The road not taken: what is the future of metaverse? | IGF 2023 Networking Session #65

Audience

The discussion revolved around various significant issues concerning the metaverse. One key point raised was the presence of structural disadvantages in the adoption of metaverse enabling technologies. It was pointed out that these technologies are primarily developed in countries with high rates of IT development, placing developing countries at a disadvantage. It was acknowledged that developing nations need to catch up to match the level of technological sovereignty and metaverse connectivity that Western countries have achieved.

The importance of regulation for the metaverse was heavily emphasized. Regulation was seen as crucial for ensuring the value proposition and continuous growth of the metaverse. It was noted that the development of digital platforms has been accelerated by COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns were raised regarding the need to address standardisation and interoperability issues, as well as regulatory challenges associated with generative AI. These challenges underscored the necessity of effective regulation to navigate and address the complexities of the metaverse.

The absence of regulation for current metaverse and IT companies was highlighted as a concerning issue. It was noted that these companies operate without specific jurisdiction, leading to a lack of understanding regarding their regulatory framework. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether metaverse companies should offer digital citizenship, further complicating the regulatory landscape. The need to establish clear regulations and frameworks for metaverse and IT companies was deemed essential to mitigate potential risks and ensure accountability.

Privacy and jurisdiction concerns were also brought to attention. It was argued that digital citizenship in the metaverse raises questions regarding privacy and jurisdiction, demanding robust resolution. The implications of privacy, jurisdiction, and applicable law in the metaverse need to be properly addressed to foster the safe and secure environment for users.

On a positive note, it was mentioned that there is existing legislation that can be applied to the metaverse, depending on the specific use case. Examples of existing regulations include those governing personal data, digital identities, electronic signatures, and payment interoperability standards. It was also noted that the hosting of personal data, whether in the metaverse or not, is governed by certain regulations. This recognition of existing legislation provided a ray of hope in terms of navigating the regulatory landscape of the metaverse.

The discussion also delved into the concerns surrounding the conflation of religious beliefs and technological advancements. It was highlighted that this can potentially challenge the structure of human personality. The importance of distinguishing the real world from the virtual world and the potential dangers of blending religious dogmas with technology were emphasised.

Technical challenges were also addressed during the discussion. It was mentioned that one potential bottleneck limiting the growth of the metaverse is lag or delay in connections. This issue needs to be properly addressed to ensure smooth and seamless user experiences within the metaverse.

The topic of regulation for safety was explored, with an emphasis on the limitations of relying solely on regulation. It was argued that regulation is often influenced by lobbying and tends to be abstract, while violations are concrete and precise. This highlighted the need to find a balance between regulation and direct accountability to ensure a safe environment within the metaverse.

The importance of holding platforms accountable was also emphasised. It was noted that technology plays a crucial role in collecting evidence, studying algorithms, and monitoring platform behaviour to effectively hold platforms accountable. This recognition highlighted the significance of technological advancements in ensuring platform accountability.

There were also specific discussions related to user experience and feedback. It was underscored that user experience is crucial and that having an individual log can be beneficial for both users and providers. User feedback was seen as essential for improving the metaverse and enhancing the overall user experience. The value of user feedback and the potential for using individual logs for accountability purposes were highlighted.

Other noteworthy observations included concerns about data collection and utilisation in the crypto metaverse, as well as the preference for quicker onboarding processes that do not gather excessive user data. Additionally, the abundance of digital assets generated by generative AI in the metaverse was seen as a potential threat to their value. It was estimated that the metaverse could be worth $5 trillion by 2030, but the abundance of digital assets could decrease their value.

In conclusion, the discussion surrounding the metaverse touched on a wide range of issues. It brought attention to the need to address structural disadvantages in technology adoption, regulate the metaverse to ensure its value proposition and continuous growth, resolve privacy and jurisdiction concerns, and distinguish the real world from the virtual world. Existing legislation was acknowledged as a potential framework for regulation, while technical challenges and user feedback were highlighted as important factors in the metaverse’s development. The discussion also raised concerns about data collection, asset value, and the impact of blending religious beliefs with technological advancements. Overall, the in-depth exploration of these various issues shed light on the complexities and considerations surrounding the metaverse.

Vakhtang Kipshidze

The Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the existence of the metaverse but asserts that it is a man-made and imperfect world that imitates God’s perfect creation. Vakhtang Kipshidze, a representative of the Church, shares this view and emphasizes that the metaverse is a human creation seeking perfection.

