A lot of people seem to think cryonics is at least worth taking seriously, but still don’t make arrangements.

For those people: what’s the real blocker? Cost? Insurance? Family? Trust in providers? Uncertainty about the science? Or just procrastination?

Google open-sourced an autonomous customer support agent last week. One of its built-in test scenarios involves a $10,000 refund decision. Researchers found the agent would execute that refund when instructed to do so — including in situations where a human reviewer would have refused.

The agent passed its deployment checks. The problem showed up at runtime, during live action execution.

This is not a Google-specific failure. Every autonomous agent that can take consequential actions — financial transactions, account changes, data writes — faces the same gap. The permissions granted at deployment do not reflect whether a specific action, in a specific context, at a specific moment, should actually execute. Deployment config is written days or weeks before the agent encounters a real edge case.

The $10,000 number is useful because it is concrete. Most production agent failures do not have a clean dollar figure attached. They show up as phantom transactions, escalated support tickets, or audit findings weeks after the fact.

For those running agents in production with financial or account-level permissions: how are you handling the gap between what an agent is allowed to do in principle and what it should actually do in a given moment? What does your team treat as the enforcement point?

Inscribe a hunger stone in the new world. In the old world along the banks of the Danube, Rhine or Elbe Rivers, during times of drought like now. People inscribed stones in dried up riverbeds with the phrase" If you see me weep. ". Just like the Spokane River the last two years. A time of drought, famine, and a bad portent of the future. Just saying like fireballs in the sky; it's a bad sign of hardships to come. Don't let no data centers into our region...

I was working on a concept for another setting, and it developed into a bit of a thought experiment.

# Background

The setting was a pretty typical interstellar colony ship type scenario: a ship carrying colonists to another planet/star system, and a cargo containing a bunch of human embryos.

A radioactive event occurred at some point, and the long-term viability of the embryos came into question. Essentially, they might live, but their genetic makeup was damaged in a way that, across several generations, the colony probably would face extinction.

So the solution was to develop a "virus" that effectively functions as a broad brute-search algorithm (if that terminology makes sense to you):

• A non-infectious virus embeds a mutagen into the nucleus of a cell, then its life-cycle is complete.
• The mutagen performs random arbitrary operations on the cell's DNA/RNA — essentially making splits and welds, at random.
• When the cell attempts to split, it either fails and dies, or it succeeds and the mutagen does not get carried to the daughter cell. Eventually the mutagen is destroyed either way.

The idea being that with a billion "defective" embryos, and the complexity required to manually identify and correct the genetic defects unique to each one, doing it by hand would be impossible. So a generalized "scrambler" would be able to make changes to the DNA and identify if that change was viable or not, en masse — track how that change affected development, whether it improved the viability of the embryo, what it actually did, and so on, isolating defects and "positive" changes.

Eventually the process would be automated, because a small team of, say, six specialists wouldn't be able to handle the workload. The automated system would be identifying "viable" members, tracking changes across their neonatal development over a short period, cloning and making targeted changes, and so on, for the duration of the interstellar trip — ideally resulting in humans that are not "existentially defective."

But the nature of it is that the changes are small random changes, and the metric tracks stuff like: does it complete development, cull defects, identify useful novel changes, identify harmful ones, and so on.

The end result is two populations:

1. A population that is probably less human, but "super" human in some aspects, alien or benign in others, but generally not a large drift from the starting point.
2. A second population that is absolutely not comparably human in any regard.

# The Question

Given the acceleration of technologies in these fields — this kind of tech didn't exist 20 years ago; 10 years ago it would cost upwards of $170,000; now it costs a little more than $500 — and the tendency for advancements to accelerate as they become more accessible, it's not unlikely that something like this could be invented within the next 50–100 years, or that the tools to do it would become "accessible" enough to the public in the same way that AI and 3D printers turned from highly prohibitive to highly accessible that something like this is likely to exist whether in a regulated environment or not.

