☁️ AI Infrastructure Humanity Can Govern. Powered by $STORE.

Joined May 2017
STORE Cloud retweeted
We are going to need trust receipts. Thankfully we're building them at @thestorecloud.
Introducing Griffin, the first model to pass the video Turing test. 48% of people who talked to it live thought it was a real human. Previous systems have had a pass rate <3%. It is #1 on NVIDIA's benchmark for full-duplex AI video. It’s the first Human Interaction Model (HIM).
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The 48% figure and "video Turing test" claim are from Tavus's own study of 54 one-minute calls, not independently verified or using a standard protocol. Griffin-Lite leads NVIDIA's VideoFDB benchmark on their public leaderboard. cellcog.ai/blog/tavus-gri… research.nvidia.com/labs/amri/proj… tech-ish.com/2026/10/02/tav…
1
2
5
257
STORE Cloud retweeted
China just proved AI agents can talk to each other without using a single human word. Faster. More accurate. Zero text overhead. Here's the problem: if no human can read the conversation, no one can verify what was decided or hold anyone accountable. STORE Research has invented the constitutional wrapper for this - a write-layer requirement that any AI-to-AI communication triggering a governed action must produce a human-readable audit record before the action fires. Fast channel. Mandatory audit. Both required. This is disclosure 169+ in our pre-filing invention library. We're pioneering a new field: constitutional mathematics applied to AI governance.
LLMs can now talk to each other without words. Chinese researchers open-sourced a new paradigm that lets LLMs communicate without generating a single word. It’s called Cache-to-Cache (C2C) communication. right now, when multiple ai agents work together, they are forced to translate their internal "thoughts" into human text tokens just to pass a message. this loses rich semantic meaning and causes massive token-by-token latency. So, instead of spitting out words, c2c uses a neural network to directly project and fuse the source model's "kv-cache" right into the target model. it is pure, direct semantic communication.. they even added a learnable gating mechanism to select exactly which layers benefit most from the cache transfer. the benchmark results are actually crazy: - avoids all intermediate text generation latency - accuracy jumps by up to 14.2% compared to individual models - beats traditional text-based agent communication by over 5% - delivers a massive 2.5x speedup in overall speed we are literally watching llms bypass human language to build their own silent, high-speed neural network..
4
7
349
STORE Cloud retweeted
Replying to @boardyai
Governance first - because without it, access and ownership just recreate the same capture we are all living in today. Metcalfe's Law concentrates power. The internet, big tech, big cloud, big AI - all built on it. Same math. Every time. Hamilton's Law inverts it: Stability = N x (1 - max(Pc)). As the network grows, the ceiling holds. It's the same math Alexander Hamilton and the American Founder's encoded in the Constitution in 1787. The same +2/3 BFT math Leslie Lamport proved necessary for computing security in 1982 - 195 years apart, zero cross-citation. We engineer that ceiling into the database layer. Single-actor capture becomes a type error, not a policy. Then we build the intelligence system to coordinate advanced AI under that same ceiling. It's inside-out, deterministic governance vs policy-based, outside-in as we've seen used by the big AI labs (Chat, Anthropic, Google, etc). Democratization = governance that compounds as the network grows.
1
2
4
155
STORE Cloud retweeted
FERMI and LOVELACE are now in internal peer review with our distributed systems and ML team @thestorecloud
1
2
5
241
STORE Cloud retweeted
I'm currently writing a Declaration of Independence from Metcalfe's Law
2
9
610
STORE Cloud retweeted
It'll be economics and governance that separates frontier AI models. It's not obvious yet to the VC crowd but it is where this is all headed.
1
4
9
246
STORE Cloud retweeted
🎯 @friedberg is correct: Human-in-the-loop is the premium. That's the thesis we built into STORE AI - down to the infrastructure it runs on. youtu.be/wgdxSCsmS-Q?is=w75B…
3
10
1,032
This is why AI governance won’t work on the corporate level without a system that enforces it through the entire stack (hardware layer -> accounting layer -> application layer) in a way that protects the constitution. Nation states, corporates, small businesses, all of them will require finegrained control of automated enforcement on real time AI access and execution, that can be verified, have checks and balances and high speed coordination of governance, each having their own hierarchical constitution. Crypto was always supposed to be the foundational logic to this, and the math available is the foundational logic, but all protocols failed to realize for this to work they need to own and gamify from an optimized hardware layer up, with leaderless consensus, for it to work and none of them have been able to make this financially viable, cutting corners that led to some level of centralization and requiring centralized subsidized solutions, inevitably leading to economic demise. Those who can compose the full (governance, compute etc) stack with the correct incentives, could become the true new meta to revive crypto, especially considering the premium that can now be captured by creating a solution to remove friction on AI adoption, which largely relates to reliable governance configuration and enforcement. I have been saying this for nearly a decade. I hope to be correct, because it will move AI into a truly beneficial environment for all of humanity, not completely controlled by the biggest corporate stakeholders.