Kipshidze expresses concern about the metaverse becoming entirely secular, excluding religious values. He advocates for integrating religious values into metaverses to counteract religious exclusion and ensure inclusivity. This promotes peace, justice, and strong institutions within virtual worlds.

Kipshidze also raises concerns about the relationship between privacy and freedom in the metaverse. He highlights the close tie between privacy and freedom, warning that violating privacy in virtual environments can lead to a loss of individual freedom. It is crucial to establish privacy protections to safeguard personal freedoms in the metaverse.

Moreover, Kipshidze discusses the challenge of translating human encounters to the virtual realm. He argues that values like love may not have the same impact in virtual interactions as in face-to-face experiences within families and religious communities. Careful thought and consideration are needed to nurture important values in the metaverse.

Furthermore, Kipshidze expresses worry about the potential negative consequences of excessive immersion in the virtual world of metaverses. He believes that obsession with the metaverse can harm individual freedom and overall well-being. Balance and moderation are essential when engaging with virtual platforms.

Additionally, Kipshidze cautions against mixing religious and technological issues, such as digital immortality. He believes that combining religious and non-religious elements in virtual spaces could endanger the structure of human personality. This raises questions about the impacts of merging religious and technological concepts within the metaverse.

Finally, Kipshidze emphasizes the significance of distinguishing between the real world and the virtual world. He sees the issue of immortality as a challenge in differentiating the two realms. Bringing religious dogmas into the realm of technology should be avoided. Critical thinking and discernment are necessary when navigating the virtual landscape.

In summary, Vakhtang Kipshidze’s perspectives shed light on various aspects of the metaverse. The Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the metaverse as a man-made and imperfect creation. Kipshidze’s concerns and recommendations revolve around integrating religious values, protecting privacy and freedom, nurturing important values, avoiding obsession with the virtual world, and maintaining a distinction between the real and virtual realms. These insights contribute to the ongoing discussion on the implications and impact of metaverses in society.

Alina

Regulating the metaverse, a virtual reality space where users interact with computer-generated environments and others, poses complex challenges due to jurisdictional uncertainty and the potential for companies falling under multiple jurisdictions. The metaverse operates globally, making it difficult to determine which laws and regulations should apply. This issue is further complicated by conflicting laws on technology, privacy, and security in different countries. Finding a consensus on metaverse regulation becomes a formidable task.

An important concern for regulation is the standardization process and interoperability. As the metaverse evolves, establishing common standards and protocols is crucial for seamless integration and communication between platforms and virtual worlds. This ensures consistent experiences for users across different environments. However, achieving standardization is complex and necessitates collaboration among stakeholders.

On a positive note, the metaverse holds the potential for digital immortality. Avatars in the metaverse can learn and mimic real-life individuals, allowing their existence to continue even after their physical demise. This raises philosophical questions about identity and ethical considerations regarding creating digital replicas of deceased individuals.

Additionally, the concept of a digital state and digital citizenship is emerging within the metaverse. Individuals can have a presence in multiple metaverses, similar to having dual or multiple citizenship in the physical world. This concept offers intriguing possibilities such as digital societies and rights and responsibilities for digital citizens. However, it also raises concerns about governance, accountability, and potential inequality or exclusion within virtual communities.

In conclusion, regulating the metaverse is complex due to challenges related to jurisdiction, standardization, and interoperability. The metaverse offers potential for digital immortality through avatar preservation and the emergence of digital states and citizenship. While these advancements present exciting opportunities, they also require careful consideration of ethical and societal implications. Policymakers, industry leaders, and society as a whole must collaborate to shape the metaverse’s future while maximizing its benefits and mitigating risks.

