False Dilemma. Direct invasion is not the only option available to a sufficiently advanced, large scale AI attack. Think of how many ways you can mess with elections, opinions, security, etc. of a target nation without being detected.
That does sound outrageous, then again from the perspective of the cryptocoin world the first purchase with bitcoin was two Papa Johns Pizzas for 10,000 bitcoin which is around $80,000,000 today.
When I launched bitcoin wasn’t worth what it is today...that said what would you pay for your own community cryptocoin anyway?
Then you are not the target audience. Every small business or community can be tokenized, just like every small business can have a website. Tokenization could encourage repeat visits, community virility and vested interest, not to mention investment.
* Distribute tokens to partners (product / gift manufacturers). Partners with vested interest in the success of a company could be much less likely to sever relations as it will hurt their investment.
* Distribute tokens to customers as a type of rebate. Like a loyalty program that encourages patronship.
* Use tokens to vote on what products should be sold. Many gift shops sell pipes and other drug related items. This decision would sink other family oriented shops. What would your customers like?
* Distribute tokens to the locals as an attempt to build virility and community around your shop.
* Distribute tokens to employees as a way to recognize accomplishments. Ever get a few bonus stock from your company for doing good work over the week? Me neither.
* Sell tokens to raise funds.
* Set budgets based on community votes.
The list is endless and these are rough ideas. Look for ways to align business interests and customer interests.
Most of these (e.g. rewards, distributing to locals/employees, sell to raise funds, etc.) rest on the idea that the token has value, which begs the question.
Many also have existing solutions that are well-understood (e.g. loyalty programs tied to phone numbers).
And, what happens when every business has its own tokens? Who wants to track/manage all of that? Seems like a recipe for token fatigue.
>Look for ways to align business interests and customer interests.
In general, seems like token advocates look for ways to wedge a token into an interaction. Not saying there are no use cases, but there's a lot of "solution looking for a problem" happening.
The token will have value based on there being value in the company or asset being tokenized. You can't start a coffee shop but can own some of the coffee shop down the street.
What are we here for if not to share in the risk and success of the endeavours we support?
>The token will have value based on there being value in the company or asset being tokenized.
The token doesn't de facto inherit the value of the business. That would only be true to the extent that the token represents a claim on assets or profits or other tangible benefit; in other words when the token acts like a security, in which case we have already solved that. There is also a co-op model that exists and conveys some of this benefit.
I don't know what a token adds to these scenarios, and in fact are not even legal in the US to act as securities unless the buyers are accredited (most people are not). Sure, until recently, the token has made it easier to skirt non-accredited investor status and other regulatory matters, but it doesn't make it legal or a better solution and, in any case, the SEC is moving in on that.
I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, and want it to be true. It's just not currently the case.
Yes there are barriers and plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work. I agree it's not currently the case, thanks for thinking about the possibilities, not many do.
The tokens must be valuable but that will be shaped by the market forces. I'd love to buy some of the potential profit in my local coffee shop but I won't buy if it's backed by nothing.
> * Distribute tokens to partners (product / gift manufacturers). Partners with vested interest in the success of a company could be much less likely to sever relations as it will hurt their investment.
= stock or partial ownership.
> * Distribute tokens to customers as a type of rebate. Like a loyalty program that encourages patronship.
= rebates.
> * Use tokens to vote on what products should be sold. Many gift shops sell pipes and other drug related items. This decision would sink other family oriented shops. What would your customers like?
= surveys.
> * Distribute tokens to the locals as an attempt to build virility and community around your shop.
= flyers, ads, etc.
> * Distribute tokens to employees as a way to recognize accomplishments. Ever get a few bonus stock from your company for doing good work over the week? Me neither.
= bonuses/stock options
> * Sell tokens to raise funds.
= IPOs or kickstarters.
> * Set budgets based on community votes.
= surveys
Literally everything you've listed is a solved problem.
The only thing on here that might benefit from being a cryptocoin is the rebates idea: that's because rebates depend on some customers not cashing in their rebate. So if you make it harder to cash in your rebates by using a worse technology which is hard to use like cryptocoins, fewer users will cash in their rebates. However, this is a sleazy business practice, and if capitalism works as it should, sleazy companies offering rebates in the hope that people won't claim them should go out of business, so hopefully this would result in bad publicity and this business strategy would backfire.
