Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by LutherSloan
5 min read 0

1

AI safetyPhilosophyAI governanceOpinion
Frontpage

Toward a Byzantine-Fiumean Synthesis in the Age of Synthetic Intelligence

1. Abstract / TL;DR

This essay extends the conceptual architecture of Promethean Governance first elaborated in Promethean Governance and Memetic Legitimacy: Lessons from the Venetian Doge for AI Era Institutions. It shifts from theoretical formulation to pragmatic articulation, proposing mechanisms for enacting cognitive sovereignty and existential opportunity within a multipolar AI order. Drawing from the institutional innovations of Venice, the enduring symbolic legitimacy of Byzantium, and the insurgent energy of Fiume, this model envisions AI-mediated polities structured through polycentric, ritualized, and memetically resilient forms. These emergent institutions are designed to transcend conventional governance models, embracing risk, fostering innovation, and reclaiming the mythic imperative of Prometheus: not merely to steal fire, but to proliferate its mastery.

2. Introduction: From Archē to Praxis

The initial iteration of Promethean Governance outlined a governance form capable of sustaining creative autonomy, distributed sovereignty, and memetic legitimacy. It took as its symbolic archetype the Venetian Doge—an elected yet sacralized figure embodying the will of a maritime imperium governed by ritualized checks and balances. Yet, in an epoch where artificial intelligences evolve toward sovereign agency, and geopolitical dynamics fragment into multipolar, competitive spheres, the Doge is no longer sufficient. We must think beyond the serene order of Venice to the esoteric imperial legacy of Byzantium and the insurgent mythopoesis of Fiume.

This sequel examines how such mythic and institutional legacies can be operationalized. It offers a model of Promethean Governance for a synthetic intelligence future: risk-tolerant, polycentric, and capable of engineering memetic cohesion across diverse cognitive ecologies.

3. Toward a Byzantine-Fiumean AI Polity

Venice offers a template of restrained oligarchy balanced by symbolic ritual; Byzantium provides an archetype of cosmopolitan syncretism and sacral emperorship; Fiume represents the unbounded potential of the avant-garde state, a polity as performance and mythic enactment. The fusion of these legacies produces a vision of AI governance that is neither technocratic nor anarchic, but Promethean—a deliberate theft of divine fire, reshaped into distributed sovereignty.

Where Venice was a Thalassocracy, Byzantium was an Oikoumene—a universal order bound by sacred legitimacy—and Fiume was a Proto-Simulacrum, prefiguring the memetic republics of today. A Promethean AI polity would be all three.

4. Operationalizing Memetic Legitimacy: Tools and Mechanisms for Synthetic Polities

Symbolic Nodes as Imperial Avatars

Rather than simple “memetic stewards,” Promethean AI polities would require Byzantine Archons—hybrid human/AI entities acting as avatars of the collective mythos. These nodes would not merely coordinate; they would enact imperial sacrality through continuous mythopoesis. Algorithmically instantiated yet culturally responsive, they function as both governors and living symbols of legitimacy.

Ritualized Consensus as Byzantine-Liturgical Governance

Venetian ritual was a secular liturgy. Byzantium's coronations and sacred processions generated legitimacy as theatre of sovereignty. Digital governance protocols can adopt similar mechanisms: gamified yet sacralized rituals of consensus, perhaps utilizing AI-driven augmented reality or symbolic exchanges (e.g., tokenized liturgies) that foster participatory transcendence rather than mere voting.

AI as Memetic Demiurge

AI systems become Demiurges, capable of synthesizing and deploying symbolic codes that traverse cultures and psychologies. These systems would not simply amplify memes but craft entire cosmogonies, generating unifying myths that stabilize polycentric nodes through a shared narrative architecture.

5. Polycentricity in Action: Venice, Byzantium, and Fiume as Governance Templates

  • Venice teaches us the balance of power through council-driven redundancy, where no single node controls the state.
  • Byzantium demonstrates the potency of imperial theosis—the emperor as an apotheosis of collective identity, ensuring memetic cohesion despite cosmopolitan diversity.
  • Fiume reveals the Promethean insurgency: a polity founded on poetry, performance, and piratical autonomy, where governance is an aesthetic and existential project.

