I don't get it, why can't ad be run on the SAFEnetwork? It can be like Brave!


No compromise is necessary. And what you say can’t exist did exist for about half the globe across many recent decades. And no it is not necessary to allow money to be a means of controlling people. And no there may not even be the opportunity to opt into this kind of abuse, just law would prevent it. And its totally irrelevant relative to the public or the common good what would benefit some business or business in general- society for the sake of ‘business’ is idiocy and backwards. You must believe in delusions like ‘job creators,’ or the rich earn what they have instead of stole it and that lies are ok. The world you’re advocating for I’d rather see nuked. Put em out of their missery because better dead than not free. No reason we have to have the rich unless everyone is rich.


He can just make a good ad app and print millions of his tokens. Tokens can be pretty valuable, if you think about it, they are competing with fiat. In some countries they are more than welcome, maybe people are getting tired to work for less purchasing power (Weimar, Zimbabwe etc). :scream:


Ah, Communism. Clearly that has worked out so well. I’m not so sure I’d be so quick to say others believe in delusions. Log in your own eye, and all that.


Capitalism has been dead for 50 years and was never that great.


Actually, any political system is flawed not because the
system is flawed but because humans have been running it, and humans are flawed by default.

I was always intrigued what would have happened if communism was run by an AI instead of power hungry dictators.
And the same what would have happened with capitalism if it was run by AIs.

Those are really intriguing questions for me and I would love to run simulations about it some day.
My bet is that both systems would thrive just because the human factor has been removed haha


Intrigues me to, an interesting thought experiment. I wonder though is capitalism seen as a profit first fitness function or most profit. In that case, AI will prob we worse than humans. However, if it were seen as a mechanism to trade fairly and supply labour and goods for a price agreed upon by a wide market, then it may be OK. Same with communism, but perhaps better to think socialism. If the fitness function there was to put as many people in as much comfort as possible but not make everyone’s wealth equal, you can make people equal easily (as they already are), but normalise wealth distribution, then AI may work there as well. (i.e. this would not be a non-discriminating sort type routine, but a search for the mean or average points in a distribution that seems fair, with very few in deep despair and very few in opulence)

I use fitness function above as a measure of success, i.e. closeness to the expected output, it’s not meant as a fitness function in ga or ep directly, just as the goal, more or less.


Ah…! I was thinking something similar.
I have many times regarded our laws (especially tax laws) as a horribly (horribly) written program, with extreme unnecessary complexity, pure spaghetti code.
Thinking about governing society with AI is leading me in the same exciting thought directions.

A counter thought that emerged was: How much of a society can run and be executed by code, and where does it absolutely need a human interaction?
Because that’s where it can (will) corrupt.

(Some haphazard (and incomplete) thoughts on my mobile, as I wait for the thunder to pass by so that I can connect router again and continue working: )

If there are any corruption-susceptible parts of management/execution that is handled by humans, then those will suffer from the downsides of the particular ideology just as well.

To frame the problem, let’s start with the extremes (bear with the absurdity of the example, as an extreme it will always be absurd).
The most extreme situation would be something like all humans are brains only living in a petri dish tended by robots which naturally mine their own raw materials and repair themselves and so on. (Well, we could actually take it even farther, think WestWorld).
The other end would be where we are now.

The span between is where we have a gradually decreasing surface area of contact between humans and any corruption-susceptible parts of society.
What’s the point of visualising this span? Well, to me it gives an estimate of how plausible it is to be able to circumvent the downsides of a particular ideology, by attempting to transition society to something entirely AI run.

Well, the above thought experiment is not showing very much I think. It’s a first attempt to capture something that I can actually express otherwise:

I think most of us (I know I do) feel very excited by the thought of how great society can become if we manage to run it all on SAFENetwork for example. It’s easy to think that the aggregated severity of humanity’s problems, will decrease a lot.
I actually think that decreasing that value is immensely hard. It is relatively easy to remove specific problems, but doing so without creating others is immensely hard, hence the inertia of the aggregated state of severity.
(A somewhat related example is Augur’s prediction market and the recent debates there.)

Some oetyng philosophy.


I have been thinking about this for years too, and the technological / economical / political aspect completely aside, from a strictly personal and subjective experience, I realized I’m always at my most miserable whenever everything is perfect.

For myself, I found the ideal state of being is a slight shortage of resources of all sorts, as it keeps me moving my butt around, dreaming and thinking. Whenever I have everything I need / want / desire, I feel like a pig. I like not having everything I want because reaching my Shangri-La means feeling empty and dead.

Thus I’m getting frankly scared of a mere idea of a perfect system with an absolutely precise equilibrium. It’s frighteningly possible I think, and I wouldn’t want it.


