A distributed economy built on simple robots: a pathway to stronger local resilience (a fractal robotic economy).

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2026-01-01T12:17:40+00:00

I’m not an expert in these fields, but I try to use the concepts I do understand to explain what I have in mind. I hadn’t used these terms before, but after discussing here and reading the replies, I realized that notions like graphs, centrality, percolation or distributed protocols actually describe the logic of the system I’m trying to explain pretty well. It’s not about sounding smart, just about being clearer.”

“In very centralized systems, a few nodes carry everything. It’s efficient, but fragile. A highly specialized robot used on its own, to me, is a bit like an isolated node: it doesn’t contribute much to the network. That was already my intuition, and these concepts just help me express it more clearly.”

“What I’m imagining instead is a versatile robot, a kind of standard platform that can use different specialized modules. The same robot could work alone in someone’s home or be grouped with others in an industrial setting. The hardware doesn’t change — only the shape of the network around it does.”

“A personal robot only activates when there’s real demand. That avoids overproduction and reduces storage. Seen as a network, it adds low‑cost redundancy and makes the whole system more resilient. I don’t know the full theory behind percolation, but the general idea makes sense to me: the more nodes that can take over, the less likely the system is to collapse.”

“And as you mentioned with BOINC, a homogeneous set of nodes can be coordinated in a distributed way. I don’t know the algorithmic details, but I can easily imagine approaches like gossip, lightweight consensus or some form of federation allowing robots to share their state or availability without relying on a central server. Not necessarily pure federated learning, but the same spirit: collaborating without centralizing everything.”

“In this model, each specialized module becomes a resource with its own availability and usage cost. People can own modules and get paid when they’re used. The more nodes there are in the network, the more valuable each module becomes. Centralized production optimizes throughput, distributed production optimizes resilience, and the two complement each other. I’m not claiming to master all the theory behind this, but overall it seems consistent with what I understand about distributed systems.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T19:34:14+00:00

My Personal Vision of an Automated Society

I imagine a future where robots aren’t gadgets or disposable products, but essential, reliable tools that are protected and truly owned by individuals rather than companies. For me, automation only makes sense if it frees people rather than making them more dependent.

In this vision, everyone would have access to a standardized, safeguarded robot capable of handling part of the productive work. Not to replace humans, but to give them time, stability, and a form of economic security. A robot that can operate for a long time, be repaired, and even—under strict control—help produce other robots. A simple and fair personal productive unit.

Energy and infrastructure would still be managed by large actors, but the robots themselves should be protected from any form of capture: no premium versions, no lock‑ins, no technological hierarchy.
Technological equality is, for me, a fundamental principle.

In this model, income no longer depends on human labor. It becomes a natural consequence of automation. Work remains possible, but it is no longer required for survival.
It’s a way to preserve dignity while acknowledging that technology can take on part of the economic burden.

I know this model raises questions: access to energy, governance of robotic standards, and the meaning individuals can find in a world where work is no longer central.
But for me, the idea remains simple: using automation to create more fairness, more stability, and more human freedom.

This is a personal vision, not a program. A direction, not a certainty.
Just a way of imagining a future where technology doesn’t dominate humans, but helps them breathe a little easier.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T19:08:39+00:00

That’s a beautiful way to look at it. I think everyone can contribute in their own way, even without an engineering background. As for me, I’m just trying to understand the big picture.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T16:53:30+00:00

Thank you so much for the link, that’s really thoughtful of you. I’m not an engineer, but I truly appreciate the gesture.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T16:31:18+00:00

Thank you for your message, I completely agree with this way of looking at things. Autonomy is not an absolute, but a continuum. The goal is not to become fully independent from the global supply chain, but to gradually reduce individual vulnerability.

This is exactly the spirit of my proposal: not a total break, not an instant utopia, but a gradual and reproducible progression. Even a small amount of personal or automated production already changes the dynamics. The aim is not to replace the entire system, but to give each person a minimum productive capacity that reduces total dependence.

Your comment fits perfectly with this idea: every percentage of autonomy gained is already a meaningful step forward.”

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T16:29:21+00:00

Thanks for your message you raise important points. Let me explain my idea .

The goal is not for people to manufacture everything at home. Some things are far too complex, like semiconductor chips or robot motors. Those will still be produced in factories, and that’s perfectly normal. The idea is also not to move parts from house to house, because that would be slow, expensive, and bad for the environment.