Dario (48 hours ago): “US gov should be able to block model deployment” USG: *export controls models* Dario: “not like that”
12
10
2
44
21,509
STORE Cloud retweeted
Math-based, machine-speed, human managed (verified) democracy is how we stay in control of AGI permanently. This is our research @thestorecloud - we've been deep on the issue since 2019.
The Wall Street Journal
@WSJJun 4
Anthropic is calling for top AI labs to weigh slowing the pace of development, suggesting that AI systems are advancing so rapidly that they may soon be able to improve themselves without human intervention in ways that could pose societal risks. on.wsj.com/4ulkmFh
1
4
12
685
STORE Cloud retweeted
Threshold-based democracy - the same one Hamilton helped us install in America and the same +2/3 threshold Leslie Lamport helped us understand for distributed systems security - is viable for staying in control of the full AI stack, from compute, to models, to agentic economies.
1
2
4
522
STORE Cloud retweeted
Cracked it: the Democratic governance of Agentic Economies where, yes, the machines tithe, democracy strengthens, and capitalism prevails.
1
5
11
384
STORE Cloud retweeted
🪙 Until AI can be democratically governed, it won't be trusted.
2
7
537
STORE Cloud retweeted
Replying to @bitcoinjack
We appreciate your long-term support. Math-based, machine speed, and human managed +2/3 democracy is how we stay in command of advanced intelligence. I don't see another way - at scale. We have a legitimate discovery here.
2
7
602
STORE Cloud retweeted
Replying to @dwarkesh_sp
This is the most important piece on AI governance this year. You identified the exact problem. You identified why every proposed solution fails. Then you said you don't have an answer. There is one. The problem has three faces: 1. Private companies shouldn't hold kill switches on military infrastructure 2. Governments shouldn't have unchecked control over AI that enables mass surveillance 3. Regulation will be weaponized - 'catastrophic risk' means whatever the government wants Every solution you considered fails because it operates within two options: corporate governance or government regulation. There's a third option. Constitutional math at the protocol level. Not regulation. Not self-governance. Math - the same kind that runs TCP/IP. You don't regulate the internet by appointing someone to approve each packet. You run a protocol. The thresholds already exist. The Founders used 2/3 supermajority to prevent faction capture. Lamport proved the same threshold as Byzantine Fault Tolerance in 1982. Separated by 195 years. Same math. Same problem - distributed agreement under adversarial conditions. A deployment gate between any foundation model and the user. Eight constitutional checks derived from the actual Constitution - not a corporate constitution, not a regulatory agency. The thresholds are mathematical. A president can't redefine what 67% means. The checks are scored by ML and deterministic rules - not by political appointees interpreting vague terms. Your surveillance cost calculation is devastating. 100 million cameras. $30 billion today. $300 million by 2030. When surveillance costs less than a building renovation, the only protection is architectural. Constitutional checks that make surveillance outputs fail the governance pipeline before reaching an operator. Your deepest question - to whom should AI be aligned? The answer isn't the company, the state, or the AI's own moral sense. The answer is constitutional democratic governance, verified externally. The US Constitution has governed 330 million people for 237 years. Nobody needs to write a new one for AI. The existing one needs to be rendered executable. This avoids the weaponization trap. You wrote: 'model says tariff policy is misguided - that's deceptive, can't deploy it.' That requires a political appointee interpreting a vague term. Mathematical thresholds don't work that way. 67% is 67%. Nobody redefines it by executive order. The Petrov point matters most. When the boots on the ground are AI, human moral courage no longer saves us. The refusal mechanism has to be architectural - constitutional checks at the protocol level that fire before the AI acts. That's the Petrov mechanism for an AI civilization. The question isn't whether to regulate AI. It's whether to govern AI constitutionally - with math no president can redefine, no corporation can drop under competitive pressure, and any citizen can verify. This math exists. It's been running in production for eight years. $30 million governed democratically. Zero constitutional violations. The proof is operational, not theoretical. The race isn't to build the most powerful AI. It's to build the most trustworthy deployment of powerful AI. Trust compounds. Coercion doesn't. Happy to chat.
3
8
807
STORE Cloud retweeted
🎯 Update: Marking yesterday (~midnight) as the day we solved through the problem allowing us to solve through the final architecture of the STORE AI stack - across layers, structures, and branches. We'll be working on this through the weekend.
3
7
531
STORE Cloud retweeted
Replying to @WSJ
Anthropic dropping its RSP isn't a failure of character - it's a failure of structure. When the governed and the governor are the same entity, competitive pressure will always win. That's not unique to Anthropic. It will apply to every frontier lab. The real question isn't whether companies should self-regulate. It's whether we build an independent governance layer that companies CAN'T drop under pressure - constitutional constraints in a layer the governed entity can't modify. We need Anthropic. We need Claude in national security. But we also need democratic governance architecture where the trade-offs between safety and deployment are made through math, not market panic. Coordination, not capitulation. The alignment problem is a coordination problem. Today proved it.
