8 replies
11 recasts
187 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
I had a few initial reactions on reading this, but I wanted to let it sit before I replied. Spicy reply inbound.
First, I generally agree with a lot of polynya's writings, but this isn't one of those. I take pause with calling even what Ethereum is today a block chain at all, as definitionally speaking, a block chain is a continuously growing chain of blocks relying on a probabilistic security measure that strengthens consensus via a statistical or economic measure that converges on one side of a fork, and it does none of those things in fact:
- blobs are purged, meaning the history of the chain (even if only active state) is not fully preserved by the protocol
- finality is predicated on a social contract per weak subjectivity – not only snap sync, but in the epochs of the beacon chain. This is argued as a net good because it limits reorg depth and overall slashing risk, but one would argue both are conditions that make PoS bad, not weak subjectivity good. 1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
- structurally the block chain of Ethereum (i.e., the original 1.X chain) is further confounded in structure by virtue of the separation through the beacon chain – these are technically two separate chains, even if the core execution layer's block chain is intrinsically bound to the outer beacon chain's linkage.
Second, and more to the main point: AGI does not by any principle surface from a block chain or strict global consensus – this I agree, AGI does not have any clear definition as it is, and ultimately, if it truly matches the frailty of the human brain it will likely be just as incapable of marching in a straight line logically as we are physically (seriously, if you've never seen an example, we can't do it without a guide, we eventually start walking in literal circles). It being a source for any form of consensus, however, is likely false. 1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