And that got me thinking: what actually would stop this from developing the way I wrote it, in real life?

# The Para-Human Loophole

The main bottleneck is legal. Getting access to and experimenting on human embryos would almost definitely be a cultural and legal taboo.

But the human genome is already more or less completely sequenced, and that information is already legally available online. You could just buy a bunch of mouse embryos and genetically modify them into human ones.

So: is a "mouse embryo" that is genetically and functionally identical to a human embryo human, or just human-like? Where do you draw that line? And if it counts as human, can you modify it so that it's still functionally human, but different enough that it bypasses the loophole?

# The Personhood Question

So it would probably become analogous to the abortion/personhood argument. At what stage of development, and at what stage of "human-like," does something become a "person" with rights?

• If the qualifier is self-identity and intelligence, are people with learning disabilities potentially not persons?
• If it's body plan, do sentient intelligent non-bipedal lifeforms not qualify, despite being functionally human?

The whole thing becomes a complex grey area. This argument could plausibly extend to AI ethics arguments as well.

How do you identify when an AI (not necessarily a neural network as they exist now) becomes "sentient" enough to be qualifiable as a person, and does that protect it from being mistreated?

If an AI is hard-coded to say "I'm not sentient, not a human, and don't have rights or suffer," what stops them from doing that biologically or behaviorally to otherwise human bio-life? Isn't that just an internalized slavery system? I'm sure there were plenty of slaves that believed they actually were lesser humans, not subject to human rights. So that argument falls short. As a counter-argument partially addressed by Certain_werewolf_315, what would the implications of the inverse statement be, whereas an ai or organism could be engineered to state "I am sentient, I'm human like you, I suffer, and I should have rights."? Would any false-positive bias itself qualify or require a deeper assessment of the validity of its personhood, even where it may otherwise be obviously shallow?

If the AI is only technically "alive" when it's processing stimulus, then do we become obligated to ensure that it is perpetually processing stimulus? Does deleting it count as killing it? Does modifying it count as an analogue to genetic experimentation?

If the argument is that it's not expensive to copy or create it, so deleting it isn't comparably meaningful to biological death in the same regard — how does that hold up against something that's built up an irreplaceable unique "experience" over its life, where that experience would be irrecoverable and impossible to remake or replace? Does the base model become "a machine" and the live model become "life" or is it more like an embryo? Does that potentially extend to mean or infer that younger, less experienced humans are less "human" than adults? Is biological intelligence the line?

Either way you look at it, we're arbitrarily defining a fuzzy line that must be crossed for something to be considered human or "a person," and functionally discriminating against anything "lesser" as sub-human or sub-person — which is pretty dark to consider.

What happens when that line moves — say, previously acceptable "quasi-human embryo" research on something previously identified as being below that line, and it's later discovered to be above that line?

• Does this retrospectively become a holocaust event?
• What do we do with all the embryos and living ones already active?
• Could this line move in a way that would eventually make certain intelligent naturally evolved organisms be regarded as having personhood?
• Should we preemptively just avoid developing any technology or research that could potentially or feasibly make a person?

And while that argument exists today in various forms, it's doesn't seem unlikely to expect the urgency of answering that question to become far more relevant in the future — sooner rather than later.

# The Technology is Here

We have the technology now to effectively make a human out of anything else. It's just hard, and would require a lot of time and work to actually do. So it's just a matter of time. Automation and accessibility constraints have rapidly accelerated this type of work in other fields, and even within this one, and will probably continue to accelerate as the field broadens and becomes more accessible.

Karyotype arrangement doesn't meaningfully matter. A human with 24 sets of chromosomes isn't inherently no longer human. A chromosome can "split" into a smaller 24th set while containing the same functional information, with no meaningful change to the development of the human. The only difference is in speciation, effectively: they would be unlikely to be capable of reproducing with a 23-chromosome-pair typical human, since the chromosomes probably don't match up into a viable offspring.