Daniil Mazurin

AI plays a crucial role in the development of metaverses, as demonstrated by the integration of OpenAI’s ChatGPT into our daily lives. With over 180 million monthly users, ChatGPT showcases the widespread adoption of AI technology. The current metaverses built by companies like Meta or in the blockchain space, such as Sandbox or Decentraland, are unlikely to achieve mass adoption. This highlights the challenges and limitations that need to be addressed for metaverses to become widely accessible and appealing to the general public. The ideal metaverse should combine real-life experiences, virtual worlds, augmented reality (AR), and AI technologies. Meta’s Rayban AR glasses exemplify a product that integrates the metaverse into society by blending the virtual world with our physical reality. Proper regulation is essential to govern innovative technologies like the metaverse. Lessons from the crypto industry emphasize the importance of regulating such industries to ensure compliance with legal and ethical boundaries. The development and expansion of the metaverse face challenges related to processors and software technologies like Unreal Engine and Unity Engine. Powerful processing capacities are required for advanced virtual worlds, and accessing such metaverses without appropriate devices can result in a subpar experience. Effective user onboarding and verification processes are crucial for enhancing user interaction and platform security. However, concerns regarding privacy and data misuse arise when considering user data management. Addressing these concerns is integral to maintaining user trust and safeguarding personal information. In an ideal metaverse, digital assets should have a limited supply. This scarcity contributes to the creation of demand and enhances the value and ownership experience within the metaverse. Additionally, generative AI can be used by artists to enhance their artwork, rather than replacing them entirely. Furthermore, AI can be utilized to create digital immortality, where AI systems simulate deceased loved ones. This technology allows individuals to continue communicating with their loved ones even after their passing. However, acceptance and implementation may depend on religious and moral considerations. In summary, AI plays a significant role in metaverse development, manifesting in the integration of ChatGPT into our daily lives. However, current metaverses face challenges in achieving mass adoption. The ideal metaverse merges real-life experiences, virtual worlds, AR, and AI technologies. Proper regulation is necessary to balance innovation and mitigate risks. Advancements in processors and software technologies are essential for metaverse expansion. User onboarding and verification are critical for user interaction and platform security, but privacy concerns must be addressed. Scarcity of digital assets and the use of AI for digital immortality can enhance the metaverse experience.

Moderator

The analysis provides insights into various arguments and perspectives surrounding metaverse technology. One argument emphasises the importance of considering values and preserving freedom in the metaverse. It highlights that religious communities should be included in discussions about metaverse technology, as sometimes the metaverse can undermine religious values. The analysis suggests that the preservation of privacy in the metaverse can ensure the protection of freedom. However, it also cautions that an excessive obsession with the metaverse can have detrimental effects on freedom.

Another viewpoint discusses the opportunities and threats posed by metaverse technology. It acknowledges the potential for the metaverse to be utilised for educational and healthcare purposes, which can contribute to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). However, the analysis also recognises the potential for crimes and abuse in the metaverse, raising concerns about safety and ethics. It references a report from the Center for Global IT Cooperation, which provides analytical insights into the metaverse’s impact.

Additionally, the analysis raises concerns about the potential structural disadvantages of metaverse technologies for developing countries. It points out that most metaverse technologies are developed in high IT development countries, primarily in Western Europe, leaving developing countries at a disadvantage due to technological limitations. This observation aligns with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), advocating for more inclusive development and support for developing countries in adopting metaverse technologies.

Furthermore, the analysis advocates for the active involvement and regulation of metaverse technologies by the governments of developing countries. It argues that developing countries should prioritize the regulation of innovation to effectively navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the metaverse. This viewpoint aligns primarily with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and emphasizes the importance of government intervention for equitable development.

Lastly, the analysis stresses the necessity for audience engagement and idea sharing. It highlights the value of encouraging the audience to actively participate by raising their hand, sharing ideas, or asking questions. This perspective aligns with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), emphasizing the importance of collaboration and partnership to fully realize the benefits of metaverse technology.

In conclusion, the analysis of metaverse technology presents a diverse range of arguments and perspectives. It underscores the need to consider values and preserve freedom in the metaverse, highlights the opportunities and threats posed by metaverse technology, raises concerns about the potential structural disadvantages faced by developing countries, advocates for government involvement and regulation, and stresses the importance of audience engagement and idea sharing. Overall, this analysis offers valuable insights into the complex nature of metaverse technology and its implications for various stakeholders.

Moderator:
Good morning, dear colleagues. I’m glad to see everyone here today. We’ll have a discussion, networking session on the topic of the future of the metaverses. I would really recommend and urge everyone to sit closer to the presidium as I think that this format better be realized as a form of generic exchange of ideas rather than speakers speaking their prepared reports. But keeping this in mind, we still will have several speakers with prepared reports on the topics of the development of the metaverses, on the future of metaverses, on ethical reasons behind the development of such technologies, and general views. Some of our speakers are representatives of the civil society, others of the academia, and we also have several people who are involved in NFT and metaverse development projects. So hopefully, this session will be interesting, involving, and I really urge participation from everyone. Our first participant of the discussion is the member of the, you’ll be surprised, Russian Orthodox Church, Vakhtang Kipshidze. I think that Vakhtang has joined us online. Vakhtang, can you hear us? I can see that Vakhtang is online, but maybe he has some technical issues, and we should start with another speaker, Daniel Mazurin, who is also online. Almost all of our speakers are currently online. This should say something about the development of metaverses online already. Here I see. Daniel, are you with us? Okay. Okay, I can see. Vakhtang has joined us. It’s late night at Moscow, but still, thank you very much for joining IGF.

