A lot of very smart computer scientists then, are the ones who claim stewardship of the system. Let's say the computer scientists die, and leave these systems

A lot of very smart computer scientists then, are the ones who claim stewardship of the system. Let's say the computer scientists die, and leave these systems behind. If their legacy is ignored, it will not persist in humanity's absence. Unless people continue to employ these tools, the tools will not spring back to life and animate themselves for their own sake. Just because you have an idea, and you throw up a wiki, and some client code on github, does not an A.I. make. This all sounds so much like it's just a Simple Matter of Programming (SMOP). http://everything2.com/title/Smop http://everything2.com/title/Smop As humans, we generate the electricity, we manufacture the chips and lithium-ion batteries. We buy the remote controlled quad-copters, and send them flying through the air. We turn the radios on and off. We plug in the network switches and routers, and administer the servers and prevent them from overheating. These things don't produce and care for themselves. There's a person on the other end, no matter how much they attempt to obfuscate their identity, or piggyback on crowdsourcing. Even with distributed peer-to-peer crowdsourcing, you still need peers and you still need a crowd. Are there self-replicating computers out there, building 3D printed copies of one another, fabricating their own solar cells, growing legs, walking themselves over to wall outlets, plugging in, and then executing block transactions for the sake of their own desire to be a bitcoin node? How, then, is this autonomy?