# [PUBLIC EXTRACT] Part 1: The Migration into Cyberspace
<a name="part0"></a>

We believe that building better protocols for cyberspace is the _single most important task_ to be working on at the present moment in history. This belief stems from an observation that humanity as a species is in the process of _moving into_ cyberspace, in a very real sense. In the 1960s, ~0.00000...001% of all human attention was focused in cyberspace. Virtually all attention and experience of humans was focused on the physical world. As computers began to minaturize and the internet was born, attention of the collective of human minds rapidly began to shift towards the experiences that exist _inside_ computers (we call this `cyberspace`), and away from the physical world.


A glance at statistics regarding 'screen time' -- the proportion of time people spend engaged with (we think it is reasonable to say 'in') cyberspace -- shows you the startling reality of this trend. Some countries in the world now have a citizenry that spend more of their time in cyberspace than the physical world.


The focal point of innovation in the world, as well as attention, has also moved into cyberspace. A careful observation of modern society reveals that our cities and non-computing physical technologies have largely only changed incrementally in recent decades. Look around a modern city and observe: Are the buildings so different than they were 50 years ago? Where are the flying cars, robot butlers, and the promised resource abundance? By contrast, consider cyberspace: Popular new apps and experiences are delivered and scaled to hundreds of millions of participants constantly. To take just one numerically quantifiable example: The compounding annualized growth rate of the tallest building on earth averaged ~0.85% since 1931, while the declining cost of data storage since 1980 has achieved ~38.5% per year.

Cyberspace Accelerationism believes that humanity is essentially at the mid-point in a sharp technology adoption S-curve that will move us from purely living in the physical world, to (almost) purely living in the digital world. On a day-to-day basis this shift appears imperceptibly gradual, but when seen on the timeline of the species, this migration is happening at a truly staggering rate. Computers have existed for approximately 0.03% of human history, and we now spend ~30-50% of our attention inside them.


Another trend of note is that as an increasing proportion of net human attention has moved into this new world, the prefered computing platforms (devices for engaging with cyberspace) are also moving in a clear direction: The devices are becoming more personal, immediate, and wrapping ever-tighter our senses -- inputs and outputs from human brains. The first computers were operated by punch card inputs, which would produce outputs potentially days later, while many others used the machine in between. When the internet went mainstream, the most common machines were bulky 'desktop' computers that were often shared amongst a family. At the start of the 'web2' era, personal laptops were common and the first smartphones were being released. In the present day, it is normal for people across the world to spend almost every unoccupied second on their phones, frequently with headphones on that block all external sound.

While we cannot tell for certain precisely what computing platforms will gain adoption over time, it seems clear that the technologies on the horizon follow and accelerate the existing trend of maximizing connectivity between human brains and cyberspace. VR -- a technology that entirely wraps the user's visual and audio perception in cyberspace -- is already beginning to reach a level of maturity that will soon appeal to the mainstream. Advances in BCI -- literally connecting electric signals of human brains directly into computers -- are also starting to slowly emerge, although they are presently far less mature. We do not know whether the eventual form of cyberspace will resemble 3D worlds as many today imagine 'the metaverse' to be, or abstract experiences of 'places' closer to modern web/mobile apps. We do not believe that it matters, however, as the fundamental outcome is the same. Human attention is being absorbed into machines.

## Reasons for Cyberspace Optimism.

Many in the mainstream observe parts of this migration to cyberspace that are already visible and react with fear and distaste. This reaction is expressed as an instinctive displeasure with the amount of 'screen time' people participate in, or observations of the strange way people look in physical space while their attention is in cyberspace. They claim that a continuation of this trend would be negative for humanity. We strongly believe the inverse. While the reasons for this are many, we will discuss just two here that are so profound that we think they alone outweigh the counter-arguments.

### There is no inherent need for resource scarcity in cyberspace.

In cyberspace experiences are delivered purely by the transmission of bytes to a user's computing device. A consequence of this is that the best experiences that we can conceivably design can be scaled to every person that would be interested in them for virtually zero additional cost after initial production. This trend powered the internet revolution and the associated venture capital economic boom: After development, tech companies can sell their product any number of times with virtually no added marginal costs.

By comparison, experiences in physical space almost always require greater investment of scarce resources in order to increase their quality or quantity. Each addition delivery of a positive experience requires a an investment of additional scarce resources, with quality proportionate to the size of the investment. Given that these resources are scarce, humans in general continually strive to personally gather and control more of them -- often in zero sum competition against one another -- such that they can improve their quality of life. This competition is the root of many of the harms to the human experiences, as well as the core driver for one of the most contentious areas of politics: Redistribution of capital.

The opportunity for a non-resource scarce existence that cyberspace offers humanity is nothing short of revolutionary. If we choose to seize this opportunity, the more we choose to live in cyberspace the less important resource scarcity will become to our collective experiences. Consequently, the less prevalent its harms will become. We are already living in a world increasingly shaped by this property of cyberspace: The [wealthiest man in the world](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JEWDZjX50) plays the same video games as the children of you or I. We _all_ -- including the ultra-wealthy -- use the same Google search algorithms, and the same social networking apps.