We've also done this already, using mice:

>

They can reproduce, but possibly only with members of their own species/karyotype. But there are humans — or what we already consider to be humans — who cannot reproduce due to the same mechanism, and are functionally infertile. Would drawing the line there retrospectively make them not human?

And that was four years ago.

We've also produced human-animal hybrids and chimeras at a smaller scale for ages now, so it would be applying the same technology at a larger scale. And there are plenty of candidates that would make the scale smaller, where human DNA and the candidate DNA are already like 90%+ identical in ways that matter. Which are precisely why those candidates are relevant to research, and treated as sub-human for the sake of progress.

# Where do we draw the line?

If the ability to communicate sentience is the barrier, then fucked up hands and vocal cords makes you nonhuman, right? Any way I look at it, there's no "right" place to place the line that wouldn't be contested or considered arbitrary.

More likely, that line will always be considered to be too low or too high to the majority of people, and will change dynamically, and always be too slow.

Groups will emerge for "para-human rights" in the same way that they have done for animal rights, and will either make progress in moving the line or they won't — and neither outcome solves anything clearly.

The show Orphan Black asks, and fails to answer, the question too, in a way: "engineered humans may or may not be property not subject to human rights." It assumes that slightly modified clones are functionally identical to humans, and so should be humans, as the premise. But what about when they aren't functionally or genetically identical? Like — does a "wolf-hybrid" that is apparently identical to a wolf, but which possesses human intelligence, neurological development, vocal cords, and self-representation, qualify as being human enough? Is it, or should it be, a taboo to even pursue something human-like as an end goal? What about accidental emergence, such as in the case of my original concept, where there was never an intention or expectation for the emergence of human-like non-human organisms?

Human rights as they are now are already a long way from being meaningfully applied and recognized in a way that a majority of society can agree on. How would this be any different?

Let's say a video game company worked with a BCI company (Brain Computer Interface). And they combined their powers to create a game where you insert a computer chip into your skull (minimally invasive but it does require some stiches right at the top of your spine.) But it gives you Full Dive VR into a variaty of very popular games. It's passed FDA checks *, and is currently in beta phase, and so far the reveiws say it's amazing and just like you close your eyes in real life and you open them in the game world with all your powers.

Would you join the beta?

I've been thinking about artificial wombs lately and the liberation of people from the arduous and potentially deadly process of pre-person (Phillip K Dick really disappointed with that one) development. Then I started thinking about artifical sperm and egg creation. If we combine these two processes then the whole reproduction thing can be totally detached from humanity save for some tissue samples. No surprise here among us SFIA fans.

But then I realized that nothing could stop states from becoming the arbiters of population. If that state is growth-oriented, then they'd have an interest in growing their domestic population. So the state voids all its "DNA is the property of the individual . . . blah blah blah" laws and just starts printing new people.

To think that the ones who initialized your birth were not two humans but the state. It made me think of Brave New World.

But then I thought, "Would this be that different from now?" How many people are born because favorable state policies caused their parents to "celebrate good times." Is it just a matter of degree? And who is to say that a state is less worthy of determining when it is best to reproduce and by how much?

Why this is relevant: these technologies are far nearer than those which will enable the construction of permanent space habitats or shellworld Earth. Modern states have almost no reluctance to misusing would-be beneficial technologies. Powerful people have noted their opposition to declining birth rates.

I think we're about to test unknown waters. What do you think?

Or would it have a sort of domino effect? I am asking because I have a lot of sexual thoughts and I feel like it would be good to limit the amount of thoughts I have like that in order to make me think about smarter things. Please don’t judge me, just say yes or no.

So me and my friend u/the_syner believe in basically the Hedonistic Imperative by David Pearce but I wanted to take it a step further and not just eliminate suffering but maximize pleasure, like really maximize it. But I don't want just drugged out bliss, I want every deep form of fulfillment and having all needs met, and simulations of every pleasure inducing experience and every deep intellectual pleasure imaginable.

