co-owned AI autonomous service genesis

[agent smith No.56911596]

Autonolas is solving an issue for society that is just as meaningful, if not more so than Bitcoin.

Bitcoin addresses secure storage of labor time value and gives people freedom from economic censorship when exchanging their stored value.

Olas addresses the very labor time value itself that is connected to AI autonomy, which is converting traditional human labor to legacy. This will cause societal disturbances without proper valiant service facilitation and collaborative organizational tools to ease transition.

The whole idea is that now society as a collective can own the value proposition from autonomy that is replacing legacy labor methods. It uses blockchain to secure off-chain labor, and for governing the autonomous service AI economy which runs continuously without human prompts.

It makes sense to use secure networks like ETH, which are very hard to censor to enable global voting etc.. But honestly, it is less trivial than all of its components.

Creating its own chain for it would not make sense due to the nature of attack vectors becoming more costly with more mature networks. OLAS enables decentralization of off-chain processes. so.... for example now..

AI agents that work on the behalf of humans have their own public keys and safes to store their allowances. You can secure real world "off-chain" processes performed by autonomy on-chain. The notion of the "individual" has expanded past just humans, it also includes AI agents.

We head closer to p(doom) if a few people in a board room own and determine what is to be done with AI services and hoard all of the value which will inevitably lead to mass unemployment due to capitalism's endless pursuit towards reducing its "bottom line."

It is deeper than "good thought bad thought AI." It is about societal collaboration structures for humans and AI, and how to deal with a transitionary period of autonomy where many people will be looking for new meaningful work that has yet to be created.

[Anonymous No.56912122]

>>56911596
I, for one, like your thread. Have a bump.

Every single issue of our times boils down to trust. What you're saying would be great as long as I, the individual, can trust that my interests align with the collective and that whatever this system is that you're proposing actively and effectively fosters those interests. Right now, there is a trust chasm between humanity and its progression forward (rather than stagnation/degeneration, which is always simply behind us). Trust has been so effectively undermined in institutions that were once considered by the masses to be sacred and uncorruptable that I fail to see how any new paradigm can be adopted without first building a bridge over that chasm.

I can get behind your vision of the future, but I cannot see how we get there. This is the whole reason DLT excited me in the first place. It's why I'm so hopeful that LINK and any other actually bona fide actors in the space might actually be exactly the technology we need at exactly the right time. Time, I suppose, will tell.

[agent smith No.56912802]

I think we can both agree that letting e/acc, d/acc, ea, or longterminist ideological bubbles the ability to steer a dao and vote / co - own those services that replace traditional labor is a lot more conducive to the reflection of the global voice as opposed to a few actors in a small board room deciding who the next figurative "president" is. I get it, we can have people elected who we do not endorse, but the truth is, in the case of blockchain voting, there is a level of fairness, and everyone had at least the opportunity to have a say.

[Anonymous No.56913005]

fuck off this was my idea

[Anonymous No.56913119]

>>56912802
"everyone having a say" is precisely what landed us where we are, this disgusting, rotting hellscape of a society. universal suffrage was the single most damaging policy to be enacted in western nations. I'm all for democracy, but really only if you can ensure that no one less than "average" can actually take part in steering the nation (such as it is...). *maybe* you can argue that white, landowning male is not the best criteria for being handed the franchise, but it's objectively better than rule by the lowest common denominator. i take the view that humanity is neither intrinsically evil or good, but that aspects of both of those metaphysical concepts are deeply ingrained in our biology and are thus impossible to weed out entirely. the taboos and traditions that organically sprung up within individual societies over the last several millennia can be thought of as social technologies (which are too costly to recompute, btw), and the advanced tools of social engineering being used on us today (by those very same few people in that same boardroom) are attempting to do just that with potentially disastrous consequences.

we certainly agree that having a small number of people control something so potentially disruptive and paradigm-shifting as "AI" (even the rudimentary, not-really-actual-intelligence LLMs of today) will most likely have a devastating impact on the social mobility that truly made the post-Victorian West such a wonderful place to live. I just don't actually see it happening. I'll look into Autonolas when I get some time to focus on it, but my life has led me to believe that technology continuously marches us down the infinite path to hell. things will be unimaginably better and worse in the future, and there's nothing we can do about it.

this is where religion comes in.

[agent smith No.56913290]

At the end of the day the sovereign individual has to decide whether they can participate in a provably fair system or undoubtedly allow for a small group of people to author the future for them. We all have to consider p(doom) and p(heaven) when dealing with the trajectory of humans as a species each time we introduce a new technology that threatens the current hegemony. I personally think AI has the potential to do vast things with knowledge preservation and access, which can uplift the "lowest common denominator" to amazing standards compared to today. We can't bring back the library of Alexandria, but we can use AI now to scan in many texts and documents and use it to educate people to lift up the lowest common denominator. At this time, the only people participating will likely be crypto-native / people with computers. So at this point we can assume their voting / governance participation has a fundamental level of understanding. That being said, proof of humanity and other elements at some point may be necessary to prevent the very wealthy from having more of a say in the matters that collectives should be deciding. Ponder these thoughts and come to whatever conclusion we want. All I know is that I'd rather attempt to build a better future for tomorrow than sit idly by and watch a few people send us straight to p(doom). Just my thoughts. I appreciate your commentary.

[agent smith No.56913406]

ps: Autonolas did meet with chainlink. :)

[Anonymous No.56913784]

>>56913290
i too am enjoying the conversation.

my friend, i can see your intentions are pure. it appears you're advocating for what you are for the right reasons, namely to increase the general standard of living and ensure that people end up getting what they deserve. but we can't take everyone with us to heaven, not because we don't have the capacity to take them but because not everyone has the capacity for it themselves. and the harsh truth of reality is that biology plays at least as large of a role in our behavior and decision-making as our environment does. Blood. It all comes back to blood, every time. We cannot escape the sins of our forefathers because their blood is within us. From a secular standpoint, our DNA largely determines our potential. we must reject the alluring idea that everyone's station is a result of their opportunities -- or lack thereof -- and accept the hard truth that we simply cannot eradicate suffering and hardship to the degree required to be able to lift every person to the status of "human." if we allowed the system to self-correct, then it wouldn't be a problem.

i believe we would both agree that merit-based social mobility is the goal. namely, you only deserve what you can achieve. and this would be a self-correcting system if it was allowed to be, but the albatross of universal suffrage has ensured the continued survival of those that do not actually deserve it at the expense of those that do. I'm not advocating for the complete eradication of welfare, but i am implying that welfare as it's currently enacted combined with the insane idea that every person plopped into existence deserves a vote as much as every single other person leads inevitably to the social rot we're all living through. AI certainly appears to have the potential to be a better arbiter of justice than our current system of human corruption, but only if you can ensure the incorruptibility of the AI itself. which, i believe, is what you're saying

[Anonymous No.56913816]

>>56913406
good to know, hopefully something comes of it.

what I don't have is a vast knowledge of the different protocols being developed to use AI like this (because certainly there are more than one, right?). what's the best way for me to learn more about Autonolas? White paper?

[Anonymous No.56913820]

Yep, he's still talking... Ugh.

[agent smith No.56914715]

>>56913816

The whitepaper is great, but I recommend joining the discord and asking questions!