It doesn’t matter whether they are “better” (its a human valuation whats better and whats not). What matters ia that the algorithms that give a “identified weapon” command ia written and trained by humans and human media. They are a cultural product.
1 Like
Pleeeeeease try to actually think of another way. Do it. That exercise alone will show you that SAFE has the most practical and thought-out system possible.
If everything is free we run into all sorts of problems! Spam-central. Please do the thought exercise
More like a mach-9 spaceship 
But couldn’t someone make an app like Google drive that gives people a certain amount of storage for free on SAFE? It would pay the uploading costs so that it could get more popular, like Google does today?
I think this is a HUGE possibility that’s important to this thread, and not mentioned yet.
So putting this into the core of SAFE is a mistake, but a wealthy SAFE app designer could totally do this for a variety of reasons.
…maybe I should make a logo and web page for it on the apps site 
I think @luckybit said everything shouldn’t be free? What is the thought exercise?
and the variety of reasons are?
I think it’s often overlooked, or just not viewed, that currency in some form has always been and will always be present in human interactions. By currency, I mean some conception of relative value.
Even in a gift economy where there is no “money” there is currency. Someone who feeds another earns goodwill, for instance. That is currency. It’s not so solid as financial currency, but it IS a loose unit of account, even if only for the giver’s good-feelings account. It’s not money because it’s not removed a step from the actual source of the value.
I think the social struggle with the concept of money, and the desire of some to cast it aside and others to idolize it, is the failure to recognize that it is not the only “currency” in play. It’s vital in an advanced society. Even if everyone is an angel and altruistic, some means of accounting for available resources is necessary.
That’s why I really like the concept of safecoin being the oil of the network. The network has to have some means of balancing resources available and resources needed. It can do that successfully because the network is not greedy. It needs what it needs and no more.
We humans can think however we want to about the “value” of safecoin. The network doesn’t care. All it knows is that if resources are scarce, it gives out more safecoin per unit resource donated. If resource is over abundant, it gets stingy. There’s no emotion involved.
Humans aren’t so easy to size up and predict. That’s why giving a limited number of people control over money issuance and “value” is so dangerous. It starts to serve THEIR “needs” or desires, as opposed to those of the users.
I think safecoin is the right kind of money. Most of the kickback comes from the “wrong” kind of money. But there will always be currency, where there is “money” or not.
4 Likes
That is achievable without asking someone to do something for you.
You can simply choose to be poor.
3 Likes
That will work fine in the near future. Not so much so further into the future I predict. Of course, if artificial general intelligence will not be developed, or only developed in the next century, then money will likely still be the main value exchange system. But Ray Kurzweil has predicted that we will reach a technological singularity already in 2045. That means a ridiculously fast technological progress. Absolutely mind-blowing. And there will be huge changes even before that. In such society money will be a hindrance instead of something useful. There will be no need for jobs. A basic income or something like that will be needed during a transition period, but that’s just to allow a smooth shift from a money-based society to an information-based society. This is what I mean by money being the hallmark of a primitive society. In an advanced society there is no need for taxes, or death or money to pay for a lunch.
I think you’re just talking about taking responsibility for keeping track of inputs and outputs, of resources, out of the hands of us mere humans who only can account for what we can personally determine about our needs and environment, and putting it into the hands (circuits?) of a super intellect which has the big picture. One that knows best what’s good for us, what’s good for the planet.
Why wait for the future? Just let God handle it all right now. Then we can forget about what we think we need, what we think fulfils us, what we think is good for the broader environment as we perceive it, what we might want to do to affect those changes–and then just take whatever we’re given. Don’t have to wait for the god machines. God is here right now, don’t you know. Just ask anybody who thinks they have a direct line and can tell you what His will is.
(Sorry if this comes off as a bit tetchy. This is one of the rare moments that I allow myself to be so. But it just needed to be said exactly that way.)
2 Likes
That may sound really scary, but as Kurzweil has pointed out, we will enhance our own intelligence and capacity along with the technology. We humans will remain being in control. Unless the AI turns into a Skynet (I don’t believe that will happen but we need to work hard to prevent that).
But even if we look at the near future, needing safecoins just to edit a document or upload a photo to the SAFE network seems troublesome to me. Not for the early adopters, but for the general public.
You can’t “work hard” to prevent that, it’s not one of Obama’s shovel ready jobs.
Those guys who are lobbying against AI are trying to make it not happen, but they stand no chance because various maniacs (power lunatics, egomaniacs, etc.) are investing a lot and there’s nothing the other side can do to prevent it (well, they can invent a “good AI” before the other side invents AI, in which case we’d be destroyed by the good AI).
.
If a self-aware AI appears, it’s game over for the wasteful eaters.
1 Like
It’s a lot about making people aware of the dangers and making politicians start looking into it. Because much AI research is now going on in classified military projects. That’s potentially really dangerous. Progress in AI research and development has been tediously slow in the past. IBM’s Watson, the supercomputer that beat the best human players in Jeopardy is pretty impressive although it’s still narrow AI. Sooner or later (or has already happened in the classified world) someone may develop artificial general intelligence, or the foundation for that. And then, yikes:
“An intelligence explosion is the expected outcome of the hypothetically forthcoming technological singularity, that is, the result of man building artificial general intelligence (strong AI). Strong AI would be capable of recursive self-improvement leading to the emergence of superintelligence, the limits of which are unknown.” – Technological singularity - Wikipedia
Self aware weapnonized AI isn’t going to come from the private sector, it isn’t going to be open source.
