4 ms·
> They’re Software-as-a-Service on steroids. I've been writing about this for a while and I'm thankful someone else "gets it" on a level. The key to understand
by kordless 10y ago
> They’re Software-as-a-Service on steroids.
I've been writing about this for a while and I'm thankful someone else "gets it" on a level. The key to understanding why blockchain data structures are a big deal for software (including AI) is realizing how they enable change in business models and the more customer focused "business layers" in which those models operate.
It's worth pointing out that SaaS is a evolutionary step up from the older MSP models. Assuming software models do not change over time is dogmatic.
Blockchains, like Bitcoin, enable a means by which suffering/cost of work can be encapsulated in a transaction that cannot be altered later by the consumer of that suffering cost or the producer of that suffering cost. This means the suffering (work units) incurred by the AI (or the human involved) can be preserved in a way that is immutable and used later for efficiency improvements. That's not to say the work done by the AI is necessarily valuable, but by making it immutable the work done by the AI can be judged/measured to have been worth the amount of resources it took from something else (i.e. an other's suffering) to do the work it did.
It is my belief that adversarial machine learning may benefit from blockchain based data stores.
All of this is very important given our current infrastructure, and all software models that go with it, resemble Swiss cheese from a security perspective. Super viral growth models may make VCs and a few scrappy millennials wealthy, but they don't scale long term for customer satisfaction. We certainly don't want an AI going around creating super viral growth models that drain the world's economy either!
Blockchains enable "do better". "Do better" is the first step on the path to enlightenment.
I should note that my use of the term "suffering" relates to the cost of causality, either by one's own choice or by something outside one's own choice. It is not meant to refer to the human emotion of suffering, although the two can certainly be related.
- mccoyspace 10y agoBut the definition of work changes and the value of that work also changes. Bitcoin's internal self-referentiality and internally self-transparent genesis sidesteps this issue. "This means the suffering (work units) incurred by the AI (or the human involved) can be preserved in a way that is immutable and used later for efficiency improvements. That's not to say the work done by the AI is necessarily valuable, but by making it immutable the work done by the AI can be judged/measured to have been worth the amount of resources it took from something else (i.e. an other's suffering) to do the work it did." I think you are alluding to that fact in that above quote, but I think it still begs the question of preserving a standard, abstract 'value of work' across a constantly changing AI dataset.