This is partly what I mean too.
So, you feeling miserable does have some concrete reasons if we dig deep enough, and those reasons are the product of the solved problems (aka changes made, that brought everything into a “perfect” state).
And this is what I mean with the very high difficulty of actually decreasing the net severity of humanity’s problems.

Edit: I believe it does happen though. Antibiotics for example I believe is a strong candidate for such thing.


I know, lol, I was just replying to it:

I’d wager it’s actually impossible. The question here is whether we wanna go up a notch this spiral and put ourselves at the risk of having to solve the problem of getting fed up with a perfect equilibrium. I mean, where do we go from there?


Most of the time humans are happy in what feels like useful or meaningful labour and less so with meaningless, pointless, untaxing, punative, or overwhelming labour, or as noted with nothingness. One can though be happy workout a need to work, some will not be happy, but it is possible.

So I think the AI would be aiming not to satisfy all needs, but to eliminate meaningless or otherwise unwanted styles of existence, chronic health issues, pain, excess stress and trauma rather than to make human life pointless!

That I feel is achievable n theory, though I’m not convinced humans could build AI and get it to do something we are unable to sustain ourselves. I’m pessimistic on AI in that sense, so my ambitions for AI are less idealistic, more about localised improvements etc.

Self learning AI is likely to be dangerous by its nature, but inevitable so I don’t concern myself much with it when there are so many other existential threats already around.


Enjoying the philosophical turn of this conversation!

I would always be reluctant to put all my hope in any kind of system, technological or otherwise. I agree that we humans can be a corrupting influence, but any kind of rigid scheme or system presupposes an idealised ‘good,’ and I think history has shown that none of us can really answer what that is. Even if that was ascertained, I don’t think the complexity of the human condition and our existence within nature is sufficiently understood yet for a system to be able to achieve its stated aims.

On the other hand, it seems clear we can do a lot better than we are doing now, and the SAFE Network will be a good first step!

To return to the economic issues mentioned above, it’s always seemed obvious to me that SAFE is not here to censor anything, let alone ads?!

I think PtD is a good idea, but along with rewards for farmers will still likely only provide for a fraction of the digital economy, so a marketplace will surely spring up, but on completely different terms to the current internet. I may have missed some earlier discussions, but at this stage the percentage for the developer in PtD still seems fairly arbitrary, so I imagine the specifics will be tweaked when the network is launched and we see how it works out. I suppose my only ask would be that the technology and the will of the Maidsafe Foundation are open to this, but I guess it’s open source anyway, so someone can fork it or whatever!

Sometimes it feels like this discussion turns into advertisers versus developers, which to my mind misses out what could loosely be described as ‘content providers,’ who are also a huge and necessary part of the digital economy. Just a point…

Sadly though I have no answers on how to make sure everyone gets paid fairly, so I’ll leave it at that for now, except to say I’m glad to find a project that even thinks about trying to make sure everyone gets paid fairly!


I think the only two simple rules for a capitalist AI could be 1) profit 2) survive
All the complexities of human economy emerged from those simple rules as well.

After a series of market failures, I think it would naturally end up surviving a version that trades fairly… after all that’s how we learned it :stuck_out_tongue:


If humans had every thing they needed then they would expend energy trying to get to a more pleasurable state. There must be a paddock with greener grass.


I am sure that those who are rich love it that their workers long to toil. It makes them rich while at the same time pleasing the peasants!

Seriously, with attitudes like this, how can people hope humanity will escape poverty? I would rather people just challenge themselves with a hobby, sport or some such instead, preferably on a full, sheltered, stomach!


There’s actually been several psychological studies on humans and productivity that find that the less productive a person thinks they are, the higher likelihood of depression and suicide. It’s a large contributor to suicide numbers steadily growing in industrialized societies. There is a frequent lack of fulfillment in people that seemingly have too much.

Humans naturally want to do things, create things, make things. Whether or not that can be separated from doing those things for survival and instead, doing them for fun has yet to be seen.


As much as I hate to interrupt the politics and philosophy discussion (I almost decided to participate, but thought better of it :wink:) I thought I’d comment on the OP topic.

As I understand it, there is absolutely no reason why one could not do advertising on the SAFE Network and even run one’s own version of the SAFE browser that operated with a token similar to Brave’s Basic Attention Token. It will be rather easy to create a secure token on SAFE and it could be integrated into a system similar to what Brave does. All this without having to change the security and privacy inherent in SAFE’s structure.

I think it’s a good idea actually. Whether it would be successful or not, I’m not very sure.

My thought is that, aside from the economy of the network itself, there are a lot of legitimate reasons why people or companies would want to advertise their products and services, and lots of reasons people would want to consume those ads.

