political agenda's like everything else are ultimately based on thermodynamic agendas. AI's would also have thermodynamic agendas. They survive if the are more efficient at utilizing energy than other systems.
BTC's thermodyanmic driver is it can organize goods,services and humans a lot more efficient that central banks systems/tax systems of existing govt's/corps/banks. It essentially eliminates a lot of the need for them and their attendant parasitical effects. BTC has its own parasitical effects eg, mining and cost to maintain code base, but thats orders of magnitude less than central banking (inho).
As far as AI goes perhaps we are looking at it the wrong way. There is on such thing a 'I' no such thing as AI. Sentience, maybe just a very clever trick, we can perform, to internally pass a psuedo Turing test and so can believe we are self aware...and that all that is needed to bootstrap in everything from there.
sorry if this is a bit techno-babble, but its hard to express. All I can say is that at a macro level, thermodynamic underpins every system at the moment
Topic: The future of crypto (2020/2030): AI vs PoW/PoS ? (Read 727 times)
Suppose we are a few years ahead and that we have already discovered AI that exceeds human intelligence. How would that effect today's cryptocurrencies? Would they be able to compete with AI?
What I have in mind is this:
Right now dumb if-then-else algorithms dictate the operation of PoW and PoS crypto.
What if we eliminate the need for PoW / PoS and all 51% risks, by replacing these systems with a trusted party which is actually ...not human, but rather an intelligence which acts as the "operator" of the whole network and runs as a decentralized intelligence.
This AI operator will have no politics or agenda, so in that regard "he"/"she" would be as trusted as an if-then-else dumb algo, if not more (because there is no 51% threat anymore). So trust is not something that would bother anyone really.
This AI operator would conduct and verify all transactions, ensure network resilience, load balance the network in an intelligent way, protect it from DDOS on its own by detecting attack patterns, distribute the blockchain over the cloud so that no 15 TB wallets are needed and much more stuff that could be added due to its super-intelligence. For example personal authentication by presenting yourself to the "operator" as an additional safeguard to one's password where the operator can understand you based on your face, voice, etc.
The question is this: How futureproof would Bitcoin be in such a scenario of an intelligent currency network that does everything one would dream of with very few of today's limitations? Or how would it be, from the developers perspective, that in, say, 15-20 years later from Bitcoin's inception, the BTC would look like a dinosaur that needs "updating"... What then? Would the devs feel obligated to keep Satoshi's dream alive by remaining true to that vision he had, or would any discussion of updating the core to an intelligent network be faced with a church-like attitude of "blasphemy"?
This thought experiment has implications because it also puts into question what we know about BTC right now... stuff like "its characteristics will be these and these by year X" could be totally invalid. (I'm not necessarily talking about coin numbers, but mining could be affected if the PoW is redundant as a dinosaur-type-of-way to verify the blockchain).
There may be quite a dilemma into how to stand true to what was once started as X or evolve into the much better Z alternative. I know the date of this happening seems too far into the future but you'll recall this post when the first intelligent cryptocurrency is issued to compete with BTC. Questions will start to be raised about how to deal with the situation and whether to adapt or "remain true".
Or maybe the tables are turned and the criticism is on the AI side: Who will update the AI? Isn't the AI's update a form of centralization and control of the network? Or if the AI is "fixed" from its inception and non-upgradeable, what would stop someone making a better currency in another 10 years when AI is even more advanced and has more capabilities, or even self-improvement-capabilities that will allow it to evolve on its own?
We'll see how it goes...
What I have in mind is this:
Right now dumb if-then-else algorithms dictate the operation of PoW and PoS crypto.
What if we eliminate the need for PoW / PoS and all 51% risks, by replacing these systems with a trusted party which is actually ...not human, but rather an intelligence which acts as the "operator" of the whole network and runs as a decentralized intelligence.
This AI operator will have no politics or agenda, so in that regard "he"/"she" would be as trusted as an if-then-else dumb algo, if not more (because there is no 51% threat anymore). So trust is not something that would bother anyone really.
This AI operator would conduct and verify all transactions, ensure network resilience, load balance the network in an intelligent way, protect it from DDOS on its own by detecting attack patterns, distribute the blockchain over the cloud so that no 15 TB wallets are needed and much more stuff that could be added due to its super-intelligence. For example personal authentication by presenting yourself to the "operator" as an additional safeguard to one's password where the operator can understand you based on your face, voice, etc.
The question is this: How futureproof would Bitcoin be in such a scenario of an intelligent currency network that does everything one would dream of with very few of today's limitations? Or how would it be, from the developers perspective, that in, say, 15-20 years later from Bitcoin's inception, the BTC would look like a dinosaur that needs "updating"... What then? Would the devs feel obligated to keep Satoshi's dream alive by remaining true to that vision he had, or would any discussion of updating the core to an intelligent network be faced with a church-like attitude of "blasphemy"?
This thought experiment has implications because it also puts into question what we know about BTC right now... stuff like "its characteristics will be these and these by year X" could be totally invalid. (I'm not necessarily talking about coin numbers, but mining could be affected if the PoW is redundant as a dinosaur-type-of-way to verify the blockchain).
There may be quite a dilemma into how to stand true to what was once started as X or evolve into the much better Z alternative. I know the date of this happening seems too far into the future but you'll recall this post when the first intelligent cryptocurrency is issued to compete with BTC. Questions will start to be raised about how to deal with the situation and whether to adapt or "remain true".
Or maybe the tables are turned and the criticism is on the AI side: Who will update the AI? Isn't the AI's update a form of centralization and control of the network? Or if the AI is "fixed" from its inception and non-upgradeable, what would stop someone making a better currency in another 10 years when AI is even more advanced and has more capabilities, or even self-improvement-capabilities that will allow it to evolve on its own?
We'll see how it goes...
Jump to: