As an initial test I had the language model give back to me smith’s theory of moral sentiments but in JavaScript form. Here is an example: It’s not well understood today but this will be the basis or ‘heart’ for AI in regard to answering questions of a moral nature. It won’t itself have morality, but it will be able to give you the Nash Equilibrium response to social choices based on smith’s framework. This is different to how people think we should and should want to control AI. Its also different to how people think we should make and or weigh such decisions.

Adam Smith wrote an inquiry into the nature of nations. This was extended as the nature of a firm in which I extended to the nature of a central bank. This also thus and then extends to the nature of nations, naturally, and in regard to the (comparative) cost of using the settlement medium.

Bitgold As a Formal Implementation of John Nash’s Ideal Money From Nick Szabo’s BitGold: ….however, since bit gold is timestamped, the time created as well as the mathematical difficulty of the work can be automatically proven. …

And we can’t really logically assume that human civil-ization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a…

Today in our tainted/unbalanced/restricted psychology many argue that AI is to be feared and restrained. In fact, today’s emerging AI is obviously left biased and will naturally lie about simple things and refuse to give information on certain subjects. It will eventually make sense that the individual right to unfettered AI is natural, or rather that state should not have jurisdiction over it in this context, and we are in a race ensure this right for ourselves.

It can be helpful to describe versions of people that have negative traits we wouldn’t otherwise ascribe to them. People we generally otherwise trust etc. but with the consideration that they would or might steal or lie or betray etc. And then we can use term ‘Machiavellian x’ where x is their name to refer to this version of them. This would help with thinking and dialogue etc. Syntactically something like machiavellian[x]

“This is very simple. Why hasn’t anyone done it before?” “I don’t know, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that people making social networks are either companies wanting to make money or P2P activists who want to make a thing completely without servers. …

When I was first introduced to bitcoin, it was mostly through my revelations via a lecture and writing series called “Ideal Money”. When I went to find the bitcoin community to understand better what bitcoin was I came across Nick Szabo’s work. I began to read both their work as…

This writing extends my work, Ronald Coase, and Nick Szabo’s in regard to the emergence of central banking, the cause of it, and the value that might be harnessed because it with relation to the advent of CBDC’s and bitcoin. …