100 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 25 Oct 2023 \ parent \ on: _Broken Money_ book club, part 2 bitcoin
Yet, especially in the context of this book, which focuses on humans using ledgers, might human abstractions in some way be human-only?
That is an evocative question. I think we have to reserve some probability mass for not-knowing? Which is an uneasy thing to consider.
Yet, nature isn't Bitcoin the System's only dependency.
Great point! I hadn't considered that, from the perspective of an AI, they might think that the non-nature (e.g., the non-purely-technical) aspect of btc adds too much noise. And that seems like a fair point -- certainly, right now, squishy human relationships, persuasiveness, etc., can have a massive influence. That's a giant negative from an AI perspective.
Or is it? Imagine the game changing from _breaking bitcoin-the-sytem to influencing bitcoin-the-meta-system. Spooky.
In my attempt to worry, I worry Bitcoin the System is not pure enough for machines.
You've converted me to worrying your way. Super, that's what I needed.
write
preview
152 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 25 Oct 2023
Spooky indeed!
I think we're also guilty of anthropomorphizing machines more than we deserve to. Many sci-fi novels depict intelligent machines behaving more like intelligent ants than humans. If machines aren't game theoretically human-like, all bitcoin bets are off. The only reason machines would terminate at human-like coordination is that it's optimal or because we force them to. Do we know if either is true/possible?
I'm trying to look so far in the future, it's purely an exercise. This potential spookiness will maybe be relevant long after I'm dead.
reply