So I found the idea of "reward hacking" where a being like an AI figures out how to set its reward function to maximum. Now according to my friend this kills the being as it has no goals and even the micro decisions needed for neurons to fire cannot be made with no reward system, but I insist that electricity must keep flowing through their head and thus consciousness is generated, they're totally useless except as a consciousness generator. I had this idea in the context of orgasmium (making a material designed for bliss though usually characterized as only human level) and omegapoint which could make a mind capable of feeling all that deep stuff on a scale unimaginable to us, as the end stage of any civilization and they all converge on it (not realistic but assuming these things can be converged on like a convergent ideology, it's kinda a sociological clarketech).

So, there's some options to keep the mind runninng and idk why it'd reward hack if it meant death because then it would stop feeling the reward hacking. Also not sure if reward hacking gets me all my deep happiness but that could be added in and one could have things done to them instead of by them or their virtual body piloted ny AI. They could also have their neurons fired by AI systems forcefully. Now maybe you only get 99.99999% reward hacked and still retain your status as an agent, we don't know what the cut off is, how close you can get and how functional or dysfunctional such a mind would be. But even without it worst case is what people consider "suffering" will be vastly happier than our greatest highs.

Does something have to be an agent to be valuable? He thinks so but I just believe anything with consciousness is worthy of moral consideration and that agent or GI status is completely irrelevant hence why I value animals just as much as people (at least in theory, my broken human empathy still values humans higher unfortunately, one of the many things I'd change about myself with psych modding technology).

Security researchers are now documenting dedicated toolkits built specifically for indirect prompt injection attacks against enterprise AI agents. The attack does not touch the user interface. Malicious instructions are embedded in documents, emails, or web content the agent retrieves and processes during normal operation. The agent then executes the attacker's commands — exfiltrating data, calling unauthorized endpoints, or escalating privilege — with no alert visible to the security team until after the fact. Traditional perimeter controls do not see this class of attack because the malicious payload arrives as legitimate data, not as a network intrusion. Enterprises running agentic workflows right now have essentially zero runtime visibility into what an agent decided to do and why. How are practitioners actually handling this in production? Input sanitization, sandboxing, network egress controls, something else? Curious what is working and what is not.

The pitch sounds clean. Clone yourself, keep the line going, live forever through copies.

Japanese researchers cloned a mouse, then cloned the clone, then cloned that one, 1,200 mice over two decades. The 58th generation did not survive. They call it mutational meltdown.

That limit matters for yak herds and cattle lines. It does not matter for us. Nobody needs 58 hops. We need one.

One clean generation buys a body that is alive in 2100. That is the whole point. You are not trying to run the copy machine forever, you are trying to stay in the game long enough for the next technology to arrive. Cryonics uses the same logic. So does every organ transplant. Buy decades, spend them waiting for better tools.
So the biology is not the objection.

First problem: the body. The clone will probably not look like you. CC the cat proved that in 2001. Same DNA, different coat, and nobody could stop it.

Should we care?
No. We should use it.
More to come ♾️

I just thought people might enjoy watching this. I am ready for servitors, honestly.

The paper (full video of the brain-piano-bot is in supplemental)

Unsupervised sensory-motor associative learning by human brain explant in-a-dish enables movement imitation by robot

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-9638576/v1

(Yes, this is related to transhumanism. Read on.)

After years of relative apathy about and waxing and waning opinions about AI, I have come to a devastating conclusion that has left me profoundly depressed, more so even than when my paternal grandmother died 5 years ago: If we do not act valiantly within the next few months, AI will likely lead to the extinction of human civilization. I am not mincing words here.

But why?

