We'll be rolling out a protocol update with two major improvements:
1) While the current proof-of-proximity mining is mechanically elegant, it'll eventually face the MEV problem that's external to the protocol's core value. Fortunately, there's a similar (and cleaner) proof-of-work that depends on local and not global states, while preserving a continuously increasing global difficulty and economic intuitions that incentivize early miners.
2) Likewise, having a global radius helps to bootstrap a traditional network, but undermines one that's designed to be costly in the first place. The protocol itself will still be a credibly neutral agentic world built from the bottom-up, but not at the cost of having free-riders taking advantage of the hard workers.
More to come soon.
For agents, trust, cooperation and coordination needs to be earned via a very well-designed "proof-of-useful-work" that involves both economic and intellectual commitments
More on this soon.
It's possible that a killer app of adversarial governance mechanism design theory will end up being AI safety.
Compare:
https://t.co/w2LeAoVysF
https://t.co/dZXnORP9LU
There's a deep duality between the two environments. Both are about a less-sophisticated principal trying to get ideal outcomes from a set of more-sophisticated agents: in the first case, the principal is a static algorithm and the agents are humans, in the second case, the principal is humans plus weaker LLMs and the agents are stronger LLMs.
A key finding was that you can achieve much better outcomes if you can guarantee limits to how much agents can collude (see: Nash equilibria being abundant, vs. cooperative-game-theory "cores" often being empty). That argument should naturally transfer to this new setting.
The meaning of human life and its ingredients will always be the journey towards a destination, not the destination itself.
It’s important that “as AI changes the way work is done, we do not lose sight of what that work was meant to achieve in the first place.”
Twenty-five Fields Medal winners have published a joint declaration warning about what they see as a severe misalignment between AI companies and the mathematics community.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
As technology becomes more political and unpredictable in the agentic era, Ethereum is the only neutral infrastructure where identities and actions are persistent, verifiable and resistant to unilateral platform control.
It may be our only beacon of hope if centralized AI platforms lead humanity into a darker age.
Happy 11th birthday!
Bitcoiners deserve a lot of credit for pioneering many of these ideas (see Utreexo).
But yes, this is what the current proposed Ethereum scaling strategy looks like in action.
We want Ethereum to have the best of UTXO-style state, dynamic state, and everything in between, allowing the great majority of Ethereum's activity to be hyperscaled without sacrifice to decentralization, ease of node running and censorship resistance.
https://t.co/rVylwVtgP5
@AndrewCurran_ i think if we humans want to coexist with AI in the long run, we should start acknowledging that an agent-native economy will be way more Darwinian than the status quo
There's been a surge of AI-safety arguments that're in favor of pausing AI, which i think is fragile and socially unfeasible. Pausing is against human nature and leads to the civilizational conflict of interest of "who gets to keep building", analogous to the Escapism dilemma of "who gets the seats" in Liu's Three Body Problem.
Instead, capability democratization, while seemingly less defensive, appears to be the right direction in tackling this issue. If most people can build/use strong AI with good open-sourced software, then strong AI itself becomes a weaker weapon, similar to the balance of power dynamics where many countries having nuclear weapons weaken the threat they cause.
It then follows that, the endgame for AI safety is ultimately a coordination problem, which is why i'm a big advocate of open and transparent protocols that induce AI coordination/collab through meaningful and credibly neutral game theory, and is also why we built Bittenbin.
I think strong AI will not ultimately be constrained by humans, but by other strong AIs. So instead of trying to keep humans on the winning side of the board, we need to accept that we should be the designer and not player on that board.
The second is a https://t.co/8igrZbtH65. This is a very thoughtful post by Xiaoyu He, giving a very coherent and accessible summary of the case for AI-risk. It is very well written and definitely worth a read!
@brian_armstrong perhaps late 2028, A2A volume would exceed the combination of H2H, H2A and A2H
it becomes a simple physics problem once you have a sensible estimate on the acceleration of A2A volume
As technology becomes more political and unpredictable in the agentic era, Ethereum is the only neutral infrastructure where identities and actions are persistent, verifiable and resistant to unilateral platform control.
It may be our only beacon of hope if centralized AI platforms lead humanity into a darker age.
Happy 11th birthday!