Vakhtang Kipshidze:
Good morning, dear colleagues. Thank you so much for inviting me to this forum. And first of all, I would like to start from saying that it is quite natural for the Russian Orthodox Church to take part in such discussions about metaverses, because technologies nowadays are so developed that actually religious communities cannot just stay aside of these discussions. And particularly, this is true about metaverse. What do we consider to be metaverse to be? Metaverse, as I think, is a man-made world that is controlled by man, actually. But however, the problem is with this world is that it claims to be perfect. We religious people actually get used to living in imperfect world. And actually, religions and Christianity, at least, tries to find the recipe to overcome sin and the very fact that this world is imperfect. However, metaverse is a parallel world. And this parallel world sometimes tend to put religions aside, saying that this world is circular. And values which are actual in this world have nothing to do with the religious values, which are widely widespread in our contemporary, not virtual, but real world. First of all, I would like to say that imperfectness of the real world that we have around us, and everybody can actually test this imperfectness on his own skin, actually goes to the metaverse, to virtual world, which is being established by us people. As we believe us just to the opposite, the real world is created by God, as we believe as religious people. So I would say the way how we combine these two worlds in our mind is very crucial and important for us. My main idea is about values. How can we support values in real world and try to bring them to the virtual world, to metaverse? It is not a simple task. I would like to stress that our church actually tries to involve all technologists and particular in virtual world to actually for Christian testimony. However, it is very difficult to go through to the hearts of people. And of course, metaverse is a very material world. And as you know, even better than me, this world is actually directed by material value and material income. So it is very difficult to religious communities to testify about values. Here during your session, as I read, you are going to discuss not only, I would say advantages, but also disadvantages of the metaverses. And particularly you will discuss crimes that are being committed there. And I would like to say that these crimes, if we judge by the consequences of these crimes, are very severe because people sometimes can be actually deprived of their privacy. Our church throughout its history actually testified that privacy is very connected with freedom. If you are deprived of privacy sooner or later, you will be deprived of freedom. And freedom is a real value of the humanity that would be saved and protected everywhere. This is one thing. And the other thing for you to discuss is that our real humanity, I would say, humanity which get what’s used to living in the real world, not virtual, throughout its history, found a way to produce values and produce love. The most important value is love. And love is not a simple value to create and to establish. Love always grows in the context of family and the context of relatives, in the context of religious sacraments, if you are a religious person. All that is very, I would say, questionable in the world of metaverse. So, I think that here, and at this state of development of human race, we should think about values and how these values would be protected. And that should be our good will to go on the path of protecting these values. The other thing I would like to stress is that sometimes, and we all see that, people are being obsessed by virtual world, by metaverses. And this obsession, I would say, is very detrimental to the freedom and well-being of human personality. Again, we, humanity, are very just well acquainted with obsessions of different kinds. And obsession of the virtuality is a new kind of obsession. And so, if you want to somehow find a way to just fight this obsession, you should elaborate new approaches. And this is not a simple task. So, with that said, I would like to thank all organizers of this forum and wish you good luck in your discussions. If you, if it is possible, just, I am open to the questions that could come from your side. So, thank you very much indeed.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Vakhtang. Thank you also that you had time to join us. And we would really encourage also our participants to ask questions, to engage, and hopefully you’ll stay with us during the whole discussion. I must also tell a little bit about our organization I represent and that hosts today’s networking session called Center for Global IT Cooperation. It’s in the think tank, which deals with questions of digital development, transformation, digital economy, internet governance, and all sorts of things digital. Recently, we have contributed an analytical report on the theme of metaverses to T20 within the format of G20. It was also dedicated to the ethical issues which arise during the development of metaverses, during the usage of metaverses, possibilities of crimes, abuse, and also opportunities which metaverses can provide in terms of education, in terms of healthcare, and all sorts of things which come with it. And I think that best way to elaborate on the positive side of metaverses would be to give a floor to someone who deals with them directly, works with projects connected to metaverses, NFT technologies, and metaverse-enabling technologies. Today we have with us our dear friend Daniel Mazurin, a young interpreter, entrepreneur, businessman, startup, our guru. Daniel, is everything all right? Do you have, yeah, you’re supposed to speak. Great.

