There is nothing in the definition of a DAC which excludes artificial intelligence.
Re-read sentence 2 of my first post in this thread.
You're excluding it because the current DACs under development are rudimentary by design.
Among the numerous problems I have with this sentence are the following:
1. I did not propose that anything be excluded from anything.
2. Current DACs are relatively complicated, most-reasonable interpretation of "rudimentary" is that it is defined as "containing AI" via circular logic.
3. (Premise that "DACs are rudimentary" I do not find acceptable.)
4. Premise that "DACs are rudimentary" not relevant to conclusion that "DACs are AI", except possibly in an opposite sense ("DACs are not AI").
This does not mean future DACs will always follow the rudimentary design. The definition of a DAC is a decentralized "autonomous" corporation.
Re-read paragraph 1 of my first post in this thread to learn why I think you are equivocating.
This concept can benefit from the addition of artificial intelligence.
This is true of almost everything. In fact, (taken alone) it is an admission that current DAC work lacks the defining qualities of AI (as such qualities would need to be "added").
You can make the point that Invictus isn't going in that direction at this moment
No I don't.
but that is not the same thing as saying that DACs wont go in that direction once it becomes possible.
Key Word being "it" (not a DAC, but instead AI).
If Tomorrow wants to help make it possible for future DACs to go in that direction why not?
The claim (made by Tomorrow) that I disputed was that what "you" (I3 / DAC-writers / cryptocurrency-coders ) "are doing" "is related to" "AI". He then offers to help any interested collaborators understand his research-level geometry or format their scientific-papers in LaTeX.
If Tomorrow has a "direction" for DACs in mind, and a plan for "helping to make that direction possible", that's fine, but he didn't publish it here.