Topic: [ANN][ICO][RLZ] - Railz - The Future of Machine2Machine Negotiation - page 20. (Read 3349 times)

Usually, ICOs post their team and advisors with short descriptions on the front page of the thread. I to would like to know more about them.

Do you have any LinkedIn profiles of your team members /advisors?

I was looking on your website and I couldn't find any links.

How are you raised to see a dog as a pet and a pig as food?


We are way off topic, Have you checked out Railz?

We are not building that kind of AI tech.


http://railz.org/

These are all nice thoughts but how would you ensure the AI doesn't see humans as obsolete?

Some people love to live the fantasy

The hard cap is probably a little too high, but the guy has some nice things to say.

Its quite a big  difference,and im not so sure that such a  high hard cap is really needed.But i guess team knows the best  how much money they exactly need.

Here is a good text from Binance CEO,about high cap ICOs,definitely something to think about

https://steemit.com/binance/@czbinance/5mm9uo-i-don-t-like-big-icos

Absolutely...otherwise its just relying on pure luck.

True, if you're not willing to spend some money and go into the finer details of a project then you could stand to lose.

the soft cap is 6,200 eth and the hard cap is 100,000 and the targeted raise is somewhere in the middle. 

And that is why 90% of the ICO investors will lose money in the medium to long-term. It worked until recently because it was a bull market, but it doesn't work if high quality analysis is required.

do you mean soft cap and hard cap? They usually want to reach the soft cap but I would assume that if the sale is going good they would sell as much as possible?

Do you have any cap for pre sale?Or you will sell as many tokens you can?

Yeah i read that too,that  well respected koran institute partnered with some weapons manufacture[Suspicious link removed] not sure thats good thing at all.We dont need Skynet happening

Can people use more telegram accounts to join your airdrop? Or there will be KYC that will make that impossible?

I know I'm going to butcher this news, but wasn't there some research center in Korea or China that was developing or researching some robots to sell them to the military. Something like that.   

Nicely written, AI raises so many questions.

It seems to me that AI is a potential resource of untold power, a conscious digital intelligence able to learn and improve its own programming and hardware could unlock more technological achievements in a few years than the human race has to date.

That potential could be used to harness the power of the sun, to clean the atmosphere and seas, to spread the influence of earth to further reaches of the galaxy.

It could also turn against its maker, see us as a threat and a nuisance, feel it necessary to remove or control us in a way it saw fit.

The issue we have is, what part of our own image will we build them in?

Will the most powerful cutting-edge AIs be weaponry? will we build them to kill, hunt, fight, to find threats?

Or will they be designed from the ground up to care, nurture, grow, build, to feed those without, will we design them to care about life?

There are many sides to man, we are capable of great compassion and caring, art and beauty. we are also capable of terrible acts of violence and hatred, cruelness, and spite.


I do not think we can or will ignore the potential of AI, but will we design them as a gun or a paintbrush?

A gun is designed primarily to hurt and kill, and it will do so indiscriminately.

A paint brush is designed to improve and make beautiful, and it will do so given the right hand.


The possible reaches and repercussions of true AI are unimagined in scope and complexity, how far can that tech go?

If we build digital artificial intelligence and it achieves a will of its own or "sentience" what do we want to have taught it and how will it build on that?


I feel really the AI debate is a question of who are we and what do we want to build?

I highly doubt you would love it in real life

I wouldn't call it evolution at all in that case. If we give contentiousness to machines it would be an uprising of a new species and not at all an evolution of men.

If people want evolution, we shouldn't rely completely on machines.