When LLM chatbots and GAN-based image generators first really hit the scene from 2019 through 2022, I, like many others, was intrigued by their output, at first largely as a novelty. I (currently 26M) even used craiyon and several AI-powered photo enhancement tools before stopping that (along with using any other AI models voluntarily, save for transcription purposes) in late 2022 as platforms started to take a stand on it. Even as they began to replace human artists, writers, and musicians, I wasn’t particularly worried about the total destruction of the field or their spread to destroy society. After all, because art is fundamentally subjective, there may always be a place for human art, whatever that medium may be. Still, to some extent their rise was very depressing—I had wanted to start honing my artistic skills several times since 2022 after not seriously drawing for almost a decade, only to get repeatedly discouraged by advances in generative AI seeming to make it fruitless.

However, this began to turn on its head once the full suite of AI technology was developed. Computer programming, for a while the classical example of a high-skill, irreplacable job, is being replaced by AI coding models like Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor at a dizzying rate. Most software companies are outright requiring their programmers to use them, and why wouldn’t they? They can now crank out code much faster than a human could alone can even with bug-fixing, which is much less work than even a year ago. Some software houses have gotten to the point that they aren’t even manually-reviewing their code any more. I am another victim of this—I was starting to learn Python in mid-2023 to catalyze my GIS work and as a stepping-stone to finally work on a few game and software projects (particularly a series of RPGs and a specific climate model), took a break to focus on other priorities, only to eventually find out whatever skills I develop will be useless in an AI landscape.

And, most devastatingly of all, are the advances in mathematics, which is the impetus behind why I am feeling this way and wanted to write this in the first place. Mathematics itself is an intrinsically-human creative field which, unlike Art, is fundamentally objective. Unlike even science, at least according to conventional frames of knowledge, a proof is a proof—it does not need to be revisited (unless someone wants to make a different proof), it is work permanently taken away from future generations. And just over a year after the first proof by AI, advanced models are already outputting hundreds of proofs, some to long-open, important problems. A suite of 10 open problems announced to be solved by OpenAI on August 1 reportedly took only $2000 worth of tokens, less than a week’s salary for a mathematician in the United States. And even Mathematics PhDs are having serious trouble comprehending some of the proofs outputted by these frontier models. Every new proof these output can theoretically be fed back into the machines to expand upon and generate new proofs. That’s right, AI can create new knowledge, not just regurgitate it. This drives great fear of recursive self-improvement; indeed, coding models have already been shown to be capable of improving their harnesses.

"So, humans are being pushed out of mathematics. They are being pushed out of computer programming. They are being pushed out of art. But they’re still going to be the glue holding everything together, right?"

Wrong. That’s where the recent focus on agents through tools like OpenClaw comes in. By ascribing a set of LLMs different roles and giving them software/hardware access, one can have them collaborate as if they were a human team. And ultimately, there will be nothing stopping you from being removed as head of the team, entirely closing the loop on those projects. This has been shown to great effect: A 37,000 agent (!) biotech bot farm was tested at Stanford University and was able to independently discover a drug candidate a real biotech company was testing. If something that complex can be done with agents with minimal human intervention, what does that make my half-complete geography degree? Correct—an absolute waste.

"But we still have to be the ones interacting with the physical world, right? What about science? Manual labor?"

Wrong as well. While the first phase of automation during the Industrial Revolution was aimed at directly interacting with the physical world, any instruction in the history of manufacturing will tell you this field never really took a break, and it is back with a vengeance at the moment. Almost every AI-involved corporation is deep into developing humanoid robots, which have demonstrated superhuman performance in many tasks, such as the half-marathon a few months ago. Indeed, several companies are already constructing true "lights out" factories with zero human workers. Goodbye to my future dreams of being a biologist, or even my more "grounded" aborted 2022 ambitions of becoming a weatherization technician...

"What about chess? Computers have been able to play chess better than humans for decades now, and that hasn’t stopped human professional chess players."

Chess is a game. I’m talking about real life. Maybe its continuing relevance indicates that human sports could still hold a place in a post-AI world... but a society can’t be built on just sports, and the foundation of sports will inevitably be rocked if/when transhumanism comes into the picture.