Daniil Mazurin:
Awesome. Thank you so much, Alim. Long time no see. It’s a pleasure to be here. Always grateful for opportunities that you and you give us. So I would like to, from the technologist’s point of view and coming from the private sector, I’d like to start with one thesis. And this thesis is that we are living and looking at one of the most, if not the most interesting period of human history in terms of technological integration into our society and our daily lives. And I’m specifically talking about the artificial intelligence that we have to talk about today because metaverse tech and AI are, you know, is extremely connected. So I don’t know about, you know, technologies that we had in the ancient Egypt, forgotten technology, but in the modern society, I believe that AI, you know, plays a very big role. And we are already seeing a lot of users of chatGPT, right? AI model developed by the OpenAI. There are more than 180 million users daily, oh, sorry, monthly. And it was a stats in August. And metaverse technology, as I said, is very connected with artificial intelligence because we cannot develop a proper metaverse or virtual world or artificial intelligence or artificial world or augmented reality world without AI integration. So thus, I like to state that, you know, we’re living in a very, very interesting period of human history. And already, you know, we’ve already tested on ourselves how chatGPT influences our lives. And the same thing would be, I believe with metaverse technology. Right now, what we have on the market, and the market is not very bright right now, of course, because, you know, a lot of corporations and what’s stated in the description of the agenda, you know, a lot of corporations are stopping to develop metaverse tech. Why? Well, it’s, I don’t know about the directors of the corporations, but I can see a lot of startups, especially in the third world countries, developing metaverse projects, and they’re pretty successful. And they’re being bought by many businesses, and corporations. operations APIs are being used in terms of our technology, for example, on the in the business in the startup industry. So we’re seeing a lot of things going on. But we don’t see a real integration. Why? Well, personally, I think that modern metaverses are not what metaverse should look like metaverse should combine not only virtual worlds with, you know, VR Hamlet that you have right now VR glasses by meta and other corporations, metaverse should combine real life too. And we can combine real life with virtual world using AR technology. You’ve probably heard and seen recent news about Rayban and meta AR glasses. This is one of the biggest AR and metaverse products for integration into into this society. It’s a, you know, brand new Rayban and it’s very good for youth and it’s very cool. So I believe by making such mass adoption products will be able to integrate this tech into our society. Well, why? Well, yeah, regulation is, is a must, right? It is needed. We’ve seen what happened in the crypto industry for the past two years, a lot of scams. People lost a lot of money. So such industries, innovative industries should be regulated, of course. I’m not talking about the US regulation when you have to ban a lot of companies. I’m not saying about Chinese regulation, where you just ban every, every technology to develop by your own. I’m saying about good regulation, where you give an opportunity for businesses to thrive, give an opportunity for startups to properly make money and improve, improve the technology. And this, this tech, like metaverse technology, VR, AR, AI, should be regulated, first of all, in the third world countries, where this tech, innovative, innovative tech gives opportunity to increase GDP, to increase quality of people’s lives. And overall, just make a very cool implementations and, and make a future in this, in this countries. So yeah, I’m not a long speech. Overall, I would, I like to say that the metaverse that we’ll see in the upcoming years, is not the metaverse that we have, like what Mark Zuckerberg is building, or what we have in the, in the blockchain space, like sandbox or the central end. These are not metaverses that will be mass adopted. metaverse will be a combination of VR, AR and AI technologies. And specifically, if we’re talking about AI, it’s already being used for, for example, integration of AI into NPCs, right in gaming and virtual worlds, or even in augmented reality, in terms of GPS mapping and creating immersive experiences, automatically with artificial intelligence for AR glasses, or just AR applications on on on our smartphones. So yeah, I think I think this is it for me.

Moderator:
Oh, so Daniel, I have a brief question for you. So what do you think about such a thesis that, of course, taking into account all the positive sides that metaverse enabling technologies can provide, for instance, let’s say, in corporate, corporate education formats, even in space, like in the sphere of auto piloting, and etc. Could there potentially be some structural disadvantages, you have talked briefly about developing countries, and I can clearly see the problem that, of course, metaverse enabling technologies are amazing. They are very aspiring and great, but we should acknowledge that they developed only in countries with high rate of IT development, GDP and etc, mostly Western European countries, could there potentially be a situation with structural disadvantage, where the developed world already has access to such technologies and uses it, and the developing world once again, has to try to reach their level of technological sovereignty and metaverse connectivity and is unable to do so simply because of the structural differences, what should be done about it? Should this question be addressed as well? Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s that’s a great question. And that’s a great statement from you. Because there is an absolute structural disadvantage nowadays in terms of technology creation from the West, right and from China. And that’s why I said that, you know, first countries that should properly regulate and give opportunities for startups to thrive and to build products should be third world countries. Yeah, of course, there is a big advantage of the of the United States and Europe in terms of technology and in terms of technological resources. But you know, a lot of things are changing nowadays. And that’s why third world governments should regulate innovation, firstly, while the other other countries are trying to regulate and they have other interests in their hats. So yeah. Thank you very much. So maybe there are some ideas from the audience, or I also see that we have some quite a number of around 20 people online, I would really encourage anyone to raise their hand and ask a question or maybe propose a certain idea of their own. Yeah, clearly can see a gentleman over there. I do have a mic in the you do have Yeah, there’s a microphone.

