Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 10-Jan-2026 09:37:32 JST Nathan Schneider

   Thanks for this.

   My first answer is that in focusing on governance and not use-cases, we are focused on shifting the grounds of power underlying this tech, and thus calling for different versions of the tech. This is different from the "AI for good" idea, which is about adopting the tools as they are for pro-social uses.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 10-Jan-2026 09:37:31 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     A second answer is that, for this documents, we chose explicitly not to focus on use-cases, because we felt the question of governance is more appropriate to Metagov's community expertise. But there are projects within Metagov that do focus really thoughtfully on AI use-cases, like the KOI Pond work for community knowledge bases.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 10-Jan-2026 09:42:05 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     Finally, note that the document does suggest collective deliberation about appropriate uses, implying a call for collectively restricting uses that do not contribute to the common good.

     In reality, however, I'm not sure how much traction that proposal will find. People are embracing these things in their lives, and I don't think the genie is headed back into the bottle anytime soon.

   • Embed this notice
     Nathan Schneider (ntnsndr@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 10-Jan-2026 09:42:06 JST Nathan Schneider

     in reply to

     None of the examples is perfect of course. But the more people build self-governed stacks anywhere, the easier it becomes everywhere.

     While the Apertus model may not reach an ideal standard, it does far exceed the standards of compliance we see from commercial "labs." That helps spur a race to the top.