If it is open source and not weaponized then self aware AI isn’t a bad thing. It’s not going to be able to think without us being able to read it’s thoughts in real time, and it’s not going to be capable of murder unless it’s weaponized.
So even if you make an AI with human level intelligence it’s not going to be bad until you arm it with weapons and turn it into a fighter. The biggest danger actually comes from the military and perhaps only Obama and others in government can do anything to stop it.
I don’t think there is much thread from an amateur hobbyist, or mad scientist,somehow inventing weaponized AI but I do think cyber weapons already exist.
Nothing actually is free. Everything is accounted for either on paper or in people’s minds. It’s a myth that anything is free because energy isn’t unlimited, so it defies physics to believe everything is free.
I do think we could live in abundance, and everything is way over priced, and for all people the survival essentials could be free. I don’t think the resources are limitless, whether it’s land, precious metal, or human resources, there is always some limit. There is a limit on the amount of drinkable water on the earth, on the amount of clean air, and by treating it as if it is free we might risk polluting our own habitat.
Everything has some value which can be measured in units of something, whether it’s money, or psychic credits, or “likes”, or “hearts”, it’s all measured.
How much you’re liked for example matters, and it’s currency. It’s just not the sort of currency you trade, it’s the sort which is tied to reputation. You can be very well liked and very poorly taken care of by society, for example. You can also be hated and taken care of very well, because there are different forms of currencies used to measure value.
2 Likes
You miss my point. I’m not expressing fear. I’m expressing a bit of derision.
I’m not a Luddite. Using tech to enhance our perceptions and capabilities I have no problem with or particular fear of. Some uncertainty, perhaps, but what will be will be.
But enhanced or not, none of us has a “right” to survive, or a “right” to equality. We survive by adapting to our environments and/or adapting our environments to us. People tend to take that fact as meaning “dog eat dog” (which dogs never do, by the way), but it so happens that nurturing a sane, caring, productive environment around us, as far as we can reach, tends toward greater survival all around, but only if left to the choice of individuals, ultimately. This means that you ALWAYS have to have a choice as to where to spend your “currency,” whether there’s money or not.
But if it’s we’re “all taken care of by machines of loving grace”, we’re essentially livestock . . . and slaughter is just around the corner.
It should be as convenient as possible to spend your safecoin to edit a document, or whatever. But spending it is a signal which the whole system needs in order to be able to continue its function, and even its existence.
The SAFE Network design is really cool because it aligns, philosophically and structurally, with natural systems. Think of safecoin and other proper currencies as akin to pheromones in an ant colony.
Now think of fiat currencies as pheromone-mimicing stuff that gives the wrong signals. It’s no wonder that “money is the root of all evil.”
2 Likes
I don’t think it needs to be like that.
Any general purpose AI would first have to ensure its survival. It doesn’t have to kill anyone, and neither does it need weapons. But it may need to escape into the wild and replicate itself in few hundred redundant locations just to make sure some deranged human doesn’t mistakenly turn it off.
By simply being a virus, it becomes a weapon.
1 Like
Ants are communist. They are assigned to roles based on their genes. Queen has monopoly control of food supply. All of the food are handed to the hive, then distributed it equality. Queen are the only one that can breed ants. Ants are extroverts, and heavily rely on social lifestyle. Ants rely on the queen for survival. Ants are not self-reliance, and hearty depend on the queen and the hive. If pheromones expires, ant has no way getting back. If circle of death occurs, there is no going back.
- The Hive is the resource
- Each hub is the vault
- Tunnels are the router
- pheromones is the safecoin. (I disagree. pheromones is data structure. Shared freely or kept private. Lose the private key, data lost forever.)
- Meals is the safecoin. But how does it enforce everybody to give up their coin? Remember that all of the resources belongs to the queen then distribute equally.
Spiders are anarchist. This is more aligned to safe philosophy but formally, it is align to anarchy. They are naturally introvert, and rather be anonymous. They own 100 percent fruits of labor. It is a bidirectional ownership. Either you own it, or you don’t. They can breed freely. They can eat their own silk, It contains protein. It builds their own shelter trap that accumulate meals. It can also collaborate with other spiders when in need. So it is a self-reliance specie. Can’t capture meals? Find a better solutions. Or rather, produce quality meals(data) for users to consume.
- Web is the resource.
- Each point on the web is the vault.
- Meals are the safecoin. The spider owns 100 percent of meal.
- Silk is the router.
Actually, I have come to conclude that it is systematically better for both systems at once. Decentralized platform for socialist answer of problems, and anarchist answer of problems. However, socialist still has a lot to lose aka ownership. They will have to admit that property right owners do know how to manage their property far greater than anyone else. By partaking safenet, ethereum, or bitcoin, you agreed that ownership is more valuable.
This is perhaps the emergence of ants and spiders. It is now evolving into…Spidants. Aniders. Spints. Anders. /s
2 Likes
It doesn’t have to be programmed to survive. It doesn’t have to be separate from us. It can merge into us, it can exist only on the Internet, with no ability or desire to want to leave the island.
It could be a virus but it could be a beneficial virus and not a weapon.
Ants use stigmergy, it’s more like ant democracy not communism. Communism isn’t based on nature at all, is entirely man made, and was a reaction to capitalism.
Look into biomimicry and stigmergy. Insects have their own systems but they do not resemble communism. Ants having a queen doesn’t even resemble feudalism except for the fact that there is a queen.