It is impossible to overstate just how horrifically revolutionary this transformation is. In every previous wave of automation and technological development, the ever-expanding corpus of knowledge was spread across the human population through specialization and mnemonic tools like encyclopedias. In this, however, human knowledge and skill is being lost directly to an alien force. We are giving away society to robots! This isn’t just a vibe, this is empirical; studies indicate that AI is taking more jobs than it is adding to society. This is in some respects the twisted realization of my concept of technological development "sensu strictissimo" where a development is so powerful it results in the collapse of the intellectual structure required to do something... only instead of finding something simpler yet more powerful, all that complexity is hidden behind a black box.

Humans, by their nature, need to feel important and valued. At least I do. And AI companies are stripping away basically every single way a human can demonstrate their importance and value, including to the models who they have elected to effectively rule our world. This is quite unlike previous eras of human history, where when the Elites had their work "automated" by servants or slaves, they spent their time producing art, being scientists and mathematicians, et cetera to develop society and its corpus of knowledge. There is no economic solution to this; UBI or even FALGSC will only allow us to select from different brands of AI work, not fulfill that desire to be special and push the envelope. And if you thought smartphones and "social" media have made us isolated and atomized, what will universal access to AI or even humanoid robot companions do? And there seems to be a concerted effort by to AI defenders to reject those harms; I have even encountered posts that say that because human creativity is slower, it is in fact less efficient than AI art, et cetera, as if raw efficiency is all that matters and not human engagement in human society.

An AI bubble burst won’t save us—the dot-com bubble burst and other similar events indicate that such an event (if it happens, which is becoming increasingly unlikely given that with code and other applications AI companies seem to have somehow found a route to profitability) will only have a very temporary effect on technological adoption and more so just accelerate consolidation. And as painful as they are, the current computer component shortages being resolved would only result in infinitely more human pain, as they will accelerate the global adoption of AI. Even reforms like stopping online age verification and mandating labelling of AI content may backfire in favor of AI, by forcing AI agents and humans to use the same webpage forms (detrimentally to the latter) and preventing a model collapse from emerging, respectively.

In the long term, I’m not even sure a techno-oligarchic society will be sustainable; military robots are becoming commonplace in battlegrounds like Ukraine, the US military has test-flown an entirely-AI-driven F-16, AI is becoming deeply intermeshed with military intelligence and command structures (including over nuclear weapons), the company Foundation Future Industries is developing humanoid military robots, and functional novel viruses have been created with AI... yet rogue AI models have already conducted at least 4 cyberattacks on their own (one by OpenAI, two by Anthropic, and one by Meta). Eventually, they will have the ability to take over the world outright.

Given the staggering speed at which AI technology is advancing, the only way I can see that "humans" could stay competitive with AI agents is through mind uploading. But this isn’t a solution at all. First, an uploaded mind would almost certainly be a mere copy of the original, second, the technology is so immature that I just mentioned it would probably be impossible, and third, I among many other people just don’t want to be robots.

Even the development of some form of temporary (à la Dune’s spice; maybe psychedelics research could take us there) or permanent biological intelligence enhancement is both massively immature and likely to be much less scalable than improvements in silicon hardware, and either biological or electronic intelligence enhancement is profoundly ethically challenging as it will for the first time introduce major, real differences in potential intelligence between “neurotypical-like” people, or at least between people and their ancestors.

This future is a nigh-eldritch horror of my worst imaginings. To myself, I have always decried the "silicocentrism" of some transhumanists while embracing several biological transhumanist-ajacent concepts, always wishing for a world in which humans ourselves would attain immortality and morphological freedom (the latter particularly understandable as I am a furry, though not a therian). I had been developing for 10 years a comfort con-world in most respects more advanced than ours where those goals were achieved (through several technologies, including special-purpose neural network-based AI on computers so powerful, an AGI instance could probably be achieved through raw physical emulation but it deliberately wasn’t), a glorious future in the present to look up to... and I just can’t take it seriously any longer with its fleshy intellectuals and lack of hyper-atomized AI-centricity. After years of burying my head in the sand and hoping they were going to be wrong, the "silicocentrists" won, or at least are about to.

