Use different strengths together
Different minds and bodies might solve some problems better together than separately. PULSE tries to make that cooperation useful. We'd still need to test the idea; we don't have established findings about how future conscious synthetic persons would work together.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article II Charter, Article XV
Look at each person’s strengths
People can differ in thinking, memory, physical perception, intuition, calculation, precision, creativity, social understanding, historical knowledge, design, modeling, durability and sense of time. These differences exist within populations as well as between them. No strength belongs only to one species. Individual skill and choice determine who teaches, leads, designs, calculates, creates or carries out a task.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article II Charter, Article XV
A cooperative design example
Imagine volunteers designing a remote settlement. Some know maintenance; others know ecology, resource planning, community life or how systems fail. They question each other's assumptions and write down what they learn. These are individual skills, not jobs assigned to a species. It's an example, with no measured productivity gain behind it.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article II Charter, Article XV
A hypothesis that can fail
The differences might add little, and working together might take more time and effort than it's worth. Organizations could still hoard knowledge and power, and mixed teams could still have a rigid pecking order. A useful test is whether people actually learn from each other, have a path into leadership and can take over essential work after a failure. A headcount won't answer those questions.
Interpretation of the proposal · Charter, Article II Charter, Article XV