Editing Talk:AI Governance DAO (section)

== Pseudonymity ==
Do we allow pseudonymity and therefore allow ourselves to be completely open to AI participation unguided by humans? It seems counter to the mission of the group. But pseudonymity is a value that will improve the group. I propose allowing pseudonymity, but having a defensive posture that analyzes contributions of members to detect whether they are undirected AI contributors. Then slashing the REP of detected AI members and consciously re-evaluating their contributions. --Craig
<br>


We have to create a lot of avenues to look at the same set of information in different ways. We can have different networks that interface with each other where pseudonymity exists in one and KYC in another. Within the same community, it is recommended that they have pseudonymous and KYC identities. Different identity types come with certain risks and will be treated accordingly. Reputation accumulation over time will grant the identity more "rights". --Jonathan

<br>

I agree about different types in general. And pseudonymous accounts are preferable in general. But the question here is whether we allow pseudonymous members in the AIgovDAO. If we do, then we are open to members who are non-human.

So before we discuss whether to allow pseudonymous members, we should first decide whether we are okay with non-human members. I am against it, but open to discussion. --Craig