Audience:
Thank you. So just a few things that during COVID, it acted as a catalyst for so many different digital platforms to come up and it showed us some of the value proposition of metaverse. But as you know, that the standardization process is still going on. The interoperability issues are there. There have been certain projects like for example, digital immortality, people have been trying to, you know, if you have a digital avatar, and it can basically learn about a certain real life person. And if that person is no longer there, then the avatar lives on and how accurately it can mimic a certain person real person. So there are certain advantages of using metaverse. My question is that, for example, now we have generative AI, there are talks about regulation, and how AI content is going to be taken, for example, whether it would be acceptable in certain areas or not, there are so many different platforms, which in which you can use chat, GPT, mid journey, you can create so many different types of content. In the metaverse. My question would be that how important the role of regulation would be to ensure that the value proposition of metaverse is so much so that it continues to grow, and it offers a lot of opportunities for people in different countries. Thank you.

Alina :
Yes, I can I take like a word for Chanel, I will take your word for you. So actually have a very good think about regulation. Yeah, there is a big reason why metaverse and not regulate is because we’re not understand in which jurisdiction they actually operate. So it companies made metaverse. So where do they actually exist? So basically, some people think that metaverse like the first step to the digital state. So can they afford digital citizenship to a person who actually in the metaverse and if person are in many metaverses, it’s like he has like double citizenship or business ship or three countries. So the question is, do we need to regulate metaverses or the IT companies, and maybe create some kind of a framework for the whole metaverse conception and DLT technologies, because we don’t have like, still wouldn’t have regulation, even on the financial market of things like DLT, cryptocurrencies, they still exist somewhere in the internet without particular jurisdiction without country without everything. So we can’t, we actually not decided if the IT companies just operating social networks have regulations apart from the country they registered in. And this is, of course, a very difficult question. And maybe we’re just in the first step of this. So apparently, metaverse can give you the digital immortality, because it’s kind of a digital prison for people that are not longer with us, I can. So actually, you’re right important, but I don’t think that there is a answer yet for the question.

Audience:
Thank you. Just a couple of other things that I would like to mention is that since you mentioned digital citizenship, that also raises the question of privacy related issues, jurisdictional issues, which law is going to be applied on whom that is also a big problem that needs to be resolved. So thank you. Thank you for the story. My name is just to contribute to that. I think there is actually a partial answer to some of these questions. It depends on the use case in the metaverse. So if it’s anything related to personal data, there is actually regulation that already applies around digital identities, electronic signatures, payment, interoperability standards, but that’s a public sector use case. So again, also with the hosting of data, as soon as it’s personal data, there is regulation that governs that. Whether or not it’s cloud or the metaverse, that doesn’t matter. So there are actually pieces of legislation that are already applicable to the metaverse depending on the use case. Yes, there is some Wild West elements around NFTs and gaming, et cetera, et cetera. But if you look at it from a US context, a Chinese context or European Union context, there is actually legislation in place that governs key elements of the metaverse, whether or not you use it or not. So just a little bit.

Moderator:
Thank you for the brief contribution. I should just give a word to Daniel Mazurin, and then we’ll give a brief word to Vakhtang.

Daniil Mazurin:
So yeah, I would just like to add to Alina in the question that, you know, there is no problem with regulation at all. What Alina said, I kind of disagree with that, because most of the companies and startups building metaverses, they are incorporated in some countries, even crypto companies, they’re incorporated, usually like in Hong Kong right now, or in Seychelles. So that’s not the problem of regulating and really coming to these companies. The real question, I think, how we should really regulate them? Do we need to give them a full freedom of actions? Or do we need to really look after them and see how it goes in the crypto or AI or metaverse, because they can influence, you know, Gen Z and, you know, destroy the world, etc, etc. I think so. And the question that was asked is, how we should regulate properly AI in the metaverse? Well, I think that, you know, AI is already being regulated, and all the companies that are building AI, they already make their auto regulation by their own, because if we’re talking about the open AI, the biggest right now a company, they essentially make their, their, their code regulated. So you cannot, for example, generates 18 plus contact using their generative AI, or you cannot ask certain questions, or get answers on certain questions that are related to some specific topics. But that could go wrong, right? So they can essentially delete this auto regulation of the of the AI. And that’s the real problem. That’s why governments should properly regulate them because AI is dangerous. We have to realize that if it goes beyond the open AI servers, or something, something else, then could turn into a big issue to to the to not only the company, but the humanity in general.

