 There we go. This is the Fellowship of the Link call for Wednesday, March 1, 2023. And we are off. And just by means of check-in, I mentioned this on FreeJurisBin on Monday. I set up a new talk I'd like to give in places called My Life as a Cyborg. And we puzzled through whether Cyborg or Centaur or something else and a couple of other questions on Monday. But my wife, April, posted about it on LinkedIn. That got a bunch of questions in traffic. And so I'm sitting down thinking, well, OK, I'd love to do this. I'd love to get some attention. What does it mean to be a good cyborg? And how do we do something about that together? How does that fit into our different projects? Because I think I'm more motivated toward this question by other people's explorations with chat GPT than I am with my own extensions into the brain, extensions through the brain and stuff like that. But I think that the nexus of those things colliding is really juicy and important and interesting, like how does the agorah mix with massive, mix with chat GPT, mix with my brain, mix with other sorts of things. And I was just metaphorically using a bunch of pots simmering on the stove with Pete before you got on the call. It's like, how do we make a stew out of those things that is nourishing? That sounds, yes, very interesting and very much like what we want. And I just sort of like firstly believe that it will happen this year. And it will take more like more weeks than I usually think that you should like for everything. But like it just seems like it's coming. Yeah, somehow. I think so. Yeah, there is like we did some just some very short experiments with like the DBT API and by we I mean beta, who is also part of the other project with the Agora like a year ago or so. And it was really interesting how it just picked up on like our specific patterns. And you know, like you could even back then ask it to like essentially generate a node for an entity and it will follow the Agora conventions. And this is what we look before everything before the DBT and so on happened. I guess my my position here, I don't know, like I would love to like read that. I haven't that you have a link. I will check it out or or you tell me where to go for links in general, like export from your reign. But like I guess my I'm particularly interested in exploring one aspect of this, maybe, beyond the actual generation or like the experiments, which are definitely going to be fun and interesting. So for for me, massive weekies and Agoras to some extent are like a federation of brains or, you know, how are we going to go? Those for for me, they may solve the governance issue to some extent. In the sense of like, how groups of people can gather a corpus to like fund you like a language model and then agree to to to use it, right? Or to like rent it or, you know, whatever the the community wants is. In particular, even that, you know, it seems like one of the pitfalls here is like, you know, your copyright and how to share profits from like models, like, you know, like stable diffusion, how could stable diffusion like pay back to artists, for example? No, I think that we may like lacking like some distributed way of agreeing on what's OK to train and use and what's not. It seems like maybe like the biggest companies that can essentially influence copyright law may get away with it. And all the others may not, right? That's what we are a third-figure model, you know. So I guess to work around that, we could just pull together our own corpora. I guess I think I'm following you, but I'm not entirely sure I am. Whether this is a question about in ultra property rights or this question about commons and how to build commons or or how that proceeds. And I'm thinking here about hip hop culture where there was a lot of sampling done and sort of before hip hop culture, sampling was clamped down on heavily by the music industry, I think. And then suddenly hip hop is like, hey, guess what? You know, here's a song that samples 30 different songs. Come and get come and catch me, et cetera, et cetera. And suddenly the sampling loosened or was more feasible or whatever. And suddenly you could see music everywhere. And is that what's happening for images? Or is this just the destruction of all creative talent for illustrators and artists and everything else? I think it would be interesting to find out my mind. I'm not sure that there was a lot of sampling before hip hop. There was certainly, but not necessarily a lot. And then hip hop basically started the sample culture. And then RIA or whoever got upset about that. The reason it happens nowadays is because they figured out how to do the cross billing for it. So everybody got spanked and their their hands got slapped. And then it's like, you can't sample. Well, we'll see your we'll see you if you sampled. But go ahead and sample and pass. And that's fine. So it was the the market mechanism to to make the copyright holders happy that that made it possible that you could have sampling kind of is similar. You know, it's it's funny to me now that I see non-official people putting up YouTube videos with soundtracks or even like whole chunks of video. For a while, that was something that, you know, would get you kicked. Now a lot of times it just gets monetized. Right. It's like, and YouTube says, oh, I know what clip you're using. And I'm, you know, we're monetizing the copyright holder. So it and that's that's actually even, I think, more automated than than the hip hop thing in the hip hop thing. What happened was if you're a record