Paulius seems to think that GadgetBridge will just be one of the many places where the irrelevant can make each other feel important. Unfortunately, that is a likely outcome when the project is started on a shoestring. A badly advertised, obscure site has to be welcoming to all visitors who happen to stumble across it. Soon, it will be full of personal gripe and far-out stuff that drives more promising contributors away. But I still think that GadgetBridge could be made to work after a successful start — with solid financing, a clear business plan, effective PR and corporate backing.
 
John Cassel proposes an additional impact assessment step between design teams and retail shops that acts like a filter and takes out the most dangerous designs. GadgetBridge, on the other hand, is not a filter but a turbo-charger. It encourages people to feed their product ideas to design teams so that they can create more advanced consumer devices. That might require some explanation. I do not think that the main risks of future mind enhancement relate to accidents or personal abuse — the kind of problems that are likely to increase with a higher speed of product innovation. The main risks will rather relate to authoritarian regimes and terrorism, and these risks are best reduced by stimulating the “political immune systems” of societies with state-of-the-art consumer devices. That said, we obviously need better filters as well.
 
Michael Campbell wrote that a public voting system would not be the right way to select promising ideas. I fully agree. GadgetBridge would not even require an internal selection procedure, because it would be part of a social system that has such functions already. The first selectors would be the designers and engineers who pick promising ideas — followed by corporate lawyers who check whether their company could be sued — followed by supervisory authorities who need to approve the safety of the product — followed by critical consumers, consumer organisations, litigative groups of all kinds and many others. GadgetBridge users could therefore just focus on inventing without feeling bad about it.

Though, regarding the handling with the risks at CERN, an open source policy is obviously not enough. Only very few CERN experts got closer involved in the complex risk question. And the vast majority of their colleagues worldwide are simply believing them that their estimations are sufficient. In this concern, famous philosopher Humberto Maturana said: “Certainty is an emotion. I am sure means I do not know.”

Mankind needs much more institutes in research on long term risks.

Do you see possibilities that your concept can moderate or balance long term safety interests with short time profit interests and socio-psychological group think?