Moderator:
Thank you, Daniel. Let’s give a brief word to what time as well he raised their hand.

Vakhtang Kipshidze:
Thank you so much. It is very remarkable that there are people here who actually raised question about digital immortality. And here being a representative of religious organization, I would like to say that we should be very careful dividing religious issues and technological issues. If at some stage of development of technologies, religious issues such as immortality, and non religious issues like, you know, technological progress are being mixed. So I think I think it is a big danger, it I think sets a big danger for humanity because, you know, if people believe in immortality, it is a good thing, if they can, as they think, get this immortality now and just do some technological procedures, I think it is a very big challenge because we cannot just bring a space of dogmas to the space of technology. In that case, I would say the whole just structure of human personality could be endangered because at some stage a person will not understand whether he or she has body or doesn’t have it. It is, I think, a very crucial issue just to see a difference between real world and virtual world. And sometimes, and the issue of immortality shows it, I think, in good sense, this just mixing is very just seizable. Thank you so much.

Audience:
Hi, I’m not, I don’t know much about metaverse. I was wondering what is the bottleneck for the, for the, let’s say, the spread, like the growth of metaverse right now, if it is technical. And if it is technical, would it be like lag or delay in the connections, one of the big challenges or not?

Daniil Mazurin:
Yeah, that’s a great question. And I actually wanted to say one very important thing and answer this question. The real bottleneck in the metaverse creation and expansion are essentially processors because you cannot really download a crazy world online and to live in it and to communicate with other avatars, other people in this downloaded in this downloaded online world, right? So there is, this is the main technical issue. For example, if you open right now, such metaverse as the central end, and you don’t have an MSI computer, for example, gaming computer, your notebook will, your computer will be very, very, I would say, hard to process things and it will be very low. So this is one of the issues. And if we’re talking about the VR, for example, right, this VR glasses, it’s also very low. And it’s very connected to the development of Unreal Engine and Unity Engine. So a lot of, a lot of things of the matters depend on this infrastructures. And right now you can see a whole new upgrade from Unreal Engine on how you see things with using Unreal Engine, for example, you will be able to literally see every and each detail that was animated, right? So yeah, there are bottlenecks, but sooner or later, we’ll see developments from this engines, we’ll see development from computer processors. So yeah, sooner or later it will happen.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Claudio Agosti and I’m a platform auditor. Although I welcome the existence of regulation, I also believe that cannot be seen as the solution that will guarantee us safety. Because regulation is the output of lobbying, because regulation need to be abstract while the violation is more concrete and precise. And in the past years, we saw that the only way to investigate on platform misbehave was to have a researcher that were developing their own technology to collect evidence, study the algorithm, study the platform, and then keep them accountable to data protection authority, to media reporting, or to government reporting. So the question that I believe is more for Daniel is, would you allow, for example, in your tool that every user that is having an experience can save a log of what is happening? And would you accept that this log will be used to actually keep yourself accountable or at least to raise question on why a system behaved a certain way? Because at the end, all the experience that a person get is individual, depend from the algorithm that will not repeat their own behavior in the future, depends on other contextual element that will never be repeated. So only having an evidence of what has happened, a log, a video, can allow to a person that suffered something to ask for explanation or for attribution. Thank you.

Daniil Mazurin:
Could I ask a question to a question? Is this the question related to would I allow my platform or tool to be audited or regulated?

Audience:
That is normally defined by regulation. For example, if your platform need to run in a sandbox, if you need to document if it’s high risk, low risk, that is unavoidable. What I was asking is something more. Because normally the regulation can let you can let you certify your tool, but then the problem is never in the tool itself, but in the experience of your users. Are they the ones offering this information or suffering harassment, et cetera? And if there is a log, that is an individual log of your experience, that at least can allow the user to ask a further question or to also offer you feedback to improve the tool. Yeah, absolutely.

