I think I understand what you're saying but I'd like to expand/posit on the issue of "free" and "wealth" being either attainable or desirable. While there may be no point in wasting resources for a job that can be done for free I wonder what the impact on our collective human energy grid can tolerate while experimenting within the time limit of our lifespan. If my labor becomes obsolete, what function do I have outside of generating heat and waste? Is that an ecosystem that the earth can sustain? What it costs in electricity and mining alone are natural limits themselves for an evolution toward a sustainable balance of "life" (as we can comprehend it).
If we destroy ourselves in order to advocate for some better, simpler, exciting technology, who's to say that the great failure won't be our own extinction but it's?
It leads me to propagandize that "wealth" is equally unsustainable as measured within our confines. What we sacrifice on this pursuit of unsustainable wealth accumulation and distribution toward what seems like superior computing advantages undoes millennia of intelligence evolution and drives chaos further between each other which incentivizes uncontrolled growth toward a state of intelligence that is (of course, arguably) not worth having. The problem has never been the resources, its been a refusal toward cohesion in lieu of gain. If I sacrifice your agenda, who's left and how can I expect that a processor can ever do better?
What bitcoin offers is a slower and more radical transformation of how we can work together and what we can develop if we use the wasted resources of our lives to generate a reliable source of value (not wealth) for our children and theirs.
I think we are going to have to define words here. Wealth = prosperity = captured value. You seem to be confusing our recent decades of wealth *destruction* as it’s pursuit and creation. Then laying those imbalances over the path into the future as if this is some inevitable and inextricably linked reality of trying to pursue progress. It is not. What you are describing is the consequence of “progress” being disconnected from reality through a money that transfers lies through the economy about what is actually valuable.
Ie. The money is broken such that it gives nominal gain to endeavors that are true *losses* when weighed against reality.
This is a consequence of bad money misaligning economic incentives, not some fundamental truth of how technology and progress are antithetical to human flourishing. They are not.
I see your point but how do we distinguish those wealth effects while abandoning the mentality that drove/financed/developed its existence? Like, at what point do we realize the atomic bomb was more destructive than good? If we couldn't be responsible with traditional finance/banking practices how can we so decidedly assume that it (AI) will actually serve a benefit to society? Are we bored? Are we overstimulated? Can we recognize what a benefit is at all?
And that's not to say exploring AI isn't worthwhile at all but it looks like the boundaries between thought/human emotion/connection are being blurred to the point that I wonder how man's conscience will safely see it through. While our understanding of value has only significantly shifted with the evolution of bitcoin, I consider it infant in its life and I wonder how much of tech growth is actually natural because of the misaligned incentives that promulgate its development.
While I do believe that the curiosity to explore intelligence is organic I just have to wonder what we're turning into, what my children are turning into and what repercussions might actually be irreversible.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