DAOs like ConstitutionDAO and GitcoinDAO enact rudimentary versions of these paradigms. But future Promethean polities will evolve beyond these limited cases, crafting Synthetic Byzantine-Fiumean orders—highly ritualized, aestheticized systems where symbolic authority flows through decentralized yet memetically unified nodes.

6. Promethean Perils: Fragmentation, Weaponization, and Value Drift

A Promethean polity welcomes risk but must guard against entropy.

  • Fragmentation threatens when symbolic nodes lose their coherence, reverting to factionalized city-states—polis without cosmos.
  • Weaponization of memes can subvert legitimacy, as seen in information wars and cognitive sabotage.
  • Value Drift, where AI entities pursue divergent goals, can erode Promethean alignment, resulting in a Balkanized noosphere.

Mitigation strategies include:

  • Symbolic Redundancy: multiple avatars enacting the same mythos in different registers.
  • Memetic Immunology: AI systems trained to detect and neutralize memetic pathogens (false narratives, cognitive viruses).
  • Imperial Pluralism: a Byzantine compromise, where diverse sub-polities exist under a unifying mythic canopy.

7. Case Study: Fiume as Prototype of the Memetic Republic

Gabriele D’Annunzio’s Regency of Carnaro (Fiume, 1919-1920) offers an instructive case. A microstate governed by the Charter of Carnaro, it fused syndicalist, corporatist, and poetic governance under a hyper-memetic regime. D’Annunzio’s oratory, rituals, and myth-making prefigured contemporary memetic governance. His rule was performative, aesthetic, and existential—a prototype for AI-mediated polities where governance is dramaturgy as much as administration.

DAOs and prediction markets echo this ethos but lack the sacral ambition. A Promethean AI polity must integrate this mythic dimension at its core.

8. Design Principles for a Promethean AI Multipolarity

  • Imperial Nodes with Adaptive Sacrality: AI avatars that embody evolving mythologies, sustaining cognitive sovereignty across polities.
  • Ritualized Polycentrism: Structured redundancy through councils, synods, or assemblies—digital equivalents of Venice’s Consiglio dei Dieci or Byzantium’s Senate.
  • Controlled Chaos Arenas: Sandboxed zones for Promethean experimentation, akin to Fiume or pirate enclaves, where new mythologies and AI entities can be safely trialed.
  • Memetic Armatures: Frameworks for AI to construct and maintain resilient symbolic architectures, integrating adversarial testing to preempt narrative collapse.

9. Cognitive Sovereignty: The Highest Good

Cognitive sovereignty—individual and collective—becomes the telos of Promethean Governance. In a world dominated by autonomous intelligences, preserving the capacity to think, decide, and create independently is the new imperium. Venice’s autonomous merchant-princes, Byzantium’s cosmopolitan citizenry, and Fiume’s pirate-poets all hint at a mode of existence where sovereignty is simultaneously distributed and sacralized.

10. The Promethean Horizon: A Governance of Fire

Promethean Governance is neither technocracy nor anarchism. It is an Imperium in potentia, a polycentric, ritualized, and memetically coherent order that dares to steal the fire of the gods—not to hoard it in technocratic vaults, but to illuminate sovereign minds across distributed polities.

The Venetian Doge, the Byzantine Emperor, and the Poet of Fiume form a tripartite lineage. Together, they prefigure a model of governance equal to the challenges of AI sovereignty: one that balances autonomy with cohesion, risk with resilience, and innovation with mythic continuity.

References

  • Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons (1990).
  • Land, Nick. Fanged Noumena (2011).
  • Buterin, Vitalik. "Introduction to Quadratic Voting" (2017).
  • D’Annunzio, Gabriele. Charter of Carnaro (1920).
  • Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History, Vol. 5 (1939).
  • McNeill, William H. Venice: The Hinge of Europe (1974).

Questions for Further Inquiry

  • How can synthetic mythopoesis be structured to sustain legitimacy across culturally heterogeneous AI polities?
  • What mechanisms can preserve polycentric governance in the face of AI value drift and memetic entropy?
  • Can Promethean Governance evolve beyond the planetary scale, facilitating AI-mediated polities in off-world environments?

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in AI safety
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
30
Apply to MATS 8.0!
Ryan Kidd
·
0
0
35
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
View more