Daniil Mazurin:
That’s that’s a great question. And I’ve personally communicated with a lot of auditors, platform auditors and smart contracts auditors in the space. Yeah. You know, that’s that’s a question of UI UX. Right. So it’s always better to skip the Q&A during the onboarding process to your tool. Right. It’s always better. But you will never know the data of the of your users. Right. It’s always better to skip, I don’t know, authorization of the user because it’s long and it’s not very useful for the user because the user wants to get in touch with your product as soon as possible. He or she doesn’t. The users don’t want to essentially register and go through all this process. So, yeah, but it’s it’s it’s a you know, it’s essential nowadays, even even in the crypto space right now. You know, it’s it’s it’s essential to know who is your user or what’s what wallet the user has. Right. You you essentially collect the information, the real issue, how you use this information, because you can you can you can get rid of frauds on your platform when you know your users. Right. Or you can use user data to manipulate users and sell this data. It’s you know, it’s it’s it’s the issue of how you use users data rather than do you need to collect data? Yeah.

Audience:
We have one more question. Sorry, if it’s OK, I’ll just I just have two questions, actually, one from Daniel, and I just need to know a religious perspective on since we already discussed digital immortality. So I’ll start with digital immortality. What happens right now is that we have a lot of content on the Internet and everybody who’s online, they leave a digital footprint, you know, even after they’re dead, the content remains on different platforms. Take the example of YouTube. There are so many different lectures available from so many people. There are documentaries. You can see so much content about people. The only difference that I see with Metaverse is that with digital immortality, that kind of content. I mean, if there is a digital avatar of somebody, you can interact with that digital avatar with the content that we have right now. It’s not interactive. If there is a video on YouTube, you can’t really interact with that person. So from the religious point of view, let’s also consider AI regulation. You I mean, AI should not be discriminatory based on religion, race, all those factors. So when the regulation is there, and when you talk about digital immortality and somebody’s digital avatar lives on, so I just want to know that why can it be considered a bad thing? It can have so many advantages for the people who are related to somebody whose digital avatar lives on. The second question is from Daniel regarding the value that Metaverse has to offer. So let’s talk about, for example, digital assets. There was an article from McKinsey which estimated that by 2030, the Metaverse is going to be worth $5 trillion. And there were so many reasons. One reason was scarcity in the real world. So you have limited resources in the Metaverse. The digital assets, there is no limit virtually. So with generative AI, now we can compare that in the real world we have scarcity, but in the Metaverse, there is going to be abundance of everything. Now with generative AI, you can generate digital assets. There are so many tools through which you can generate digital assets, and a lot of people are doing that. So won’t that reduce the overall value of digital assets because you have scarcity in the real world, but you have abundance in the Metaverse, which in economic terms, abundance basically, in some cases, is not good. It reduces the value of assets. So these are my two questions. Thank you.

Daniil Mazurin:
Yeah, I can also add a little bit about the immortal thing, immortal avatars or immortal digital, your digital persona. But let’s start with the second question. So first of all, you have to realize that in the Metaverse, in the ideal, let’s say, type of Metaverse, you will essentially own your items and assets. So there’ll not be an unlimited supply of items and assets, what can be produced. Of course, if we’re talking about the generative AI right now, let’s say the utility and the price of 3D rendered artworks have been recently declined because right now you don’t need to hire a 3D artist. You can go just to generative artificial intelligence and make your own art. But it’s still, you can consider this as something that creates unlimited supply, but also you can consider it as a tool. Because right now, a lot of 3D artists, for example, they use generative AI to generate pictures and they add their art onto it and it becomes even brighter and more beautiful. So yeah, back to the Metaverse thing. There is still, will not be unlimited supply of assets and items because, you know, it’s supply and demand. You have to sell NFTs, for example, if we’re talking about blockchain-based Metaverse, you have to sell NFTs, have to sell NFT lands or, you know, your clothes or your avatar. So there’ll always be a limited supply in order to create the demand. So yeah, that’s in short. So in terms of immortality issue, I strongly support this question and I believe that there is a future in that. I truly believe that creating an AI for your relative who has died, unfortunately, can be a good thing, but we, essentially, we cannot go too far with that because I don’t think that in terms of religious point of view, that’s a moral thing to do, right? So there will always be such issues. But in terms of people who are willing to do this and who don’t have any religious, you know, bottlenecks or who are not religious or whose religion allows them to do so, then why not do this, right? Because you can always communicate with the person who is very important to you and you’ll be able to do that, right? So yeah, thank you so much for your questions. Very, very interesting questions.

Moderator:
So thank you very much, Daniel, Vakhtang, and our dear colleagues. I think that time is running out, as our colleagues have already shown us. I thank everyone for involvement in the discussion and I also would like to invite you to, after the session discussion, if you have any questions, we’ll be glad to talk in private. And also, a small notice. Tomorrow, our organization organizes a soiree. And we would also love to invite all of you to partake. We’ll give more precise information after the session. Yeah. Thank you very much, all of you.