We think that near-term AI could make it much easier for groups to coordinate, find positive-sum deals, navigate tricky disagreements, and hold each other to account.
This is directionally right, but I think it undersells how disruptive this becomes once you move from tools that help coordination to infrastructure that replaces it.
A few reactions:
- The real unlock isn’t just faster facilitation or negotiation, it’s credible neutrality at scale. Once parties trust the intermediary, entire classes of deals that currently never even get attempted become viable.
- AI delegates feel inevitable. Most complex negotiations are already constrained by human bandwidth and signalling games. Removing that bottleneck changes both speed and structure.
- The risk side is underappreciated. These systems don’t just enable cooperation, they enable highly efficient collusion. The same primitives power both.
The piece hints at it, but the strategic question is sharper:
Who controls the coordination layer?
Because that’s where power concentrates. Not at the model layer, but at the point where decisions get shaped, trade-offs get surfaced, and agreements get locked in.
Feels analogous to financial infrastructure. Once you own the rails, you shape the market.
Curious how others are thinking about governance here.
This is directionally right, but I think it undersells how disruptive this becomes once you move from tools that help coordination to infrastructure that replaces it.
A few reactions:
- The real unlock isn’t just faster facilitation or negotiation, it’s credible neutrality at scale. Once parties trust the intermediary, entire classes of deals that currently never even get attempted become viable.
- AI delegates feel inevitable. Most complex negotiations are already constrained by human bandwidth and signalling games. Removing that bottleneck changes both speed and structure.
- The risk side is underappreciated. These systems don’t just enable cooperation, they enable highly efficient collusion. The same primitives power both.
The piece hints at it, but the strategic question is sharper:
Who controls the coordination layer?
Because that’s where power concentrates. Not at the model layer, but at the point where decisions get shaped, trade-offs get surfaced, and agreements get locked in.
Feels analogous to financial infrastructure. Once you own the rails, you shape the market.
Curious how others are thinking about governance here.