producer, you you got the you got the hint you're going to get sued unless you write down who who you sampled and you start sending them checks. However, that connection is made in the YouTube thing. They just checked it and they they just, you know, do the right thing. Right. It's like, I guess that that's a pattern where like I guess in my mind, I have this file as like flow network. I guess maybe a coefficient because, you know, like networks used for like flow, you know, flow problems in algorithms, which I've always been in love with, I guess. And, you know, like, once you see this, it's like a commons. Once you see this, you can find them everywhere. I mean, society is flowing resources all the time by definition. I guess we do. And like, yeah, I believe that what YouTube does now is like, it's way more prosocial. And I'm sort of surprised at how and even like, you know, flowing profits for transcluded in like resources, I think was one of the core aspects of the Nelsons. You know, like, I guess a pitch for Sanadu, you know, and we are still in there. Like, essentially, you know, we don't have a way of like, including, you know, copyright content in some other platform and then using, you know, a YouTube infrastructure to like actually forward the monetization. I'm not aware of any, I mean, there's probably many, right? But I was at the top of my head. I'm not aware of any protocols for flowing, you know, like, essentially, like solving the sampling or the mashup problem. I guess it's, I think the big publishers suppress that kind of stuff. Right. They want to keep it to like where they can meet with on a table. Yeah. Yeah. And as soon as it, you know, if it was flowing through the network rather than being through the publishers, they would have less control. Other, you know, other smaller competitors would come up and essentially eat all their profits, or at least I'm sure that's what they worry about. You know, there's one more thing. The image generators are a good example of it. And then the chatbots are similar. The image generators got into a problem because we realized that there's an asset that hadn't been being called an asset. So if you're a famous artist, the thing that you're pissed off at mid-journey and stable diffusion and Dali for is not copying any of your works. It's copying your style. So style used to be something that you couldn't steal. So it was never, you know, it was never recognized as an asset. And so the image generators started stealing styles. Maybe, you know, maybe one argument is that, well, you know, Pablo Casso said it, you know, good artist to steal. We've been stealing styles from one another for hundreds of years. That's nothing new. But then it became systematized. And at scale and anybody could steal, you know, it wasn't a fine artist who could steal your style. It was anybody, you know, running Dali or mid-journey. So so I think a chunk of a chunk of the what we and so chat, you PPP is the same thing, right? It's not that it's copying any of your copyrighted works. But if it's read your copyrighted works, then you're, you know, you're the way that you think about things or it's maybe even some of the phrases that you've coined are going to end up, you know, in its writings, you know, and some people are sensitive about that. And maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't be, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, that's a great observation, Peter, I think. Yeah, like the, yeah, I think you're spot on with, like, style being an unrecognized asset. Yeah. So I guess there's, I will expect it to be like, I mean, I wonder if you can develop any kind of like water marking for style. It's doesn't, I'm not sure. I don't think I would. Okay. Although that's, that's an interesting tactic to take down. I just, the big problem is that we have a disagreement whether or not style is an asset, right? So I think where it kind of fell down or where it fell out, where it got to were, I haven't followed this very carefully, but the image generator, people who are having image generators said, okay, we'll back off. We won't, we'll try to make it so people can't copy the style of living, you know, living artists, at least. So I think that the fix is not so much water marking a style. The fix is just having style recognized as an asset and being able to go to intellectual property court and say, you know, look, there's a bunch of people making art that looks like mine. I own this style, you know, they shouldn't and I'm going to sue them or whatever. Right. I guess this is where like, sorry, Jerry, go ahead. Just a couple brief things. Style is kind of what a mature artist develops. It's like, like, you know, you're getting somewhere where you when you have an identifiable style and people start asking for the thing that you do. So style is really kind of important, even if it's like not really reified or honored or otherwise sort of picked out the way Pete's describing. And then I don't know how you prevent one of these engines from imitating any any particular style that what they're what they're good at is essence. What they're good at is, oh, I know a maple leaf when I see a maple leaf and I can tell you that this is a maple and that's an that's an elm leaf because I know about the essence of what makes things maple leaf and what makes things sort of elmy or oaky. Hey, Chris. And and also even if you could parse out all the living artists to not interrupt their deals, there's there are a few entities worse on the planet than the inheritors of famous art who