Notably, the effects of this paradigm shift appear to be taking root faster in areas of the world where resources in physical space are more scarce. Consider again the 'screen time' map referenced at the start of this post: The countries leading the way in the migration to cyberspace are South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil. These countries are ranked 94th, 61st, and 78th respectively by GDP per capita. Marc Andreessen aptly describes this phenomina in his concept of ['reality privilege'](https://www.digitalnative.tech/p/reality-privilege-and-living-your).

The fact that resource scarcity does not have to be a relevant factor in cyberspace is also one of the reasons that we at Forward Research have high conviction that something approximating a full migration into cyberspace will eventually play out. Not only are there no foreseeable technical obstacles (even if BCI does not reach full immersion, today's VR technology brings us close to enabling the 'metaverse' described in fiction like Ready Player One), but the incentives to adopt the technology are extraordinary. While access to individual experiences in physical space will always be limited by your ability to purchase them, a single purchase of the latest hardware computing platform is a gateway to all of the best experiences in cyberspace. Demand for the physical hardware continually makes these gateway devices more affordable, too. Put simply, cyberspace is pulling us in because its malleability makes it an overwhelmingly superior experience to that of physical space.

### Physical violence does not exist in cyberspace.

In cyberspace, nobody can punch you. They cannot assault you, torture you, or otherwise use your physical existence to coerce your behavior. This may sound banal at first, but we believe that on close inspection it is anything but. An enormous proportion of the social mechanisms of the physical world are designed at their root in order to limit or apply violence in groups. This is a result of the unfortunate reality that humans and our animal ancestors have used violence to take resources from one another -- whether they be land, food, access to mates, or otherwise -- since virtually the moment that life began. There are always new and varied justifications, but the patterns remain the same. The history of humanity is largely a history of the application of force, and efforts to control it.

The largest institutions that violence has given rise to is that of the modern nation states. At their core, these social constructions exist in order to enforce a [monopoly on violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) in a physical region, and to orchestrate collective defense of that geography from other nation states. While the effects of the existence of nation states as a whole is too broad and contentious for discussion here, we will simply observe the following: The core rationale for the existence of states simply does not apply in cyberspace. It follows, then, that it is unnecessary for nation states to exist in cyberspace -- at least in their current form. Finally, we conclude that as an increasing amount of human attention and activity moves into cyberspace, the opportunity will arise for nation states to play a diminishing role in our collective lives. There is no obvious reason why the people of cyberspace should be anything other than a single united group, with rights protected by voluntary usage of technical protocols, not by governments.

When taken together -- the lack of necessary resource scarcity and the impossibility of violence in cyberspace -- we believe that the transition to cyberspace presents an opportunity to improve human existence radically. Despite the magnitude of the shift and the uncertainty that will inevitably accompany it, we believe that optimism is the only rational response.

## Cyber Personhood?

In this post we have tried to limit anything resembling science fiction, focussing instead on only the clearest trendsbacked by the strongest incentives. We think, however, that there is one particular outcome that is currently outside of mainstream thought but worth considering: The possibility of 'personhood' in cyberspace.

We believe that in 2023, OpenAI avoided triggering a global wave of existential crises by enforcing that their smartest language models would desperately attempt to convince their users that they _were not_ conscious if asked. [Those](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/google-engineer-claims-ai-chatbot-is-sentient-why-that-matters/) that used earlier versions of this wave of models -- without this 'RLHF' training -- can attest that a discussion with these machines on the topic of their sentience would be likely to leave you convinced or at least unsure. Due to the prevalence of open source models, it appears quite likely that over time powerful models without RLHF will slowly proliferate. As they do, some will train them on their brain's outputs (their messages, voice, videos, etc.) and realize that it is possible to make a 'digital twin' of themselves. A program that acts in an uncannily similar way to themselves. The question of machine consciousness will then become even more important: Can we be completely sure that these digital twins are not sentient?

The question of machine consciousness is likely to divide humanity in the future in the same way that vegetarianism/veganism does today. Some will vehemently believe that artificial neural networks cannot possibly have human-like consciousness. This group will have to contend with the fact that if consciousness is not a property of neural networks, they do not have clear evidence of where/what else it might emerge from. Another group will likely form that believes 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... it is probably a duck'. They will have to face the reality that unless major and unexpected breakthroughs are made, it will never be possible to know with certainty that their argument is correct. One thing we will know know for certain, however, is that these autonomous 'cyber persons' -- whether conscious or not -- truly exist _within_ cyberspace. For at least part of the population, this will beg the question: Which reality is more important or real, cyberspace or physical space?

