Scientific Advisor Needed?

[tomorrow]

Though full "AI" is certainly doable with future incarnations of blockchain technology, a more likely incremental step would be off-chain hybrids and/or "BI" (business intelligence) with 360 degree self adapting chain based data models and decision support applications.

I agree that this is the rightful thinking. It was not meant to be "full AI" like terminators. From my perspective, it is only a (statistical) model evolving with online data. This is perhaps easier than most pople think it should be.

I'm a serious guy and proud of it.

Me2 IRL. Cheers.

[MolonLabe]

Hi, "the current DACs are not related to AI", I get it.

That's all I was saying.

I post here to make friends and promote MemoryCoin.

That's great. I sincerely wish you Good Luck with both. One feedback I have is that from "The rest 20% is currently occupied by MemoryCoin (http://memorycoin.org)." I personally did not find it clear that you were promoting MemoryCoin or even working "on" it (maybe working to understand it or use it or something).

I don't publish here because here is not where I publish.

I was pointing out that luckybit misinterpreted what you said, by extending your post to imply that it contained a "direction". I'm not saying that no "direction" exists, or could exist but be published somewhere else. I was just commenting on luckybit's question "If Tomorrow wants to help make it possible for future DACs to go in that direction why not?" which I felt was unreasonable.

Why so serious?

I'm a serious guy and proud of it. One specific reason is that human beings will assume that, if a point goes unchallenged, that all in the audience AGREE with the point. I don't want to be misunderstood as agreeing with something when I actually disagree with it, and I don't want other people (who may feel shy about speaking out) to conceal their objections.

[unimercio]

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.

Hi, "the current DACs are not related to AI", I get it. I post here to make friends and promote MemoryCoin. I don't publish here because here is not where I publish. Why so serious?

  tomorrow, no worries...  we catch your drift and I personally love the way your thinking. Keeping one foot on the ground and another in the stars is essential to the organic growth of any enterprise.

Though full "AI" is certainly doable with future incarnations of blockchain technology, a more likely incremental step would be off-chain hybrids and/or "BI" (business intelligence) with 360 degree self adapting chain based data models and decision support applications.

[tomorrow]

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.

Hi, "the current DACs are not related to AI", I get it. I post here to make friends and promote MemoryCoin. I don't publish here because here is not where I publish. Why so serious?

[MolonLabe]

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.

[luckybit]

Whatever you call it, whether you realize it, it is closely related to the scientific area of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

I agree with toast that this is a bunch of nonsense. The corporations aren't "autonomous" in the AI sense of making decisions. In fact they are deliberately super-constrained to do only predefined tasks. Creativity happens via fork.

I could go on but, whatever you know about AI, I'm afraid I don't think you really know what's going on here.

That is how DACs work right now but those aren't actual DACs yet and that is why they are still dumb. When they grow up they will become older, smarter, and machine intelligence will take on increasingly greater and sophisticated roles.

I don't believe that this statement upholds acceptable standards of logic. The definition of DAC has shifted via circular logic, equivocation, etc. to the point of tautology.

There is nothing in the definition of a DAC which excludes artificial intelligence. You're excluding it because the current DACs under development are rudimentary by design.

This does not mean future DACs will always follow the rudimentary design. The definition of a DAC is a decentralized "autonomous" corporation. This concept can benefit from the addition of artificial intelligence.

Software agents can do tasks. Machine learning can increase the profitability of DACs and improve the utility of DACs.

You can make the point that Invictus isn't going in that direction at this moment but that is not the same thing as saying that DACs wont go in that direction once it becomes possible.

If Tomorrow wants to help make it possible for future DACs to go in that direction why not?
Third party DACs can benefit greatly.

[MolonLabe]

Whatever you call it, whether you realize it, it is closely related to the scientific area of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

I agree with toast that this is a bunch of nonsense. The corporations aren't "autonomous" in the AI sense of making decisions. In fact they are deliberately super-constrained to do only predefined tasks. Creativity happens via fork.

I could go on but, whatever you know about AI, I'm afraid I don't think you really know what's going on here.

That is how DACs work right now but those aren't actual DACs yet and that is why they are still dumb. When they grow up they will become older, smarter, and machine intelligence will take on increasingly greater and sophisticated roles.

I don't believe that this statement upholds acceptable standards of logic. The definition of DAC has shifted via circular logic, equivocation, etc. to the point of tautology.

[wesphily]

I am happy that somebody here share common insight. Will be glad to discuss with you further.

tomorrow, you are a strange dude. I like you.

I can't say much about ML, but I'm a researcher in the area of computational game theory

Hi Nash, I like you too because of your vote. I was actually drunk trying to draw some eyes and promote MemoryCoin here.

I immediately think of the drunk baby GIF with the caption "This guy."

[santaclause102]

It is a different field. But I am planning to write my master's thesis about "political implications of decentralized applications" or something more specific within this field. "Political" not in the sense of bitcoin/crypto regulation but in the sense of "organisational structures of social systems" (something between sociology and political science)....  I will begin this summer...

Edit: Defenitely has nothing of an "advisor" (see title) more with observing impacts of this technology

[tomorrow]

So while the first generation that we are calling DACs are like the uneducated children, I believe second generation DACs will need a lot less human involvement, especially once the template code is in place. You will see what I mean once you complete the toolkit and I have a chance to build a DAC, I think if the incentive allocation can be controlled by AI then the DAC itself could direct humans on how to build it according to it's programming. It could also learn from it's mistakes if it's programmed to.

I am happy that somebody here share common insight. Will be glad to discuss with you further.

tomorrow, you are a strange dude. I like you.

