Technological development intensifies technological centralization. Vitalik believes that open source is a third way to alleviate the concentration of power, promote technological dissemination, and enhance verifiability, making it an undervalued path. This article is derived from a piece by Vitalik, organized, translated, and written by Shenchao. (Background: V God expressed disappointment in the development of 'AI Agents': Decentralized open source and user feedback should be emphasized) (Context: V God called for Ethereum to abandon the 'Optimistic decree that ZK is orthodox'; is this foresight or a dictatorship that stifles the ecosystem?) As technology develops, technological centralization gradually intensifies, while open source is an effective means to reduce power concentration and information asymmetry. Core view: Radical technologies may be more accessible to the wealthy and elites, exacerbating social inequality, leading to a gap in lifespan and advantages between the rich and the poor, and potentially forming a global underclass. The abuse of technology manifests in another form, where manufacturers project power over users through data collection and hiding information, which is different from the essence of unequal access to technology. Open source is an undervalued third path that can improve access equality for technologies and producers, enhance verifiability, and eliminate vendor lock-in. Opponents of open source argue that it carries risks of abuse, but centralized gatekeeper control is untrustworthy, prone to military and other abuses, and difficult to guarantee equality among nations. If technology has a high risk of abuse, a better solution may be to refrain from it; if the risk of power dynamics is uncomfortable, an open source approach can make it fairer. Open source does not mean laissez-faire; it can be combined with regulations such as laws, with the core being to ensure technology democratization and information accessibility. A common concern we hear is that certain radical technologies may exacerbate power inequality, as these technologies are inevitably limited to the use of the wealthy and elite. Here is a quote from someone expressing concern about the consequences of lifespan extension: "Will some people be left behind? Will we make society even more unequal than it is now?" he asked. Tuljapurkar predicts that the surge in lifespan will be limited to wealthy countries, where citizens can afford anti-aging technologies, and governments can fund scientific research. This gap further complicates the current debate on healthcare accessibility, as the rich and poor are not only widening the gap in quality of life but are also increasingly distant in lifespan. "Big pharmaceutical companies have a consistent record of being very harsh when it comes to providing products to those who cannot afford them," Tuljapurkar said. If anti-aging technology is distributed in an unregulated free market, "in my view, it is entirely possible that we will eventually form a permanent global underclass, and those countries will be locked in today's mortality conditions," Tuljapurkar said. "If that happens, there will be negative feedback, creating a vicious cycle. Those countries excluded will forever be excluded." Here is a similarly strong statement from an article expressing concern about the consequences of human genetic enhancement: Earlier this month, scientists announced they had edited genes in human embryos to remove a pathogenic mutation. This work is astonishing and is the answer many parents pray for. Who wouldn't want the opportunity to prevent their children from suffering pain that could be avoided today? But this will not be the end. Many parents hope to ensure their children gain the best advantages through genetic enhancement. Those with resources can access these technologies. As capabilities emerge, ethical issues transcend the ultimate safety of such technologies. The high costs of the procedures will create scarcity and exacerbate the already growing income inequality. Similar views in other technological fields: Digital technology overall: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/technology/technology-and-inequality/ Space travel: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Does-Billionaires-Dominating-Space-Travel-Mean-for-the-World.html Solar geoengineering: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/hidden-injustices-of-advancing-solar-geoengineering-research/F61C5DCBCA02E18F66CAC7E45CC76C57 In many criticisms of new technologies, this theme can be found. A related but fundamentally different topic is that technological products are used as tools for data collection, vendor lock-in, intentional concealment of side effects (as modern vaccines have been criticized in this way), and other forms of abuse. Emerging technologies often create more opportunities for people to obtain something without granting them rights or complete information about it; thus, from this perspective, old technologies often appear safer. This is also a form of technology that strengthens the elite class at the expense of others, but the issue lies in how manufacturers project power over users through technology, rather than the unequal access mentioned earlier. I personally strongly support technology. If it comes down to a binary choice between "further advancement" and "maintaining the status quo," despite the risks, I would be happy to push for everything except a few projects (such as functional enhancement research, weapons, and superintelligent AI). This is because, overall, the benefits include longer, healthier lives, a more prosperous society, retaining more human relevance in an era of rapid AI advancement, and maintaining cultural continuity through the elderly generation as living beings rather than mere memories in history books. But if I put myself in the shoes of those who are less optimistic about the positive impacts, or who are more concerned about elites using new technologies to dominate economic control and impose control, or both, how would I feel? For example, I already have such feelings about smart home products; the benefits of being able to talk to light bulbs are offset by my reluctance to let my personal life flow into Google or Apple. If I were to adopt a more pessimistic assumption, I could also imagine having similar feelings about certain media technologies: if they allow elites to broadcast information more effectively than others, they could be used to impose control and drown out others. For many such technologies, the benefits we gain from better information or entertainment are not sufficient to compensate for the way they redistribute power. Open source as a third path I believe that one severely undervalued perspective in these situations is to support only technologies developed in an open source manner. The argument that open source accelerates progress is very credible: it allows people to build on each other's innovations more easily. At the same time, the argument that requiring open source slows progress is also very credible: it prevents people from using a wide range of potential profit strategies. But the most interesting consequence of open source is in directions unrelated to the speed of progress: Open source improves access equality. If something is open source, it is naturally accessible to anyone in any country. For physical goods and services, people still need to pay marginal costs, but in many cases, the high prices of proprietary products are due to the fixed costs of inventing them being too high to attract more competition, making marginal costs often relatively low, as is the case in the pharmaceutical industry. Open source improves access equality for becoming producers. One criticism is that providing end products to people for free does not help them gain skills and experience to rise into prosperity in the global economy, which is the true reliable guarantee for lasting high-quality life. Open source is not like that; it is fundamentally about allowing the world...

#AI