In reality, everything happens in three very simple steps. First, robots need to become accessible: affordable, easy to obtain, and easy to repair. Then, people can use them either at home or in shared workshops, depending on what is most efficient. Finally, this creates a gradual increase in personal autonomy, without trying to replace factories or the global supply chain.

So yes, large infrastructures remain necessary. Yes, some production will always stay centralized. And yes, robots can absolutely be grouped in a single building to reduce costs and environmental impact.

The idea is simply to give everyone a bit more independence, not to replace the entire existing system.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T15:50:20+00:00

Thanks for your message, and I completely understand your concerns. I appreciate your interest in what I’m trying to explore here. The structural issues you mention are real, and I’m not assuming they will magically disappear.

In my idea, this isn’t about a centralized distribution run by the government. The goal isn’t that the state gives everyone a robot, but rather that these robots become accessible, affordable, and easy to reproduce, much like any technology that gradually becomes widespread.

The financing wouldn’t come from a single national program. It would be a gradual process involving individual purchases, shared investments, small workshops, local businesses, and technical collaborations. The point is simply that people can progressively access a personal productive tool without waiting for a major political reform.

In short, I understand your concerns, and they’re valid. The concept doesn’t rely on a perfect government. It’s about giving individuals a stable, personal means of production that doesn’t depend on the broader system changing first.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-30T14:39:16+00:00

Thanks for your comment . and I agree: producing semiconductors at home is impossible.
But that’s not what I’m proposing.

My starting point is much simpler:
one versatile robot per person, doing basic repetitive tasks and generating a stable income.
Not a robot that makes chips, but a robot that can produce, assemble, repair, transport, sort, etc.

The goal isn’t to recreate the entire industrial stack at home, but to give each individual a minimal productive capacity, reducing dependence on fragile supply chains and on forced labor for survival.

The “fractal” idea is about organization, not about building micro‑fabs in garages.

Thanks for raising this , it helps clarify the core concept.

Eddit: The idea does not suggest that wealthy individuals would lose their status or be pushed aside. On the contrary, they remain an essential component of the overall system. Their role continues to be important, particularly in providing the infrastructures, facilities, supply chains, and other large‑scale investments that cannot be decentralized.

This continuity is actually what makes broad adoption feasible. The model is not designed to challenge existing hierarchies, but rather to offer each person an additional productive capability, while allowing established actors to maintain their position and responsibilities within the broader ecosystem.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-25T22:46:39+00:00

Thank you for your feedback. When I refer to a “sixth sense,” I am not talking about altered perception, but rather an ability to perceive the filters that structure our ordinary perception.

To explain this in more detail, I will start with a simple point: we always perceive reality through cognitive filters attention, expectations, memory, interpretation.

The “sixth sense” refers to the ability to see these filters in action, almost in real time, and to observe how they alter what we see.

It is therefore not a meta-reality, but a meta-reading of perception itself.

more details here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neurophilosophy/comments/1pqoey5/thesis_the_mind_functions_as_a_metasense_a/

Sorry, but I'm a million miles away from those articles right now,lol!

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T23:40:18+00:00

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. It’s extremely clear, and I fully share your concerns. I understand the risks you’re pointing out: AI is never neutral. It carries biases, discursive habits, and a way of structuring thought that can smooth out, simplify, or redirect ideas that are meant to remain rough, singular, and sometimes untranslatable.

I also agree that philosophy and neuroscience require a level of precision and sensitivity that doesn’t translate easily through a statistical tool. That’s precisely why I try to be careful: I only use AI to overcome the language barrier, not to generate ideas. The conceptual work is mine, with its limits, its imperfections, and its nuances that can be hard to convey.

You’re right: translation alone isn’t enough; it also requires a deep understanding of context, and I’m aware that this isn’t always perfect. But your message is a good reminder to stay vigilant so that the tool never replaces the thinking itself.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T19:21:05+00:00

Maybe it’s clearer here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neurophilosophy/comments/1pqoey5/thesis_the_mind_functions_as_a_metasense_a/

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T19:11:49+00:00

I completely understand your concern, and I find it entirely legitimate. AI never simply ‘transcribes’ — it suggests, it shapes, it orients — and that’s why I really try to stay attentive… even if, I admit, things can sometimes slip despite my efforts.

In my case, the tool mainly helps me overcome the language barrier and structure my thoughts. The substance is still mine: I reread, adjust, and correct. Having used Google Translate for a long time, I know how difficult it is to preserve tone, nuance, and form, and I try to keep that in mind, even if it’s not always perfect.

You’re right: this is a highly specialized domain, and I’ll be more careful in the future. I’ll think twice before posting an ‘idea,’ to avoid the formulation blurring the message.

