Blockchain is about replacing fundamental infrastructural technology — rails for value, governance, public goods.
AI is about using a technological innovation to produce a lot of amazing consumer and business tech. Beyond its research core, it’s mostly about product, data, and automation.
They have vastly different problems and challenges — but both go hand in hand like puzzle pieces!
That is why one of the biggest AI projects, @worldcoin, is built on blockchain rails and decentralization primitives.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was interested in testing to what extent ChatGPT being able to keep up with logic.
So I set up a simple game. 👇🧵
I described a physical situation for GPT and see how much of it it can reason through.
We give a little bit of information, then a little more. At each stage, GPT has to balance its understanding of space with its understanding of probability.
Ok, here’s a story about #DAOs, their evolution, and their on-chain/off-chain nature.
Back in 2014, @VitalikButerin wrote what is essentially Ethereum’s original position paper on this subject, the famous DAO/DAC post on ethereum.org.
👇👇
DAOs were quite abstract concepts back then, there were no such things in production.
There was also a sense that DAOs were something new, a revolutionary species of digital organization. And that they didn’t exist before because it was *smart contracts* that enabled them.
It should be no surprise, then, that the first DAOs put a heavy emphasis on codifying their functionality on-chain, within smart contract logic.
Chances are, you probably use a mobile smartphone that runs on iPhone or Android. These are web2 technologies, but in fact they speak to web3 paradigms *a little bit.*
In particular, your phone has a small subset of Primary Data that is, in fact, owned by you.
Some examples include: your Contact List, your Photo Roll.
What’s cool about Primary Data That’s Owned By You is that it (1) lives on your device, (2) any new app you install can operate on it.
It's going to take *a lot* more to move the needle on DAOs.
- more tools, more infra
- ways to manage tools and upgrade communities into new sets of tools
- mobile
- totally new communication modalities where a thousand people can coordinate on a proposal
- sentiment analysis
- cross-chain interoperability
- legal frameworks
- DAO compatibility with legal frameworks
- new governance systems (1P1V, delegation, new cooperative game theories)
- actual leaders that lead DAOs in productive ways
- gradual decentralization
- scalability tech to lower costs
I can keep going. . .
- actual social topics people care enough about to start and engage with a DAO
- voter turnout
- discipline
- hitting milestones that achieve something and are newsworthy
- demonstrably improving a process, any process
- decentralized identity & reputation
The short answer is the decentralized network. I’ll put it in context.
Today communication technology (Twitter) wants to be a public good. It’s clear: we communicate globally with Tweets every day. DMs are a resource not unlike air and water. And so on.
It’s clear that this good should have governance (Should we let Trump stay? Should we tolerate speech X? How long should a tweet be?)
This good is “nominally public” (it trades as public equity). This good is effectively private (it is governed by a very small group of people).
It is also “effectively private” in the sense that it has a bunch of shareholders who want it to earn a profit margin and distribute it to them; the number of shareholders is very small relative to e.g. the number of users and customers, who don’t get a say in their monetization.
This weekend I read a number of critical expositions of crypto/blockchain through the lens of anti-neoliberalist critiques. 🧵👇
Neoliberalism: essentially the view that state influence should be minimized in the economy, the free market should be deregulated, and...
...everything should be financialized.
I read a number of authors. I won't yet pick on them by name here, though I may in the future in a longer format.
But I felt most of their misconceptions either arose from a shallow understanding of blockchain reality and/or...
...political motivations which are largely not worth scientific discussion.
The first striking thing about these critiques is that they centered around "cryptocurrencies", "Bitcoin", "a precious metals approach to currency", and "private money".