famously are basically shut down all attempts to do anything useful with their art for the most part. They're like errors. I don't I do not like errors of art and all that kind of stuff. They're pretty shitty or corporations that, you know, like poor rights and then like through taking my life for a hundred years. Yeah, I guess in general, oh, sorry, Chris, I can't hit that in general, I guess my first reaction is always like, it's also like, like, I guess I'm conservative in this sense, like, but depending on how you frame it, like, better not to limit creativity in any way, even assisted by, by models because of the risks, you know, like the killing effect that I can follow. And I guess your limiting style seems like something you wouldn't do before models, right? Because like, like you said, like it wasn't recognized as a particular like, like an attack vector or like something you could exploit, then we get this new tool and now we have to limit creativity in some sense more than before. So it seems like it could be like, like jumping like to fast on it and maybe like screw it up for future generations. And also like the living art is only, I mean, that's of course, like, I guess in a wood timeline, that yields renegotiation discussion on copyright law in general, which I think is completely unreasonable. Totally out of hand. Yeah, but like, yeah, it seems like it could be dangerous as well in some sense. And so there's the general question of, is this the end of traditional copyright? Is this just is are the copyright holders going to reassert some kind of control and try to crack down? Yeah, don't know. Maybe it's time for the copy of revolution. It's been it's been time for that for a very long time. Right. But in this case, you know, imagine like all these tools, a lot of young people, like every opinion, like a lot of people using mid-journey in this court and, you know, like getting a taste of what like cyber creativities to some extent, and then like a look, like a lot, make it comes over and says, like, well, actually, all these things you are enjoying, like are not illegal, you need to pay for, you know, like, and one person gets the right of like generating this, I maybe won't fly for a change, in particular, even that we are talking about a phenomenon that is global. I'm still like, actually, when you're like, when I think about like explaining to an alien, you know, like as a, as a framing device, I still, I'm sure if I could explain the current copyright state, even before this possible revolution, you know, like it seems like once it, once you have a global internet, I will have even copyright like fewer years than it has had so far to survive its current form. And somehow, like they conglomerate that whole copyright and the influence treaties are strong enough that they are keeping it upright. And I'm interested, has the, do any of us know of any efforts to rethink copyright thoroughly around the world that, that seem interesting and fruitful? One thing I thought of years ago was, I wanted to suggest to Google, for example, that they create attribution servers. And then one of the problems is the copyright conflates attribution with control, with ownership, with a couple other things. And I think attribution, this is just my personal take. Attribution is extremely important. You need to know that this person had an idea and then look at all these interesting riffs on it. But what I, what I was looking for was some kind of search engine where you could send it a snip of something, a piece of a tune, an image, some prose. And it would come back and say my, the earliest I can ever find anybody doing this is this thing over here. And then here is a tree of the apparent derivatives of that, the way you would do genetic gene mapping of COVID, like here are all the variants of that work. And all for the purpose of, oh, I'd like to reward the originator. And then you could send a tip, basically upstream to just the root or to the performance you just heard that was particularly good and the root and split it 50-50 or whatever. But, but, but if, if there was attribution that was well done, then you could have tipping. And I'm in favor of letting intellectual property like go in the world and touch people without paywalls and lockdowns. But then I'm in favor of making it really easy to reward creation and performance of all those things, like really, really, really transparently easy because the easier it is, the more likely anybody is to try to do that thing. And patronage tipping has gotten a little bit of traction, but not a ton of traction in, you know, online. Go ahead, Pete. I was totally, I think I almost agree. Except, except for the idea of paying somebody because they were the root node. Even tipping them. So not that you shouldn't be able to tip somebody. Right. But assuming that that's kind of the revenue model, I think it's still in the old world, right? How do you mean? Well, well, there might evolve several different norms or modes of tipping up the stream. And I and like that idea of tipping to the root node is just the first idea, the first thought that came to my head. I haven't really thought it through. I I it's it's not it's not bad in and of itself. But it it's a it's enough like the old model that it's dangerous. It's really dangerous to to think that way or to talk with other people that way. But we make it more likely to be adopted. This is really it may make it more likely to be adopted by the incumbents. Yeah, partly that and partly it's just the it's it's the wrong model