Wrong. A new language will replace apps.<p>Here&#x27;s how the world works. We have:<p>- the actual world (one in total)<p>- the perceived world (one per agent)<p>- the ideal world (one per agent)<p>The goal of each agent is to get the actual world to match their ideal world. To do that, they need to:<p>1. make their perceived world match the actual world (learn)<p>2. identify issues with the actual&#x2F;perceived world in order to define their ideal world (choose)<p>3. share their ideal world with others (ask)<p>4. find agents with complementing resources and desires (commit)<p>5. act on commitments taken to further their ideals (do)<p>What we need is a communication platform with the above processes baked in. Imagine a big semantic knowledge base holding the perceived world of all agents, as an approximation to the actual world (which exists outside of it). Think of it as an encyclopedia, a mirror of the world. All measurements of the actual world made by humans, machines, or bots, will be pushed there. Whenever you browse this knowledge graph, you get to contribute by confirming or opposing facts. Eventually, you will notice a pattern and side with those who agree with you the most. At this point, you can reliably expect those agent&#x27;s future perceptions to align with yours, and will notice the same for your ideals&#x2F;wishes. This is when you don&#x27;t only get to learn about the present&#x2F;past, but get to decide about the future, shaping your ideals. This is done just like you would describe perceived events, except this takes place in the future. Wishes and predictions, are effectively communicated by describing the future (the only difference being that you accept to lose money&#x2F;resources&#x2F;reputation&#x2F;score in exchange for a wish to happen, and you accept to lose money&#x2F;resources&#x2F;reputation&#x2F;score if a prediction doesn&#x27;t happen).  Once the knowledge graph knows enough about you, it will be able to identify complementing ideals&#x2F;reality-deltas with other agents (i.e., &quot;I need a couch&quot; and &quot;I no longer need my couch&quot;). This leads to a contract in which all members agree in a shared future reality. This contract&#x2F;commitment becomes a prediction, and predictions that involve yourself often become todo&#x2F;tasks for to user to get done (expressed as the state of reality expected to be met). Then, all people need to do is make the actual world match predictions communicated by describing the future of the world.<p>Basically, all we need is a language and interface that let&#x27;s people describe the world in static terms (i.e., &quot;I was in New York yesterday&quot;, &quot;I am in California today&quot;, &quot;I will be in China tomorrow&quot;). You don&#x27;t want a Uber, you want to be home before supper. You don&#x27;t want to buy a drill on Amazon, you want a hole in your wall. You don&#x27;t want to unlock your door, you want to be inside the house. You don&#x27;t want to share a tweet, you want its content to be seen.<p>By getting rid of all verbs except state verbs, we significantly simplify the language. You quickly realize that &quot;read a book&quot;, &quot;watch a movie&quot;, &quot;learn a recipe&quot;, &quot;listen to a song&quot;, &quot;see a painting&quot;, &quot;meet a person&quot; can all be replaced by &quot;know x&quot;. When you share&#x2F;retweet&#x2F;submit&#x2F;send&#x2F;bookmark x, what you actually want is for someone to &quot;know x&quot;. The same thing applies when you &quot;send money&quot;, &quot;ship a package&quot;, &quot;fly to Hawaii&quot;, &quot;walk to the drugstore&quot;, &quot;invite someone to an event&quot;, &quot;order a pizza&quot;. They&#x27;re all just ways to describe &quot;x is at y&quot;.<p>Natural languages are extremely inefficient. We keep repeating the same things, over and over again. We say things that other people have already said before, we say things we have already said before. This is insane. It would be like everyone posting distinct comments on an article instead of upvoting a comment that reflects their thought. Actually, it should not be possible to communicate something that has already been communicated before. There should be no difference between the act of searching for an existing comment&#x2F;question and coming up with a novel one (i.e., like on Stack Overflow). FAQs are extremely useful, and prevent people from trying to formulate and ask questions that have already been asked and answered. Why not apply that concept to communication as a whole? That&#x27;s what the knowledge base I mentioned above is for. You no longer have to ask 99% of the questions you would ask otherwise, and you can communicate about yourself by simply agreeing or disagreeing with what has already been said by others.<p>I could go on, but I see this is going off the track. Natural language is fundamentally limited and we must build a new communication platform (and language) that will elevate humanity. The fact that nobody is talking about this is impossible.