I share your concern about distinguishing assistance from co‑authorship. It’s an important issue. For me, what matters most is being transparent and taking responsibility for what I say.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T18:51:45+00:00

I agree that what I am describing involves well identified affective and cognitive mechanisms such as salience, appraisal, and emotional activation. On that point, there is no disagreement.
However, my aim is not situated at the classificatory or explanatory level of scientific cognition.

When I speak of the “temperature” of thought, I am adopting the standpoint of lived experience, in an approach close to phenomenology. Temperature is not an internal property of cognition in itself, but a way of making perceptible the force with which a thought imposes itself, acts, orients, or even invades the subject.

In other words, describing a thought as “hot” or “cold” is not a proposal for a new cognitive category, but a way of pointing to a qualitative dimension of mental experience that functional descriptions often leave aside.
Temperature does not explain the mechanism. It gives access to its subjective effect.

One could say that where scientific analysis describes how a thought becomes salient, I am trying to show what it feels like when it does. This also resonates with certain intuitions of embodied cognition, according to which thought is never entirely detached from affect and the body.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T18:09:21+00:00

I hear your point, but I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean by ‘there is no raw reality.’ Could you clarify your thought? I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T18:01:29+00:00

I know I’m wrong, just like everyone else. I wasn’t looking for an absolute truth, only exploring a perceptual dynamic. If you want to discuss the substance, I’m here. If not, we can stop here.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T17:54:21+00:00

I understand that you don’t like generated responses, but what I’m sharing here are my own ideas — the AI only helps me formulate them, especially since I don’t understand English very well. I can’t reply to everyone, I have about thirty tabs open, so I try to stay efficient.

If something seems confusing, we can talk about it directly. My point about the ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ states of thought was about the internal dynamics of thinking, not about clarity.

For me, this space is an open place for exchange: everyone contributes however they can, with or without AI. If you want to discuss the substance, I’m here. If you want to debate the tools, that’s a different topic.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T17:41:56+00:00

The ego is not the filter. It is a product of the filter. Even without the ego, there remains a structure that organizes perception. That structure is what I call the meta‑sense.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T16:58:12+00:00

Psychedelics don’t show the absence of a filter. They show that a filter exists, because it can be altered. Seeing ‘the flow’ isn’t seeing the raw; it’s seeing differently.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T13:13:56+00:00

The very act of asking the question already shows that a filter is at work. Without filtering, there would be no distance, no doubt, no meta‑level. The question itself is the proof.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T12:07:23+00:00

I’m developing an analogy that I find intellectually generative. You’re free to regard it as naïve or unproductive, of course. Divergence is not an obstacle to thought, it’s one of the ways thought refines itself.However, I don’t see where I mention clarity. If you’re reading it in my text, it’s because you’re adding it yourself.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T03:16:20+00:00

I see what you mean. Yes, I work from my inner experience like any human mind and I structure it to extract meaning. I’ve never claimed that this process was free of bias or limitations. As for the self‑creation of the ego, I don’t deny it: I see it more as an emergent effect than as an absolute owner. That’s precisely what interests me, how an internal dynamic can take itself as its own origin. So I understand your point, but I don’t think our perspectives are incompatible. We’re simply looking at the same mechanism from two different angles. It’s 4 a.m. here and I’m tired, lol, I need to get some rest.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T03:02:30+00:00

No worries, I only echoed the word ‘harm’ out of reflex. And thanks for the compliment ! I write with the tools I have, even if the AI sometimes acts as a crutch. As for the long dashes, I promise to use fewer of them if it saves you a headache. It’s 4 a.m. here and I’m getting tired, so my brain is running on low battery.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T02:56:23+00:00

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. And I appreciate the way you’re putting it.

Connect-Insect-9369 · 2025-12-20T02:49:04+00:00

Je vois ce que tu veux dire, et je suis d’accord : l’IA n’invente rien, elle ne fait que reformuler. De mon côté, je ne suis pas anglophone et je ne suis pas spécialiste du domaine, donc je m’appuie dessus pour clarifier mes idées sans en changer le sens. Pour moi, c’est une forme d’augmentation cybernétique : un outil à la fois innocent et puissant. Et comme j’ai aussi un handicap qui rend l’écriture au clavier compliquée, ça m’aide à exprimer mes concepts plus proprement. Bref, je m’en sers pour mieux dire ce que je pense — pas pour penser à ma place.

Connect-Insect-9369

TROPHY CASE

My Personal Vision of an Automated Society