to be paid for creativity. It it that's that's the root of the poison of the well kind of and it goes all the way back to that. So I I think you should be famous for being the originator. And people should come to you and say it's funny. The person I think of is Shepard Ferry. I don't know if he would be the root of the Shepard Ferry look. But he should get a lot more work. You know, the the person at the root should get a lot more work and a lot more attention. More people should want to hire them. More people should say could you art direct, you know, these other artists of mine that I want to have kind of the same look and feel that you did. But that. It's the I guess I guess I have a pretty strong feeling and maybe I'm not. I guess I still have it explored but I have a pretty strong feeling that creativity, human creativity is actually a shared thing. It's it's already a common. It's not a thing where, you know, Picasso was the guy who came up with the melted watch. So anything that has me walking in it, you know, should dolly. Sorry. Picasso is the guy who stole that. Dolly or all feeling for each other thing. So, you know, it's like, how do you how do you parse that into like, well, does that mean that a watch on a table that's not melted? Is that Dolly or is that somebody else, you know, the whole meltdown a little bit? You know, it's like all of that creativity stuff and look kind of like the Flancian's point. It's it it puts a priori limits on it when you think that's the that's the you know, that's so you know, I don't know, you should get more famous, but you shouldn't get more money for being at the root. So I like what you're saying a lot. And I agree. It's just that I have no employment opportunities for Shepherd Ferry, but I would love to give him a financial reward to make it easier for him to continue being creative in the whatever way that he might have like, like enjoyed doing. That's a great use case. Yeah. I think there should be societal mechanisms that enable that. Meaning a funding. You know, maybe so it wouldn't be this. But but just the off the top of my head. You know, there there should be there should be art councils and Shepherd Ferry should get a lot of money because he's doing a really cool thing that many people like. But so the moment you aggregated into small bodies that control pockets of money, you've suddenly introduced corruption and a bunch of other pressures. Yes and no. I recognize the I agree with you. They're they're manipulable, they're corruptible. They're systems that want will want to self sustain themselves, whether or not they're being effective and all that kind of stuff. Right. And yet that I think that's not a reason not to do it. So we can argue mechanisms. Well, you're you're also putting all the onus and things on the original creator, which isn't always a single person. So let's say I'm I'm Disney and I help put together and finance and produce one hundred and fifty million dollar movie. There are, you know, several thousands of people who are working on that you see in the credits. But what you don't see in the credits are the team of fifty people in the marketing department there, the forty five people in the distribution group, all the theater chain owners, all, you know, everybody from soup to nuts. And if that's a million people are touching that thing, which is in part as why it's as expensive as it is. So it's not just how do I renumerate the director and the actors or maybe the guy who shot the thing for a person of photography, but it's every interstitial person along the way. How do I how do I remunerate Flancian for being a Google engineer who has he may not even work anywhere remotely close to YouTube. But some of his work, I'm sure, impacts YouTube as a distribution channel. And it's not you don't see that you don't hear it. You don't know it. And it's all the it's all that invisible work that also needs to be supported as well. Yeah, so in a copyright case, so I knew the guy who in the late 80s and early 90s helped to push Disney into China. And it literally was a state actor level play. And Disney was the only studio whose material could be distributed at all in China for years. So they had a monopoly and they were taking and essentially a 90 percent haircut on what they would have been making otherwise, just to be in the market. And, you know, that doesn't even touch on the censorship issues and all the other work they had to do to be there. But they literally they were like, it's so valuable for us to be there and build a brand. We don't mind taking the loss. And whether we do it or not, it's all going to be pirated anyway. So we may as well take the loss and take the brand recognition for later. But it's taken decades for China to have distribution systems. And they're still probably only at 60 or 70 percent of what they would or could make out of it as a commercial thing. So it's you know, it's it's not just how do you do it and how easy is it to to tip someone or give someone? But how do they then in turn to shepherd fairy create a sweatshop for his marketing and distribution people for you to get his obey giant t-shirt and how do you hold him account to, you know, treating those people well? Or does he keep 99 percent of the money that comes in and, you know, pays nothing to the poor kid in Indonesia who actually sewed his t-shirt and you don't know, you have no way of knowing. So they're, you know, it's such a crazy complex problem. So at the origin end of this, I've got this thought distributed accounting for value flows, which is