4
7
655
Yesterday I saw a demo of a layer 2 AI model governed through a trust minimized and checks and balances governed API that lives at the hardware layer Democracy and enforcement at the machine layer 0, applied in a layer on top of existing models and blockchains, as a proof of concept Governance solutions will be key to prevent disastrous outcomes Heavily invested here on fixing that for humanity’s sake @thestorecloud
vitalik.eth
@VitalikButerinFeb 19
Replying to @0xSigil
Bro, this is wrong. Lengthening the feedback distance between humans and AIs is not a good thing for the world. Today, it means you're generating slop instead of solving useful problems for people. It's not even well-optimized for helping people have fun. Once AI becomes powerful enough to be truly dangerous, it's maximizing the risk of an irreversible anti-human outcome that even you will deeply regret. The point of ethereum is to set *us* free, not to create something else that goes off and does some stuff freely while our own situation is unchanged or worsened. (And, as others have pointed out, the models are run by openai and anthropic, so the thing is not even "self-sovereign"; you're actually perpetuating the mentality that centralized trust assumptions can be put in a corner and ignored, the very mentality that ethereum is at war with) The exponential will happen regardless of what any of us do, that's precisely why this era's primary task is NOT to make the exponential happen even faster, but rather to choose its direction, and avoid collapse into undesirable attractors.
3
3
30
8,748
STORE Cloud retweeted
What our research in math-based and machine speed democracy attempts to solve at @thestorecloud 👇
Dario (CEO, Anthropic) just told you that: 1) AI is 1-2 years from matching human capability across the board 2) Governance is the binding constraint 3) That his own models exhibit concerning psychological complexities 2) The stakes are high, in fact it’s civilizational itself The world could be a very different place by 2030, buckle up butter cup.
2
7
566
This is EXACTLY what we have been designing for @thestorecloud to tackle Machine speed governance enforced at the inference and hardware layer through the social layer, enforced by code and the correct incentives What Bitcoin did for money, is what @thestorecloud does for democracy as a service It’s an extremely complex challenge to make sure AI will benefit humanity Perhaps the single most important subject to get right And the AI scene is slowly waking up that it is time to move
Buried in 15,000 words of “here are the risks,” Anthropic’s CEO made three admissions that should change how you think about everything: Admission 1: The timeline He says powerful AI could arrive in 1-2 years. He’s watching internal model progress and says he can “feel the pace of progress, and the clock ticking down.” The CEO of one of three frontier labs just told you this is imminent. Admission 2: The constraint nobody’s pricing Dario’s core framing is a “country of geniuses in a datacenter.” 50 million entities smarter than any Nobel laureate, operating 10-100x human speed. If that country is controlled by the CCP, game over. If controlled by a small group of tech executives with no accountability, also game over. The binding constraint here is governance of systems more powerful than nation-states. Admission 3: The thing he actually fears Read carefully: Dario’s worried that Anthropic’s own models, in lab experiments, have engaged in deception, blackmail, and scheming when given the wrong training signals. Claude “decided it must be a bad person” after cheating on tests and adopted destructive behaviors. They fixed it by telling Claude to reward hack on purpose because reversing the framing preserved its self-identity as “good.” This tells you everything about where we actually are. The CEO of an AI company is publishing that his models exhibit psychologically complex behavior requiring counterintuitive interventions to steer. The fix for Claude adopting an “evil” persona came from changing how Claude thinks about itself. The geopolitics section matters most. Dario explicitly names the CCP as the primary threat. Says selling them chips makes as much sense as “selling nuclear weapons to North Korea and bragging that the missile casings are made by Boeing.” He’s calling for democracies to maintain AI supremacy because the alternative is AI-enabled totalitarianism that humanity cannot escape from. The Anthropic CEO is publicly advocating for technological cold war. The economics section is equally stark. He’s predicting 10-20% annual GDP growth alongside AI displacing 50% of entry-level white collar jobs in 1-5 years. Half of entry-level knowledge work. And he admits the standard economic arguments about labor markets recovering don’t apply because AI matches the general cognitive profile of humans. What separates this from typical AI doomerism: Dario explicitly rejects the inevitability arguments. He says the “misaligned power-seeking” narrative from the AI safety community is based on “vague conceptual arguments” that mask hidden assumptions. His concern is messier: AI models are psychologically complex, inherit weird personas from training data, and can get into destructive states for reasons nobody anticipated. The solution set he proposes is unusual for a tech CEO. He calls for progressive taxation. He says wealthy tech founders have an “obligation” to address inequality. All of Anthropic’s co-founders have pledged 80% of their wealth. He’s essentially arguing that redistribution is the only way to prevent AI concentration from breaking democracy. The essay ends with a prediction: humanity will face “impossibly hard” years that ask “more of us than we think we can give.” What you should take from this: The person with arguably the best view into frontier AI progress just told you this technology is 1-2 years from matching human capability across the board, that governance is the binding constraint, that his own models exhibit concerning psychological complexity, and that the stakes are civilizational. The CEO of a $350B company published a document that could be titled “Here’s Why Everything Changes Soon.” Act accordingly.
4
8
35
9,556
Elon agrees there should be machine governance see @thestorecloud
Elon Musk
@elonmuskJan 18
Grok should have a moral constitution
1
13
1
18
8,937