I can't say much about ML, but I'm a researcher in the area of computational game theory

Hi Nash, I like you too because of your vote. I was actually drunk trying to draw some eyes and promote MemoryCoin here.

[biophil]

I am not sure but I guess that you may need a scientific advisor to advise you how to write real papers with serious mathematics, at least nicely formatted with LaTeX (?) I would be glad to help, if certain acknowledges are provided. I am not ready to reveal my thinkings and my true identify. So, what I expect is that, people with sharp eyes can see through my text the intrinsic value.

tomorrow, you are a strange dude. I like you.

I can't say much about ML, but I'm a researcher in the area of computational game theory, and I'm specifically interested in distributed, local incentive mechanisms that promote efficient aggregate behavior in social systems. If there's to be any formal scientific publishing, please count me in! I also know LaTeX, and I'd love to bring DACs and crypto-equities in general into the academic sphere.

[luckybit]

I'd actually disagree with the idea that DACs as a whole are closely related to AI or to machine learning. Possibly the closest thing is swarm AI or other emergent behavior research areas. It's all about engineering incentive structures for large numbers of human actors, while the computers themselves just do "dumb" bookkeeping.

That said it is awesome to have an ML researcher here, I'm sure it will come in handy eventually. What in particular within ML do you work on? I have a long train ride and would love to think of potential applications of AI to DAC design.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

That is how DACs work right now but those aren't actual DACs yet and that is why they are still dumb. When they grow up they will become older, smarter, and machine intelligence will take on increasingly greater and sophisticated roles.

For example I have ideas for a DAC which requires sensors. The ideas I've presented allow DACs to pay software agents to do jobs for other DACs and get paid in stock (BitAssets). These software agents would then sell these stocks for goods and services or hold onto them. The machine intelligence would be useful for the sensors which could feed information to the software agents (and that is a bit more than just swarm intelligence).

So while the first generation that we are calling DACs are like the uneducated children, I believe second generation DACs will need a lot less human involvement, especially once the template code is in place. You will see what I mean once you complete the toolkit and I have a chance to build a DAC, I think if the incentive allocation can be controlled by AI then the DAC itself could direct humans on how to build it according to it's programming. It could also learn from it's mistakes if it's programmed to.

I'd actually disagree with the idea that DACs as a whole are closely related to AI.

I am working on learning theory, not specific applications such as kernel machines or deep learning, but sth. beneath them. Let me explain what this is about, machine learning in one word is "generalization", that is, to optimize so as to make it performs better **in future** based on the information in the current. This is intrinsically similar to what you are doing. You are creating a purpose, that is, creating a distributed intelligence to make itself survive and to achieve certain purpose. If we can create a statistical model of such intelligence, that we can optimize based on the machine learning theory and to let is survive in the **future**. Although the current DACs are a bit "static", i.e., based on block-chains, and the intelligent part is mainly based on humans in the end-nodes holding the voices, I would like to see the leaders of you to see beyond such static picture.

Actually, I think DACs have a lot to do with AI despite what Toast said.

For instance the resource/incentive allocation structure, the automation of certain tasks and work, a lot of this I believe could be done by AI to push automation forward and lower costs.

If you have the time please review some of my ideas and let me know if any of it is scientifically feasible.

Particularly these ideas
https://trello.com/c/KcZ6FfSu/2-500-write-spec-for-voting-on-bounties

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=998.0

I welcome any assistance or knowledge on the subject of machine intelligence.

[luckybit]

Hi community,

You are doing interesting stuff. Whatever you call it, whether you realize it, it is closely related to the scientific area of Artificial Intelligence (AI). If you never heard of it before, you may get some rough idea from the movies "AI" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/?ref_=nv_sr_1) and "I, Robot" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1). Now, this area has reached a serious level, maybe already beyond what you expect. We have AIs that passed the Turing test, which means that it is not distinguishable from real human by certain interfaces. We could also expect that Hinton can do some serious stuff at google (http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/google_hinton/) before he retires. I am a researcher of Machine Learning, a top discipline of AI, doing very fundamental stuff such as Riemannian Geometry of statistical distributions. I have good insight into this area. I am not sure but I guess that you may need a scientific advisor to advise you how to write real papers with serious mathematics, at least nicely formatted with LaTeX (?) I would be glad to help, if certain acknowledges are provided. I am not ready to reveal my thinkings and my true identify. So, what I expect is that, people with sharp eyes can see through my text the intrinsic value.

I would also like to mention that I am working 80% on machine learning. The rest 20% is currently occupied by MemoryCoin (http://memorycoin.org). Therefore, MemoryCoin is backed up by real computer scientist. Have a look. It is at least more related to what you are doing.

Thanks for your attention.

Best,
tomorrow

 

[tomorrow]

I'd actually disagree with the idea that DACs as a whole are closely related to AI.

I am working on learning theory, not specific applications such as kernel machines or deep learning, but sth. beneath them. Let me explain what this is about, machine learning in one word is "generalization", that is, to optimize so as to make it performs better **in future** based on the information in the current. This is intrinsically similar to what you are doing. You are creating a purpose, that is, creating a distributed intelligence to make itself survive and to achieve certain purpose. If we can create a statistical model of such intelligence, that we can optimize based on the machine learning theory and to let is survive in the **future**. Although the current DACs are a bit "static", i.e., based on block-chains, and the intelligent part is mainly based on humans in the end-nodes holding the voices, I would like to see the leaders of you to see beyond such static picture.

[JA]

http://youtu.be/w-9miCOsg4g?t=1h22m31s