basically the many different platforms that are trying to figure out how do we reward people in a community for creating value of some sort? What does that even mean? And that's a big open question. There's co-maker, there's disco.coop. There's a bunch of a bunch of entities trying to solve that problem, the open collective, closer to us, Sensorica, Coordinate, etc., etc., the Becken protocol. And that feels to me like a really useful and interesting problem to solve because if that worked, then as you rewarded a movie, then you would drop your reward for the movie into the pool that would then just flow outward along this particular set of distributions of value if we wanted to do it that way. Yes, yeah, I've got a friend who is a ostensibly a movie producer who develops and puts together things and they use a fund based thing and it works for them in part because it's a you know, they're doing comic book, fandom type commercial material. But even then, you know, three quarters of this stuff they try and put into production doesn't go anywhere. And the fan base, who is, you know, essentially they're pre-buying their movie tickets and saying, I'm going to invest in this project at the level of ten bucks so that when it comes out, I. I, you know, they're never going to see a piece of the pie. But as investors, they're, you know, essentially pre-buying the book or the ticket or the whatever. And the level of failure, even at that and in the issues and the problems that she has trying to sustain that model may actually be way worse than the corporate stream model of going through traditional Hollywood. And which and she's done both. So it's I don't necessarily know that those things save. Save people's bacon at the end of the day either. And if it does, it's sustainable, but they're literally they're making a fraction of what they otherwise would or could have. I guess I just wanted to point out that a lot of these I think the end game, the way I see it in a lot of like a project in this space is probably going to look like a pattern we keep running into, I think, which is. Things that could be solved if we could like read in a source of truth in a route for a resolution procedure in a commons, in a default common and so on. And in this context, I think about this in this way. I basically I wrote something about this in 2019 and I'm still looking for it. Wrote about something that sounds a lot like we're already discussing some super excited about the conversation by the way. And it goes back to a coordination problem as well, which is, you know, how to like, essentially agree on a different like like a value flow like a network or like a flow network and actually have it have any chance to replace it or to complement at first the existing distribution methods. And like the idea I played what we did back then, and I guess I wanted to like surface it to get the opinion is like actually latch on to piracy. Say like we're going to build on piracy, we start with piracy because I looked and a lot of people were like, oh, piracy is a problem or prices, you know, like I'm more like the policy solution can't buy it. But like, you know, like we have all these copyright holders, these big companies and so on that are controlling the distribution, precisely of like profits and so on. You know, assuming we could agree on like one route for doing this, we could do a following, right? For everything that is media, so say movies to be in with on topic, right? I read on an idea, right? So each MKV, MP4, any kind of like a format you can find on Parallel Day for a movie, you can match it to like, you know, like the actual cultural artifact that you want to like model. And then each of these could have like a decision tree attached or many actually. So, you know, like we were we discussed going back to discussion, we discussed should this should the root of the root node be the creator? Who is the creator in the case of a movie? Is it a director? Some about, you know, like there's probably many. So that's a problem. In the case of a book, maybe easier is the offer if there's one. But, you know, like a default distribution policy. And then you can say, you know, by default, whoever is a root node can say what the default tree is. So whenever you inject whenever someone donates to this cultural artifact saying like, this is what the value it gave to me, it flows down or it flows in a network and doesn't need to be down. It doesn't need to be a tree. And by default, because someone has to set it, the creator receives probably a size all chunk and gets to say what the default policy is. If the person donating doesn't override, for example. Right. You could do around the system. I mean, and to some extent this goes back to I was something like a crypto growth for like a one minute. But it goes down to like the pitch of many air drops, which is, you know, you already have money here, essentially. So imagine, you know, people could donate through this piracy embracing mechanism and then authors, the book authors are, you know, are usually short changed by by the big publishing houses, say or that don't get the profits from, you know, that doesn't exist because people are not paying for piracy. They get donations this way. And the directors and the actors and, you know, the people that it may be the people that work in a movie that produce the movie could say, this is how we will distribute the any donations we get through the system. Right. All these people could claim this money directly, essentially, you know, using some identification