This one would be an amazing film exploring both the intersection of tech and the NBA and the families involved too. It would be a stunning production if done with high quality in mind.
For any given time period N, if it takes > 0 time or effort to make a tool, then there are provably less possible tools than infinity for sure.
If we consider time period of length infinity, then it is less clear (I don’t have room in the margins to write out my proof), but since near as we can tell we don’t have infinity time, does it matter?
I don't consider the current system to be worthless. In fact, it functions remarkably well. There is certainly room for additional substrate layers though, and Bitcoin being digital or electronic gold and Ethereum being an e-steam engine or e-computer make for a powerful combination for applications together. I agree that the crowd here has historically not understood, or wanted to understand, the underlying protocols and what is possible. A bizarre kind of hubris perhaps, or maybe just a response to how the first iterations of a web2.5 or web3.0 were...admittedly more mired in a kind of marketing hype that was not as reflective of what is possible and sustainable in the space due to there not being realistic web and engineering muscle at the forefront of the hype.
I think this current cycle is going to change that though. The kinds of projects spinning up are truly massive, innovative, and interesting. Stay tuned!
What is it about then? I'm not spreading propaganda - I'm maximally truth seeking and approaching things from a technical/economic/governance point of view and not an ideological one per se. Though ideology shapes everything, what I mean is that I'm not ideologically predisposed towards a conclusion on things. For me what matters is the core, truthy aspects of a given subject.
No, I don't think so. By the time quantum supremacy is really achieved for a "Q-Day" that could affect them or things like them, the existing blockchains which have already been getting hardened will have gotten even harder. Quantum computing could be used to further harden them, as well, rather than compromise them.
Supposing that Q-Day brought any temporary hurdles to Bitcoin or Ethereum or related blockchains, well...due to their underlying nature resulting in justified Permanence, we would be able to simply reconstitute and redeploy them for their functionalities because they've already been sufficiently imbued with value and institutional interest as well. These are quantum-resistant hardenings.
So I do not think these tools or economic substrate layers are going anywhere. They are very valuable for the particular kinds of applications that can be built with them and also as additional productive layers to the credit and liquidity markets nationally, internationally, and also globally/universally.
So there is a lot of institutional interest, including governance interest, in using them to build better systems. Bitcoin on its own would be reduced in such justification but because of Ethereum's function as an engine which can drive utility, the two together are a formidable and quantum-resistant platform that can scale into the hundreds of trillions of dollars and in Ethereum's case...certainly beyond $1Q in time.
I'm very bullish on the underlying technology, even beyond tokenomics for any particular project. The underlying technologies are powerful protocols that facilitate the development and deployment of Non Zero Sum systems at scale. With Q-Day not expected until end of 2020s or beginning of 2030s, that is a considerable amount of time (in the tech world) to lay the ground work for further hardening and discussions around this.
I think a lot of this viewpoint comes from the fact that the median software engineer doesn't really have a lot of exposure to mature, and often therefore regulated industries and how much make-work paper pushing and ass-covering paper pushing there is.
I have no idea what fraction of our economic productivity is wasted doing these sort of TPS reports but it's surely so massive that any software that lets us essentially develop more software on the fly to cut that back even slightly is highly valuable.
Previously only the most moneyed interests and valuable endeavors could justify such software, like for example banks flagging sus transactions. Current AI is precariously close to being able to provide this sort of "dumb first pass set of eyes" look at bulk data cheaply to lesser use cases for which "normal" software is not economically viable.
The problem is that those same workers have like 5% key stuff they do, based on knowledge and depth they probably wouldn't have without all the surrounding 'TPS' style bs. Definitely not knowledge you can take from 10 seperated workers with their 5% and somehow get 1 worker working on that stuff 50% of the time.
Boring ass code reviews come in super handy because of the better familiarity, getting exposure to the code slowly, exposures to the 'whys' as they are implemented not trying to figure out later. The same with buyers overlooking boring paperwork, team leads, productions planners. Automating all that is going to create worse outcomes.
