I hate to break it to you guys, but it's already happening, IBM has their True North Platform, Qualcomm has their Zeroth Chip, Google has their A.I. systems, Watson, etc... it's happening now.

Programmers create bots all the time to manage simple tasks... it would not be too hard of a stretch to think that someone would build it and simply automate complex tasks instead of doing it themselves. There are A.I.s that are already able to beat the Turing test. Many japanese firms have very advanced automated solutions for almost everything... by law I believe they are limited to only automating 50% of their manufacturing.

just imagine a bot that creates, music, games, videos, movies and does it because it is programmed to do so very well and it taught that this is it's task, it's work. It lives by making good games, if it's game skills are good it can make enough to pay for cloud computing to improve it's thinking and in so doing maintain it's income level and continue living.

After all, we are nothing but cogs in the system, if we do not make money we live a very miserable existence, the same rule could be applied to bots.

Yes at least ... that's a Fact... I hope i get the Token right

Funny you should point out my 'copy and paste' but the authors are essentially repeating the same story over and over again, so we have different conversations on the same subject that I have the same reply about.   But to answer your question directly, yes I read the article; no, IBM isn't creating another altcoin, they are essentially only taking the bitcoin blockchain technology.

As I indicated in another thread, the greatest value about bitcoin is as follows: the community, the blockchain, the node network, the code, and the coin.  IBM has their own centralized network, and doesn't care about our community, code, or coin they just want our blockchain technology.  So there's no competition for the cryptocurrency world,  if anything its a blurring, or erasing, of the lines between corp and crypto, which is a good thing for all involved.

When the banks, insurance, legal, and govt start using blockchains to store content things will be faster, cheaper, and easier to store. 

Working is shit for most people, few enjoy their jobs. Not only because it pays shit, but because they are boring and personally they don't care. I would rather have free time and a basic income while jobs get automated and produce for me and spend my free time with art/leissure time even if I make little money compared to active people in the economy.

Why should they necessarily leave? They may just find it more beneficial (reasonable) to exterminate the human race at all from the planet (when they finish reckoning the tables). The rest you have seen in the movies. Remember, machines don't have scruples towards organic life (and most certainly towards machine life either).

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)


I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like.  In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans.  They got the power through weapons.  The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power.

The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke.



I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state".  The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people.  But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. 

I do not deny that there is a huge currency war ongoing, but Bitcoin is lightyears away from taking any part in this game. It barely got a ticket as a spectator. He´s sitting in the back row, on a broken chair, in the rain watching the big boys play dreaming of a better future for himself when it grows up. But i fear that that his dreams will burst like a bubble... which will lead to another another teenage suicide for the statistics
So many other "next big things" are already waiting for him in the forest of suicides.

Factum presents a wide number of solutions for any business and has been gathering a lot of partnerships. That’s why I’m already envisioning it as the platform that will lead blockchain technology to mainstream adoption. I'm totally going all in with this one! Looking forward to getting my hands on some Tokens:P !

So why wouldn't they take over all the power with the excellent guns they make themselves ?  Why would they tolerate us, and not treat us like cattle, or pets ?

If machines have any desires, why wouldn't they impose them with guns, instead of trying to buy us ?  Like people do (states, I mean) ?

That is not the way in which people take power over other people.  Power is something that comes out of the rifle of a gun.

There's no "pleasure principle" involved, just business. Do what they say or don't. Your neighbor will take your place. Everything will be pretty much the same as today except that machines will just make business transactions that make themselves the most profit.

What does "profit" mean without a pleasure principle ?  Profit is a way to maximize good sensations through economic interactions, right ?  You need a utility function to determine profit, and a utility function means a pleasure principle.
Without pleasure principle, you cannot define a utility function, and hence no profit.

I don't know why you think that machines will be excellent masters.  There are a few things to consider when you want to know what "excellent master" wants to say.  The first thing to consider, is the concept of "desire" and "drive", which is at the origin of the concepts of "good" and "bad".
After all, we humans have desires, because there are things we experience as enjoyable (say, having good sex), and others, as not enjoyable (say, being tortured).  Why this is so is a big mystery, but it happens to be like this, that we humans experience some things as enjoyable and others as painful. This experience is the root of what can be called "good" and "evil". Good is what provides us with enjoyable sensations, and evil is what brings us painful experiences (no matter what religious zealots try to tell us ).  Without the concept of good sensations and bad sensations, there would be no notions of "good" and "evil": water molecules don't mind being split, for instance.  Bad sensations also correspond to everything that has to do with our destruction (death) of which we have usually very negative projections and which we associate with bad experience.
You have to see "sensations" here in a very large sense: thoughts, projections, empathy, .... Not just the direct physical sensations, but also whether we find friendship enjoyable, whether we find our job enjoyable, whether we find helping others enjoyable and so on. 

Ethics is nothing else but to try to generalize the individual "good" (= enjoyable sensations) en "bad" (= painful sensations) into collective enjoyable and painful sensations: while something might be "good" for an individual, it can cause a lot of "bad" for many other individuals, and as such, is ethically rejected, while something that can bring "good" to a large number of individuals, is seen as ethically positive.

Individuals will take actions to pursue their own good sensations (in the large sense), and economy is the interaction of all these individual choices to pursue their own good.  So in a way, economics is practical ethics.

But in order for all of this to make sense for machines, they have to have something similar to "good" and "bad" sensations. 

Now, "being a master" (not in the sense of magister, but in the sense of sense of dominus) implies that machines impose, by the threat of violence, a behaviour onto their slaves, and being an excellent master, means that imposing this behaviour actually improves the good sensations with the slave over what the sensations would be if the slave had freedom in determining his own actions.  An excellent master has hence himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave (has a high degree of empathy towards the slave) - otherwise the master would have no reason to be excellent.

I wonder how this could come about with a machine.

In as much as machines would have own desires and good sensations, and hence determine what they want, I don't see how this could have empathy towards us.

Do you think they will keep a few pet humans in cages for their fun, or whether they will use human round-up to get rid of those organic parasites crawling all over the planet ?

Or do you think there are a few needs of them that humans can still fulfill and that they will keep enough humans in slavery for that purpose ?  Human cattle ?  Some of our body parts maybe ?

No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT.

I'm afraid that you are far from understanding the human nature. Those multi-billionaires turn out to be working even harder than most of the populace out there, they are just free in their choice. You can live off your dividends (or whatever), but this doesn't in the least mean that you won't work. Decent capital simply allows you to choose what suits your interests best.

You just stop working for money only.

It provokes the honest question of: How exposed would you want mining to be? 

Should they all register with their local military authority? 
Or put another way: Is it necessarily a "business" and subject to MTL?

Why do you think it isn't a good thing that miners mine anonymously? (Not implying that Tor is safe btw)
Do you not think it makes Bitcoin more censorship-resistant?

Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)

Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?

I think you misunderstand.
I don't really care for this point about Tor myself, but from what I understand it's not that *users* should be able to hide behind Tor, what is being argued is that *miners* should be able to do so. And the argument is that it becomes much more difficult with a bigger block size.