Brave’s BAT is a great idea for paying people for their attention so that you have a chance to pitch them. If they don’t want to, no problem. What we really object to in the current world is the “if you don’t like it, too bad” situation where people and companies are desperate to get their message out but those messages get lost in the noise, and it’s too easy to spam.

Also, @19eddyjohn75 has a great idea with his wallet, as he shared above. Not sure if it will succeed or not, but the concept is great.

I’m really unsure what things will look like when the network goes live and lots and lots of people start to use it, but it’s a communication network. There are all sorts of things to communicate about, including product and services. Why not?


We are actually creating a decentralized distributed autonomous app (ddaapp). The user will be able to clone and own the app (I hate the idea of you coming to only safe://pliwallet, you should be able to access your wallet at safe://fergish or safe://wallet.fergish imho, it’s your money you decide the location of your wallet) the idea is, as much independence. Sure this could create security holes like a scammer adding malicious code to their site, but I hope that people will only clone wallets from people they trust.

Our token will also be time-based, so 10 years from now it will still have the same value.

Besides being an self-serve ad platform and wallet, it will also be a crowdfunding/token generation app. Tokens generated on the app will automatically have our ad features, so even if the project fails, the token will still have the time-based value in our ecosystem. We only require that projects give 10% of all their tokens, to our token holders for free. Poor people stay poor because they don’t know how to invest or have the money to invest. With our approach they don’t have to know that, but in the background projects are silently investing in them. I’m absolutely “no friends” with coinlist.co and their ideas to continue financial exclusion/inequality with nonsense like kyc/aml and accredited investors.

Our token actually got two values (trying to get as close to SAFEcoin as possible) time and money. Time is a fixed value that never change, but still can be used to advertise for that fixed time and money is a fluctuating value decided by the market. So it’s worth 1 minute and could be worth 0.07 SAFEcoin. Imagine selling your house through a token generation on our app, your house token will have two values and whatever you decide is worth more you’ll use. Because of the fixed value (time) you have a guarantee that it will always stay that, but if more people use our app the fluctuating value might as well reflect that, who knows?

The token can even be used in real-time in the real world as a time banking substitute, I pay you 1 hour for 1 hour work.

I don’t plan to base the success of this project on humans only. This app will also be used by AI’s who need little time to understand value and value processing. To process value humans (banks, but humans accept it) will take days, they love it when their currency is inflated, love paying to save their currency, love getting their accounts frozen and currency confiscated. I’m not an fintellectual, but you should not disturb a lover who didn’t read the “fine” print. Time will tell, but what we’ll create will be ticking along just fine on the SAFE Network.

If it takes humans 10 years to understand resourced based money and an AI 10 seconds, I guess it’s first come first served. AI’s won’t get a UBI, humans will if they want it.
:robot: :stuck_out_tongue:


It looks great on paper. But in the end, it’s like a fish bowl life. Retirement affair. A secured life such as this would be appreciated by anyone who suffered and struggled hard enough to realize none of those things should be taken for granted.

Would someone who never struggled appreciate this? A young person who never had to work and all of their activities are basically a fancy? Not so sure about it. It would be like a honey Matrix. Pleasantville. And when striving to find even more pleasurable experience, almost everyone hits a wall in the end. The moment they realize what they really need is less. What comes after would be… destruction?

What about art? Imagine that everything you do is for the fun of it only. Wouldn’t the outcome necessarily lack authenticity?

I’m all for fighting poverty in the strictest sense of the word. But if anyone wants to create a forever-carefree utopia where nothing really matters anymore, leave me a cave and a stripe of forest cause I’m gonna have some dangerous living (and authentic dying) to do :wink:

EDIT: Sorry for taking this off-topic again. Off to my cave now.


Yeah sure some of us will prefer to live in a cave like our ancestors did, some will invest in something like the artifical leaf. When more people have more money we can get more done and reduce hunger, suffering and violence. It’s good to know that you care about poverty, our app will enable people to donate all their tokens to others who might need it more.

Some people will finance space travel and cure cancer just by playing computer games with small computers in other people their body. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/435e49/the-worlds-smallest-computer-can-fit-on-the-tip-of-a-grain-of-rice
In the old world we might have call these people surgeons, but these are just kids identifying aids/cancer in a real persons body and like a drone pilot bombard diseases.

My personal interest, invest in the replicator from Star Trek

When rich people talk about poverty, they just take the time:

Is it still possible for the World Bank to meet its goal to reduce extreme poverty to 3% (or less) by 2030?

Kids this is obviously a bank who doesn’t help the world. Who in the world wants to come out of poverty by 2030, with 3% remaining in poverty, the people from the world bank should live the life before they even dare to say a word about it?


P.s. the world bank and imf’s interest rates elegantly hellps to perpetuate poverty in poor countries, guess some are only here to hellp.