In a sane world if we could take the fluff away we would have those people only working 5% of the time for the same pay, but we live in a capitalist system where that can't be allowed, we need 100% utilization.
> based on knowledge and depth they probably wouldn't have without all the surrounding 'TPS' style bs.
>Boring ass code reviews come in super handy because of the better familiarity, getting exposure to the code slowly, exposures to the 'whys' as they are implemented not trying to figure out later.
But to what extent is this truly necessary vs a post-hoc justification? Workers are pushed to work right to the limit of "how little can you know about the thing without causing bad results" all the time anyway.
>In a sane world if we could take the fluff away we would have those people only working 5% of the time for the same pay, but we live in a capitalist system where that can't be allowed, we need 100% utilization.
<laughs in Soviet bureaucracy>.
The catholic church was making fake work for itself for about 500yr before it caused big problems for them. It's not the capitalism that's the problem. It's the concentration of power/influence/wealth/resources that seems top breed these systems.
Aside from the better versions of what AI is visibly doing now (software dev, human language translation, video gen, etc), many of the AI bears are dismissing the potential impact of hooking AI up with automated experimentation so it's able to generate new types of data to train itself. The impact on drug discovery, material science, and other domains are likely to be very significant. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for AlphaFold is just a glimpse of this future.
Completely agreed. It won't even displace the people who were diligent in all of those crafts. It will supercharge them. And there will be novel combinations producing new services/products. It's going to be great.
"automated experimentation so it's able to generate new types of data to train itself"
AIs don't understand reality. This type of data generation would need a specific sort of validator function to work: we call this reality. That's what "experimentation" requires: reality.
We already have this right now, with the AI training ingesting AI crapgen, with StackOverflow posts no longer happening. That would seem to point to a degrading AI training set, not an improving one.
A number of startups are working in verifiable domains where they can provide realistic data. This is an interesting thread from one of those startups: https://x.com/khoomeik/status/1973056771515138175
Side note: I happened to look at the SO "Community activity" widget earlier this week and was quite surprised to see just how far engagement has fallen off. I don't have historical entries to reference but I'm _fairly certain_ there used to be hundreds of thousands of users (if not more) online during the middle of an average work day (I'm in America/New_York) and there are currently ... 16,785.
Not really. One is a conscious design choice for what you choose to build as your ethos or Magnum Opus or what have you. And the other is a consequence of dealing with hard techincal engineering and scientific matters. :)
If AI kicks off another "industrial revolution" level of productivity gains the profits could be well into the quadrillions of dollars. Sounds ridiculous but remember that the $10 T-shirt you're wearing would have taken a week of expert human labor to produce before the loom, cotton gin, etc.
Just because trillions are currently spent on employees, does not mean that another trillions exists to spend on AI. And if, instead, one's position is that those trillions will be spent on AI instead of employees, then one is envisioning a level of mass unemployment and ensuing violence that will result in heads on pikes.
logtrees allows users to log n activities for varying rewards, so that as a system logtrees then justifies N Fiat Print Events for the purpose of achieving and sustaining "Financial Fusion" as to sustain the present economies and bootstrap an Economy 3.0.
I seek to leverage time, fiat currency, and blockchains in order to produce a useful perpetual money generation machine. logtrees will be The Battering Ram against exaggerated worries over national deficits and debts. It is in pre-alpha and here is the whitepaper rough draft if you'd like to read more about it:
I have many significant feature updates coming in 2025, including Version 1.0 Launch. I will also be looking to find some funds in order to build a small development team as to build more things faster. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, Happy Holidays, and enjoy a Most Blessed 2025 and Year of Jubilee. I love you, God bless you.
I do have mechanisms that are being implemented for both of those scenarios. Easy to detect fakes, easy to discourage sloppy work. It's about the quality and the results, so the incentive will be to produce the best work regardless of the speed. logtrees will encourage the best work, not the sloppiest.
There are systems being built to confirm the plant beyond any reasonable doubt. Those systems do not involve anyone going to check it out for you. :) logtrees maintains privacy.
I will build logtrees without it needing anyone to check that, and it will still work. :)