method, which, again, is hugely complex, a priority, but trivial, if you agree on a source of truth, you know, just for the exercise. And then, essentially, this will be providing motivation for people to jump over to say the same goes for even for, like, for the big companies, like, Disney, surely, I mean, even though I actually don't like Disney because of copyright and so on, surely the people in Disney working on marketing and so on still deserve some part of the donations, right. So, but essentially, it will give power back to the people to say how they want to distribute the proceeds of the artwork. And this seems like a trivial attack on the current distribution systems. I essentially don't see why it won't work. Like, a lot of these things. Assuming we can agree on one such provider to be with Critical Match. So here's a good question for you, Flancy, and do you know if you're an author and you have a deal with a big book publisher for your first book? Of of the one dollar of every one dollar that comes in, how much money goes to the author at the end of the day? Do you know what that number is? I will guess it is widely, but I will expect it to be like what, 10 percent or something or something. It's called the standard idiot level for a first time author is about 7 percent. Samper's right. I get this. I get in zero for that chapter. Ninety three percent goes to the big publisher who then splits it up and is paying for the physical printing of the book, the material, the marketing, the editing, the type, type setting, the typography, the art, the art direction, all the, all the other bits and pieces. Right. And I think we tend to overvalue the contributor of the, you know, what one might call the O-Tour or the big name, the movie director, you know, even in Hollywood, the screenwriter, who really is, does the biggest chunk of the work and does it early and helps to get it off the ground. You know, they get no credit at all. And in terms of payment, they get even less. You know, writers get paid peanuts. You know, and at the same time, screenwriting is one of the most lucrative, well paid writing jobs on the planet. At least per word and at a level of writing, because the average movie screenplay is written at a fourth grade level. But it's, that's part of the problem is we always want to overlook the Floncians of the world who make the whole thing work, you know, but at the same time, as a platform, Google is taking generally the average movie studio, typically their fee is 30 percent off the top of almost everything as just a distribution fee, much less all the other pieces. But from that perspective, YouTube is essentially taking an 80 percent rake off the top of everything and then giving a pittance to all the creators. And everybody wants to be an influencer. They want to be famous for having, you know, a million followers on YouTube. But the number of people with over a million followers is a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall content. And they are making, you can't you can't make it's not a day job wage to try and do that. You have to have a, you know, it's a second hustle. So how do you reframe that? But it's Google is such a huge player in the space. They're literally taking all the money off the top. And for that thing, it may be useful to have the small creators do a thing. But you still Google still has to pay to keep the lights on and do the distribution on your behalf. So it's it's way more complicated than we're giving it any credit for. That's for sure. No, it's usually complicated. But I guess I'm still like thinking about it like in the long term, the system may have like a wish like some evolutionary advantage, right? Even they go back to the influencer thing, you know, like in between platforms, the influencers in wall gardens, this is a great example. That's sort of like tired, you know, join at the hip with a platform, right? They are not very often not able to like move, they are like active, like every use in a wall garden, but like more obviously so maybe because their livelihood is tied to that. And, you know, like building tools for like for like for that audience maybe could be like something that the comments could do better, essentially. And Sam, you're a little bit late, but we've sort of gone for quite a while here on on the theme of our dolly and all these sort of generative systems killing off creators, how do we reward them all of that? That's sort of that's kind of where we started. And we don't have to we don't have to stay on that thread for the whole call. We could we could wander or check in or whatever we'd like to do. Yeah, I mean, we just went straight in from the chicken, right? Yeah, yeah. Which is good. That's what we do. Yeah. It's a good time for the topic. It certainly is timely. I think so, yeah. I mean, I think that any good fellowship should include generative members. So I don't think the more interesting question for us is how do we how do we make good on the the opportunity to to have a much more robustly fleshed out world of. Of links. And structure. If I can riff on that, Sam. So I'm really interested in like one of the one of the dilemmas that I that that I chew on and that we're sort of bumping against here is, hey, intellectual ideas are should be used to help humanity and to help us sort our way out of all the problems we have. But we wind up locking ideas away in lots of different ways for lots of different reasons. And IP overprotection is sort of one of the big labels for some for some of that activity. How do we make