If someone tries to mint an AI safety coin, I will go explain to as many people as I can about some the details of how cryptocurrency is an obvious, obvious scam involving rich people minting worthless tokens and selling them to poor people, who are much more likely to fall for this sort of thing.
For example, anecdotal evidence of poor people from 2017 getting rich, even though the vast majority of the trading volume was money moving from poor people to rich people, since rich people knew exactly when to buy and sell, and poor people didn’t know when to buy and sell because they randomly oscillated between believing false arguments that cryptocurrency could replace fiat currency without overwhelming retaliation by the government, then realizing that if it looks like a scam then it probably is, then encountering carefully-selected anecdotal evidence of poor people from 2017 becoming rich even though they themself didn’t, and then oscillating back and forth from there. If you were spending cryptocurrency in 2017 and weren’t a perpetrator yourself, then this almost certainly happened to you, almost exactly as I described.
All that needs to happen is zero AI safety coins get minted from this point on, and I will return to avoiding the topic unless someone else brings it up. If that’s not what happens (i.e. if someone starts to mint an AI safety coin), I’ll try to protect as many people as I can.
Cryptography and blockchain are fine, of course, and may be helpful for AI safety. Generating and selling “coins” to people who care about AI safety is not. There is a well-developed immune system for that here.
The purpose of the COMPUTE token and blockchain here would be to provide a publicly verifiable ledger of the computation done by the computational cores. It would not be integral to the scheme but would be useful for separating the monitoring and control, as detailed in the post. I hope it is clear that a token as a tradeable asset is not at all important to the core idea.
If someone tries to mint an AI safety coin, I will go explain to as many people as I can about some the details of how cryptocurrency is an obvious, obvious scam involving rich people minting worthless tokens and selling them to poor people, who are much more likely to fall for this sort of thing.
For example, anecdotal evidence of poor people from 2017 getting rich, even though the vast majority of the trading volume was money moving from poor people to rich people, since rich people knew exactly when to buy and sell, and poor people didn’t know when to buy and sell because they randomly oscillated between believing false arguments that cryptocurrency could replace fiat currency without overwhelming retaliation by the government, then realizing that if it looks like a scam then it probably is, then encountering carefully-selected anecdotal evidence of poor people from 2017 becoming rich even though they themself didn’t, and then oscillating back and forth from there. If you were spending cryptocurrency in 2017 and weren’t a perpetrator yourself, then this almost certainly happened to you, almost exactly as I described.
All that needs to happen is zero AI safety coins get minted from this point on, and I will return to avoiding the topic unless someone else brings it up. If that’s not what happens (i.e. if someone starts to mint an AI safety coin), I’ll try to protect as many people as I can.
Cryptography and blockchain are fine, of course, and may be helpful for AI safety. Generating and selling “coins” to people who care about AI safety is not. There is a well-developed immune system for that here.
The purpose of the COMPUTE token and blockchain here would be to provide a publicly verifiable ledger of the computation done by the computational cores. It would not be integral to the scheme but would be useful for separating the monitoring and control, as detailed in the post. I hope it is clear that a token as a tradeable asset is not at all important to the core idea.