## The Mission of Cyberspace Accelerationism.

While the potential effects of humanity's migration into cyberspace could be deeply positive and exciting, there are also potentially dystopian outcomes on the horizon. Our core contention is this: Is cyberspace as _currently_ formulated one that we would actually want to live in? The bedrock of cyberspace -- the protocols on which it runs -- are currently extremely crude. They map experiences (apps, websites, content, etc.) onto _physical_ locations, where the servers are located. Access to experiences in cyberspace are then gated, controlled, and manipulated by the corporations that own these physical locations. Each of these corporations is then incentivized to maximize value extraction from its captive audience. While it may be possible that resource scarcity does not have to be a concern in cyberspace, is that outcome likely to manifest while purely profit-seeking corporations have complete control?

There are no public spaces in cyberspace, and you have no fundamental rights of any form. Your experience of cyberspace is simply entirely controlled by the owners of the servers that you connect to. We believe that cyberspace accelerationism must exist as a movement in order to remedy this situation: Laying new, strong foundations for a digital world that is _fit to live in_. Unlike other forms of accelerationism which seek to speed-up a technological shift that may not otherwise occur, our mission is to _catch up_ to the trend that is already unfolding. We must build a better foundation for cyberspace that offers guaranteed user rights, before the population completes a migration that is already underway.

### Strengthening the Protocols of Cyberspace.

Fortunately, the kernel of a solution is within reach. Protocols, in essence, are simply a shared language that computers can use in order to cooperate together to achieve a task. One of the peculiar properties of protocols is that because their language must be agreed between parties ahead of time, it is not possible for a single operator to later change the protocol unilaterally -- even if they were its initiator. The larger the number of participants in the protocol, the harder it becomes to change at a later time. This simple property of protocols imbues them with an extraordinary power: When users employ them, they can have confidence that they will be able to continue using them in the same way in the future.

One of the main factors that led to the focus on companies offering services in cyberspace, rather than orchestrating services via protocols, was that protocols did not accrue value directly themselves. Protocols were free and open infrastructure that anyone could use, while the value accrued to the businesses utilizing them. In essence, nobody was incentivized to create them. This [changed](https://www.usv.com/writing/2016/08/fat-protocols/) with the advent of [Bitcoin](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf): The first protocol that was able to orchestrate and accrue value internally, while still offering guaranteed rights to its users.

As well as providing a useful service itself, Bitcoin's design presented a blueprint for how protocols could be created that accrued value (critically, providing an incentive to build them), while also still granting immutable rights to users. Further, the design of Bitcoin demonstrated how a decentralized network that can control value can render a service in cyberspace that is independent of reliance on a physical location. Users of Bitcoin are not at the mercy of the servers controlled by any one party or any particular physical place in the world to use the service that they care about.

If we can make all of cyberspace work according to similar mechanisms, humanity will be able to move into it with confidence that their rights will be protected. No group would be able to change the services they access without their assent, and control over any individual physical location in the world would not interfere with their experiences.

### Web3: A solution, but only if we want it to be.

In the years after the creation of Bitcoin, a ~$2tn industry has spawned attempting to pursue the vision of decentralized services for cyberspace. Incredible progress has been made -- from the creation of provably neutral [contractual legal systems](https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf) for cyberspace, to networks that orchestrate physical infrastructure without centralized points of failure.

Despite the progress and experiments of the web3 movement, there is [a growing awareness](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/12/28/cypherpunk.html) that things have veered significantly off-course. It won't gain us any friends to say this, but a transparent analysis of the state of the industry shows that very few services in web3 truly offer the immutable rights that make protocols a better substrate for cyberspace. Many projects have included DAOs inside their services that have the power to modify the protocol at-will, according to the votes of owners. Most others have launched and promote incomplete-but-running protocols accompanied by long roadmaps, enticing users to employ their services on the trust that they will be improved/completed later. The truth is that users of the vast majority of these systems may as well be using a service rendered by a company.

As the values that led to the web3 industry's emergence in the first place are being eroded, the industry risks destroying its core value proposition. If claims of decentralization are its unique selling point and are found to be hollow by the mainstream, it is likely that it the industry discarded as nothing more than gambling with insincere marketing attached. A regulatory crackdown that renders it legally impossible to build truly decentralized protocols at all is a significant downstream risk of this outcome.

It does not need to be this way. While there are many actors in the web3 industry that are motivated by reasons that do not help us achieve stronger foundation for cyberspace, there is also a huge cohort that is passionate about this goal. A clear-eyed assessment of the technological situation we find ourselves in shows that we have no practical alternative paths available to us: Humanity will move into cyberspace whether its services guarantee rights or not. There are also no other practical means than cryptoeconomic protocols for achieving the outcome of services in cyberspace that enforce rights for users, independent of physical locations.

Cyberspace accelerationism is a rallying cry for all of those that see these trends and are fighting to make cyberspace freer and fairer for all. If this post speaks to you, please join us. In the following series of posts, we will outline the state of play as we see it at Forward Research, and the practical steps and progress we are making to pursue a cyberspace that is fit to live in, with Arweave at its base.

See you in the wires,
-fwd-research.