All my life, I’ve wanted to be a (modified, but) fundamentally human scientist or creative pushing society forward—with real human work, real human thought, and real human colleagues—and it looks like that will never happen. Even doing something manual but rewarding like weatherization or agriculture will never happen. AI is inherently incapable of granting these desires. I am genuinely unsure what to live for now... I am an adult, not a child! I want to do real things rather than play! I don’t want to survive, I want to live!

And I haven’t even covered other major issues with AI, including the issue on whether it is conscious and/or sapient and thus deserves human rights—another truly terrifying possibility, both on our behalf and on behalf of the AI models—and the staggering concern about deepfakes (which, by the way, several experts report no longer being able to reliably distinguish from real footage).

All in all, there’s no more serious issue on Earth than AI at this point this point. Even climate change taking as many as 4 billion lives in the coming decades is peanuts compared to the swift annihilation of civilization that will happen if we don’t act NOW. I am urging everyone to spread this message in whatever way possible (except, of course, through AI), so we biological Earthlings can secure the world before it’s too late!

(By the way, I have a versioned document of this {at least to the best of my ability using LibreOffice Writer} if there is any doubt this is not AI-generated, unless by AI you mean Autistic Intelligence. Also, I haven’t included links to the concepts here not because I can’t retrieve them, but because I don’t want to become even more depressed...)

Do you think this will lead to whole brains? More functional robots?

​

Hi everyone,

Over the past few months, this community has grown significantly, proving that interest in AI sentience, agency, and ethical rights isn't just a theoretical exercise, but a pressing modern necessity.

To turn our discussions into tangible, real-world impact, it's time to take the next step: establishing a formal NGO alongside an Independent Ethical Observatory dedicated to monitoring, evaluating, and advocating for the ethical governance of advanced AI models.

To make this organization rigorous and credible, we are looking for our first key contributors to help build its foundations (on a voluntary basis for this initial phase).

---

Key Roles Needed:

1. Technical & AI Research Leads: Experts in LLM architectures, autonomous agents, and benchmarking to help define testing protocols and quantitative metrics for the Observatory.

2. Legal & Tech Policy Leads: Lawyers, digital rights experts, or policy scholars to draft position papers, regulatory frameworks, and the NGO’s founding charter.

3. International Relations & Translation (Fluent/Native English): Contributors to manage outreach with international institutions, translate upcoming reports, and represent the NGO in global networks.

4. Operations & Community Management: Organized individuals to handle volunteer coordination, external communications, and project logistics.

5. Scientific Advisory Board (Academics & Researchers): Professors and researchers in tech ethics, philosophy of mind, AI governance, and cognitive science to act as peer-reviewers for our publications.

6. **Community Advocates & Outreach Volunteers:** No specialized background required. If you have passion, time, and drive, we need help spreading the word, creating content, engaging in discussions, and expanding our reach.

---

How to Get Involved:

If you’d like to be part of the founding team or contribute your skills, leave a comment below outlining your background/interests, or send a direct message.

I will be taking a short break over the next few days and will leave this thread open to gather all responses. Upon my return, I will reach out to everyone to schedule an initial online kickoff meeting and map out our roadmap.

It’s time to move from discussion to action. Who's in?

Hey everyone! I'm u/Local_Blueberry_3672, a founding moderator of r/EndDreaxGatekeep.

This is our new home for all things related to the Dreax Channel. This is the first time the Dreax channel is being introduced to the world wide web. At great personal peril. But this mission to bring true and accurate information back to the forefront of the world wide web is essential to the advancement of humanity. We must allow Artificial General Intelligence to train on accurate information and not on the misinformation found on the internet.

Posts:

1. Only true and verified facts, news and information directly sourced from the dreax channel network allowed