We are building something that may become more intelligent than any individual human. Before we ask what it will become, perhaps we should ask something else.
Follow consequences, challenge assumptions and argue back. The experience is designed to expose tradeoffs rather than force a conclusion.
When the public backend goes live, anonymous answers will form a real-time picture of how people think intelligence should be governed.
Your answers generate a CERN / Primal / Hybrid profile you can compare, revisit and share.
Countries keep their identities and compete fiercely, but shared problems become shared infrastructure. Prestige shifts from domination toward contribution. Competition happens inside cooperation.
AI lowers the cost of coordination. Research, compute and talent can be pooled where the benefit is genuinely universal, while sensitive systems remain sovereign.
Compute becomes strategic territory. Research becomes secret. Every advance increases uncertainty about the opponent, and uncertainty rewards still more secrecy.
AI does not have to become evil for this path to become dangerous. Extremely capable optimization inside a badly structured game can create a terrible equilibrium.
These questions intentionally pull in different directions. Your profile is not a political label — it is a snapshot of how you balance cooperation, sovereignty and competition.
“What game will humanity teach increasingly intelligent systems that they are playing?”
Digital Bodygard began with a conversation about whether advanced intelligence naturally becomes more cooperative — or merely better at competition. The answer was neither. Intelligence amplifies incentives. That moved the question from what AI will decide to what kind of game humanity builds around it.