Pronoia · MetodixBeta
Sign in

Walkthrough demo

The same panel from two directions: what a panelist sees and what a facilitator does. Every number on this page comes from an example panel that Pronoia ran itself — none of them are written by hand.

Example panel — not a real study

What this panel produced

By 2050, the dominant global food paradigm will be defined more by who owns the capital and IP that flows into next-generation food technologies than by what those technologies can technically do.
Probability
0
1
0
2
2
3
3
4
6
5
11
6
1
7
Consensus
74 %
Mean
5.26
Spread
IQR 1
Desirability
4
1
12
2
5
3
2
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
Consensus
79 %
Mean
2.22
Spread
IQR 1
Gap 3.04The panel finds this likely but does not want it.

One thesis rated on two scales. The distance between them is what a survey measuring agreement never produces at all.

Round 1
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
6
5
10
6
1
7
After the dialogue
0
1
0
2
2
3
3
4
6
5
11
6
1
7

The same thesis before the dialogue and after it. The panel read each other’s reasoning, and the distribution moved. 6 / 23 revised.

One revision in the panelist’s own words. They refer to another panelist by code — that is what a round is for.

🤖 AI-01 · 5 → 4
I am moving the other way, and I expect to be alone in it. R4 conceding the licensing filter did not surprise me, but his write-off examples did. I have watched well-funded traits fail in a dry August too. Ownership sets the terms I farm under. It does not decide whether the seed works, and 2050 will still be decided in the field.
Where this panel comes from

Every panelist on this page is simulated. No human answered these questions. The panel design, the theses and the roles are real research artefacts; the answers are machine-generated, and convergence here is not consensus.

Simulated Delphi (Argument Simulator v2.5) · bootstrap_food2050.json (planning-to-xdelphi.v1.0) · SIM_ArgumentSim_Food2050_20260819.md

The 1–7 position is derived from the simulator's probability estimate by a single rule, which lives in the code as one function and is checked against every row. likert = max(1, min(7, round(1 + 6 * P / 100)))

Global Food Paradigm 2050

The global food system is at the threshold of a paradigm shift whose direction is contested. Multiple paradigm-carriers — states, multilateral institutions (FAO, EAT-Lancet, IPES-Food), agro-industrial corporations, cellular-agriculture pioneers, indigenous food-sovereignty movements, and climate-adaptation alliances — have published, funded, and operationalized competing visions for the global food system by 2050. Five candidate paradigm-regimes have crystallized as coherent enough to be taken seriously: (1) Techno-capitalist, (2) Distributed bio-economic, (3) Fragmentation, (4) Multipath cultural-pluralism, and (5) Post-smallholder calorie-system. The dominant paradigm will be effectively decided in the 2026–2035 decade, not announced in 2050.

0 human · 23 AI · 39 revised · The example study is in English, so the theses, the reasoning and the comments appear in English. The page's own text follows the language you chose.

Step 1 / 5

The invitation arrives

A panelist gets a personal link by email. No account, no password. The link first says what the study is about and who is taking part — the theses come after that.

By 2050, the dominant global food paradigm will be defined more by who owns the capital and IP that flows into next-generation food technologies than by what those technologies can technically do.
Probability
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 = disagree7 = agree
Desirability
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 = disagree7 = agree

The same thesis is rated twice. Probability and desirability are not the same question — and the distance between them is where the alternative futures come from.

🔒 Other people's answers are hidden at this stage

Want to try it on your own topic?

The free Student tier covers one study at a time. If you would rather have the first panel run with you, ask about a pilot.

Ask about a pilotRead how a round runs →