Gift cards are very limited. The tech behind gift card usage is extremely insufficient. Things like checking balance is often not even possible with a public API layer.
Tokens are very limited. Things like checking the balance is often not even possible for a nontechnical user (i.e. the vast majority of users), who doesn't care about API layers. You can implement software to make this friendlier, but you can do that with gift cards too, and the gift card technologies are already mature.
Not only is this a solution in search of a problem, it's a solution which hasn't found a problem, and is being shoehorned onto problems it actually exacerbates. If you're running a business, the last thing you want is for your business' systems to be decentralized, because that means you don't have control over them. There's literally only downsides for the business.
This would also enable seamless gift card exchanges. Currently secondary markets exist for gift cards, but they take ~10% margin to account for the high fraud risk, holding time, etc.
You're making an assumption that he didn't feel like China would be a better option for him personally. If he fundamentally disagreed with the direction the US is headed, I wouldn't call it irresponsible at all.
All things considered, the US looks really bad right now internationally. We have vast military power, and our leader is a child elected on a wave of nationalist populism. This has happened before in recent history, and it didn't end well.
Scientists like Ng ought to consider the repercussions of their actions when they decide to aid Chinese companies, and by extension, the Chinese govt with cutting edge research. They are basically collaborating with the enemy that stands against pretty much everything that the west granted them (scientists like Ng who were born here and given the opportunities).
? What exactly did the west grant them? They're catching up after decades of communism, and creeping towards becoming a dictatorship for Xi. That will likely negatively impact their growth far more than the actions (or inactions) of the West.
It’s not that China’s economic growth is bad for the west (I think that’s good on its own terms); it’s that tyranny is bad for us all. Helping to entrench it is very short-sighted. There has never been a modern AI-assisted tyranny before, for one thing, and we don’t know how stable that might become. It’s reckless to expect it to just fall apart like the Soviet Union, especially since the rulers consciously learned from that history.
Well, Americans probably should stop using cell phones made in China. The lack of domestic manufacturing capability seems to really put Americans at China's mercy.
I believe that your pro-western nationalism is evil, because this dualism fails to see the nuance, that american corporatism is just as bad as Chinese state socialism. I up-voted you, however, because you stated your opinion in the open, rather than simply implying it. I'd far rather people like you be open in their belief that this is some sort of situation where one country wins and the other loses.
I, however, believe that whoever wins this battle will be wealthy and powerful. Who-ever wins the race is the enemy. Not just the Chinese, but anyone who attains singularity is the enemy of the rest of humanity.
Even if that AI is open-source, unless there is a clear way for every person to have some level of control over the hardware that it runs on, the AI becomes the enemy of all people who will be disenfranchised by it.
This phrasing was really blunt and came off a bit rude. But there is a point there that shouldn't be written off. As far as choosing who the biggest and most powerful entity on the planet is, would you rather have one with more or less respect for the rights of individuals?
Because, so far in human history, individual rights-based political formulations are the only ones that prevent arbitrary atrocities from being perpetrated on citizens.
Yes, American corporatism is brutal. American corporatism bounded by American democracy, imperfect as it is, is still vast leagues better (read: safer for global population) than nationalist authoritarian dictatorship. No matter how technocratically efficient that dictatorship has been in recent decades.
In short, if you're worried about singularities, aren't you worried about the priorities and command structure of the entities most likely to achieve it? About what options they consider to be "on the table"?
Of course I am worried about the command structure of the entities most likely to acheive singularity, but this is all the more reason to fight against a nationalist, McCarthyist, "you traitor!" attitude which would lead America, in its competition with China, away from its liberal ideals and towards a more efficient command structure such as fascism or national corporatism.
The nice thing about american "corporatism" is that if one "corporate culture" is bad, if you are able, you can leave. Thats a fairly simple & straightforward nuance for me. As far as "people like you..." statement, you literally just described a situation where theres a battle and someone will win. It'll just end up in some kind of singularity? Did you mean to lump yourself in implicitly with the group you just accused this person of "being in"? "Pro-western nationalism" lol
China started selling U.S. bonds and plans to create a Yuan-oil exchange market and is building a massive army to defend it. I wish good things are coming out, but U.S. leadership won't just stand watching China taking over the power over world leadership (conflicts are already happening in North Korea).
While I respect all the amazing hard working scientists, and the developments, I fear that the biggest problem now is the currency war that can lead to WWIII.
