own rules published online (link is 'legacy.blah...' and times out) which makes placing trust in prosecution for flagrant violations impossible. I would go for arbitration through an official body but their timelines are worse and damage limits don't cover process. As a second example, it is also a fixture in housing market law in some jurisdictions. I rented out a house here in Australia and had bad tenants who destroyed things, stole things, grew weed and stole electricity from the grid, leaving me with various damages. After a protracted 'tribunal' (local jurisdiction non-court proceeding with reduced powers and damage scope), I got nothing despite a massive weight of undisputable evidence basically because they couldn't be bothered evaluating it and there was no effective oversight. The honest truth is I've had better, more balanced and effective judgements from Chinese courts. This shocked me. That is to say: there is clearly a place for faster and fairer resolutions, even if just for small claims. I can see strong support for the approach in these cases. We do need appeals to humans, and we do need a limit. But it would prospectively be useful in these cases, especially if the system is designed to avoid corruption and to run isolated from the internet. You could even have a plurality of non-profits producing best-effort judges and voting. Disparate versions could be regression tested with anomalous decisions flagged for human review. That way it would be very hard to game because targeted attacks could be readily identified. It's hard to think of a future in which humans are the most efficient means of governance. Carefully designed AI can free us of corruption, sloth, and procedural bullshit. As long as we have good oversight and transparency, from my experience as a business person across a range of jurisdictions and matters, it's hard to consider it worse than current solutions. So-called democratic representation is bullshit, and politicians know it: "Mamdani for prez!" He'll be sold out before entry - same as the others, just with a cleaner nose and cuter back-story. If anyone wants to build an alternative to Judge Thiel, I'm in.