it so that people can still work together and cooperate to build what we know into some some open space where we can share it out and then and then apply it, which means a whole bunch of other things as well. And so trying to figure out how to how to implement that could be. And a piece of this conversation is making me realize that I'm just trying to get money to people so that they can stay alive and pay for, you know, shelter and food. And there's another piece of it, if you bump up even higher, which is, hey, maybe we're moving into fully automated luxury communism and we won't need actual and the abundance society where we won't actually need money because things like shelter and food will be simple to get and accessible to most everybody in some other way. And that that's a revolution we will likely not live to see but a hundred years from now. Who knows, like larger, you know, changes that big have happened before, like the enclosure movements and the advent of industrialism and capitalism that that that changed the world at least as significantly as what I'm describing here. Go ahead. Yeah, that's a very interesting like a vision. I wonder if like I went back to the recognition attribution, fame, you know, I wonder if like money will eventually lose this, like, like, you know, chokehold of humanity to some extent, where like, we don't have money in some situations, you will die. But they will still eventually remain as a coordination mechanism, right? Because even like in a postcard society, presumably, like you will still need this, for example, how do you attribute creativity, you know, like value to some extent, how do you attribute the authorship if we want to keep around the author as resurrected, right? So so it's it's it may may mutate. So I guess at that point, you need to ask, do we still want to call money something which is like a more generic coordination device? But, you know, it will be interesting to see and hopefully it will happen in our lifetimes. You know, I'm curious actually, because we've used the word fame several times in this framing, and that it's useful for someone to be famous. What does that actually mean to be famous? And what is the value of being famous? And I would say that fame itself doesn't have any value, except in a marketplace to put value on the thing, which is why Steven Spielberg can make any movie he pleases, including horrible ones, if you really wanted to, primarily because he's famous for having made lots of good ones that made money in the past. So he trades his fame in for the ability to do those things. And sure, he'll make a big, you know, minority report every now and then, but he also has the ability to trade it out and force a studio to do something like Amistad or Schindler's List, because he feels like that's a thing that needs to be seen and done. And his fame then, in turn, allows him to put movie stars into those cultural objects that he, you know, if I wanted to direct them, there's no way in a million years I would be given that opportunity. And so I would I think if you talk to DeNiro, he would come act in your movie. But I'm just saying I he might, but only because I have a personal relationship with him. Damn it. OK. Can you invite him to the calls or or really, honestly, I probably would call Pacino first. But, you know, that's, you know, it depends on how big I need the hair to be to bed. Brando's gone. But even at that, he's going to have an agent in his life who's going to say, no, you shouldn't go do your friends thing. Or even in both of their cases, although probably a little more Pacino, Pacino likes doing theater and plays and wants to do that. But it's incredibly hard even for him to do that because of the way the financial system works. And for him to do it, it means reaching into his own pocket to finance it himself, which is an incredibly hard thing for almost anybody to want to do because you know it's a money losing proposition, which is why Spielberg leverages his fame to get somebody else to pick up the ticket. So you get, you know, depending on how Hollywood's working today, you know, you go out and you try and find that the Ili Samaha or the Arnon Milchin, who is running gun money out of some foreign country and needs a way to expatriate that. So you take a piece of his finance stream and you use Hollywood finance to move that money around in a way that, you know, it's Paola and he's losing you know, 20 or 30 percent is a fee for doing it where they are or were. But you know, that's you know, the cost of doing business. And that's mostly how Hollywood works, honestly, is by financial schemes to move money from one place to another. That most people just generally have no idea that that's going on. But you know, there's a reason Dodie Fied was a movie producer. Now, you know, he liked movies, but there were other reasons, other things going on that that caused that type of material. So it's a great analysis, Chris. I also want to recognize a different part of fame, which is the respect of thousands or millions or billions of people over months or years or decades or centuries, which is, which is not fungible, doesn't feed you. But it means something. Yeah, oh, no, there and you can look at, in fact, David Graber's last book, well, second to last book, The Dome of Everything. He looks at it, you know, early indigenous societies and how they operated. And essentially, we stole the idea of freedom from them to create what is now our society that is kind of a fusion of that type of cultural tribal let's keep it all together