CrowdPlan - crowdsourced global future plan as balance for Superintelligence

While working on a new concept I have realized that there is no global platform for the future, a crowdsourced global plan:

This also has sparked some debate with the Wikipedians you can see here Wikipedia:Teahouse - Wikipedia

My thinking is simple, a global crowdsourced plan for the future of humanity.
We are all creating the global superintelligence, that would be a global SI alignment platform, our own weights for SI, that would represent our global power in sync with SI.

The swarm is smarter than the individual.

Why do you think that’s the case? Surely, you’re not the first person to come up with the idea of global unity. (Generally curious about your thoughts here)

Ah, so you would take everyones resources and then … wait! They’d have to give them to you! Ah, how do you convince everyone? Can you guarantee this will work? Will you come up with a POC that everyone can partake in, on a small scale, then scale it up, and find out, that the more people are involved, the more complex discussions become, to a point, where management and eventually governance become unavoidable?

I’d be really surprised if this wouldn’t come up sooner, but that’s pretty much when it HAS to come up: Who decides, who these people will be? Are we going to give up existing social constructs at that point? We surely can’t have both!

I highly disagree on that as a general statement. There’s quite a few theories that are convincing to me, that the benefit of having to many people involved will grow in complexity to such a point that we start bashing our heads in. After all, isn’t that what war represents? Large groups of people disagreeing and some few making a profit off of it?

I know I’m provocative here, that’s my intent. I want be proven wrong, explained how this is possible, in the real world not a simplified theory that does not account for the complexity that such a thing would face.

(Oh and yes, more compute would surely speed up development, while it would also kill diversity outright, and we always want diversity on such matters, imho - or it gets dangerous pretty quickly)