and support each other. And we somehow have managed to overlay industrial industrialization and capitalization on top of it, which is a weird or crazy thing. And then Aflantian may appreciate this. His last book that came out, it was written in French in 2019, but it just came out earlier this month is called Pirate Enlightenment. And we have this mythology of pirates from the seven to late 1600s, early 1700s. But he posits that a lot of the Enlightenment movement was put on and subsumed by pirate ships and the structure that pirates actually use. So at the time, pirates were way more egalitarian and democratic in the structure of how their ships worked. And we don't we don't see that because we're working on the mythology of what came after 100 years later. But, you know, he looks at a case study of, you know, a hive of pirates in Madagascar and how they influenced the world with ideas of freedom and enlightenment in ways that we never would have had otherwise. But then they their marketing department was selling something else to foreign government. So that's what we get. That's the picture we maintain of pirates when, in fact, it was they were many democratic societies that were incredibly much more egalitarian than we give them credit for now. Thank you for that. So. So piracy may, you know, we give it a negative connotation, but piracy is, you know, maybe responsible for our current form of government. Two things. The book Under the Black Flag is really good about this. And there's a couple others about sort of insurance among pirates, democracy among pirates, a whole bunch of other really cool things. And then you said earlier that that capitalism or whatever, our modern systems kind of overlaid on top of this other way to do things. I really like my own take on this is that capitalism had to shove all the other things out and neutralize them because capitalism needs a labor force that is willing to kind of go do anything. And if there's if there's a bunch of communities that are having a great time and that have control over the land that you then can't appropriate and like, you know, dig up or or or plunder, capitalism really doesn't like that. So it will do everything it can to destroy the other means of making a living. At least that's my perception, my jaded perception of it reading things like against the grain and dawn of everything and whatever else. So as and part of our problem right now is that our brains are way down the capitalist hole, witnessed the first 45 minutes of conversation for this call, trying to figure out how to reward artists to stay alive and put food on their families. So far down the capitalist hole that imagining other ways of living together is incredibly difficult for people like we can't do it. And you know, when people say well, what alternatives are there, I'm like, well, the Algonquins basically had matriarchal societies where the excess of the hunt and the gather went into long houses and the elder women of the tribe allocated it back out to whatever families needed food or whatever they had. That was the redistribution mechanism and it worked out just fine. And there's tons of other mechanisms and part of the message of dawn of everything is like humans were experimenting like crazy, trying to figure out how to make these things work. And then a couple models sort of lined up dominating. Sorry for the long monologue. That's OK. I mean, we definitely have there's something about capitalism that forces dramatic change in improvements. It's not and it's not just, you know, the industrial revolution, but it was the industrial revolution combined with capitalism that's gotten us much further, much faster. So the question is, how can you still have that but still have those other societies which moved along and didn't evolve nearly as rapidly? And, you know, if you suspect, well, other than the motivation of having more money, you know, having the shift in changes of improvement quickly over time would be a nice thing. We could also go back to those long house societies. Yeah, my hope there is that the interment. Well, I guess we are also on the internet in the field of the link, but like that may be the tool that we were missing. So essentially, like allowing communities to become so sustaining, so sort of governing to some extent in a way that previously could all be done by force or by use of money, right? So, you know, like in a authoritarian way or, you know, through capitalism to some extent. And, you know, I guess we will we are seeing that happen probably. So we are like within the storm. Sometimes I personally feel it's not going quickly enough for me. But here I go back to like some question, which is like, how can we actually, I guess, like, take the opportunity or like, or, you know, like just much, yeah, find a full group, like find the opportunity. And it's like, I don't know. In my mind, I always goes back to coordination point. You know, what is the minimum that we need to get like people to be able to coordinate on general, you know, projects? Yes, but that's that's the, you know, the glasses through which are you the whole thing? It's really cheap now to coordinate. So I don't think we need any more capabilities. We just need the coordination. It's like that it was doing an experiment being replicable in theory and actually being replicated. Right. We do the work. Yeah, we need and, you know, I think we need to get good at creating societies with new norms, which means we need to be creating hundreds and thousands of them. You have to do it a lot. So I.