Proof of unique human


#181

MAIDSAFE is open-source. So people would have to agree to censor data tagged in a particular manner. if that were to happen, then those people who wanted certain types of data to be on the network, could just fork a version of MAIDSAFE for themselves to run in parallel.

With regard to PoW and the blockchain, Luckybit is confused. There are many types of proof of work – just think about what the words “proof of work” means. Bitcoin uses proof of work to verify the blockchain. I am suggesting using proof of work to verify that data is tagged correctly in a system that allows data to be tagged – to my knowledge MAIDSAFE does not allow tagging of data at the moment.


#182

this is an assumption, and from my understanding of A.I. it certainly can have preferences of it’s own and can give valid useful feedback.

I feel that you are really not trying to explore the issue of what A.I. can do – which is everything we can do mentally. It feels like you are just pushing for discrimination. I wonder why – I have to wonder, as you refuse to answer the question.


#183

yes, yes it does. And it’s not a political discussion it is a simple matter of simple logic. voting is a means of forcing the rights of a majority over the rights of minorities. That is the basis of democratic authoritarianism.


#184

My proposal solves the problem of attack without requiring proof of uniqueness – simply require all users to add value, in one form or another, to the network - thus negating whatever negatives they add, or, more likely, preventing them from being capable of having multiple accounts simplly due to the cost of maintaining them.


#185

what if the new users have to be engaged in a conversation to an actual person already registered on the network to gain access? To answer a question that they are being asked by the already registered user. and these already registered users are picked randomly, and if they could confirm a person, then the system don’t chose them again.


#186

Then how are decisions made? How do we reach consensus without voting?


#188

Show of hands if you ever designed and coded an autonomous entity?

If you did, then you would know that autonomous entities such as the glorified A.I. catch all phrase A.I. depends solely on the designer, and the the inputs and the mechanism it can use. MaidSafe is an A.I. in my books; I have built eternally sustained autonomous entities.

If you are greed, you will teach your A.I. greed. If you are violence, you will teach your A.I. violence. If you are authoritative and oppressive, your A.I. also will be.

Considering this reply, think of systems that are unlike your usual system, or business. You have a chance each moment to be separate from a mass of dark interactions. And also to separate the dark interactions which dominate much of the gathered societies of this planet. Then you will illuminate concepts which promote Lightness. These two do not coexist.

Remember you were not born with that which surrounds you, you were born into it; and were then taught that it is your own.


#189

We don’t. We allow for a system where the individual makes their own decisions and then allow for individuals to come together freely of their own will, for their own reasons and in their own time. Instead of “coming to consensus on issue x which must be decided for everyone” we let everyone decide for themselves how issue x must be resolved and then group people according to their beliefs and the results of their decisions. Say for a simplistic example that the decision was what to have for lunch. Do we have salad or sandwitchs? Instead of voting on whether to have salad or sandwitches we let each person decide which they want. Then in turn we let each person decide what kind they want. Then the sandwitch people go over to the sandwitch table and fix themselves up sandwitchs and the salad people go over to the salad buffet and get their greens together and over time people notice that such and such a percentage like roast beef and such and such like mayo on their egg salad sandwitches and some like ham and cheese. So forth and so on. Do we decide to go to war? No. Those who want war can elect to go to war. Those who do not want war can stay home. But the beauty of this? Those who don’t want war don’t get forced to pay for war. You want to go off and fight someone? Fly at it because there will be less of you in a generation or two, the rest of us will stay home and make love.

This whole concept of “reaching consensus” is a statist concept built upon the idea of centralization of power and authority. Like much else it has to go. You only need to reach consensus if you want to stay together as a group. If you can’t reach consensus it’s time to reorganize things. Human beings usually can’t reach consensus beyond a group of 3 anyway and can’t even remember people past the 150 mark so there’s little point in trying to reach consensus on a larger scale. While technology enhances this it still is built upon the social connections we as human beings can forge with each other.

Voting is about having a top down system. We need to think about it the other way round. Individual first. Then grouping based on like minded individuals (sandwitches) then if need be subcatorizing (egg salad or penut butter and jam? And then is the jam strawberry or blueberry?) until the individual is left with exactly what they want, or as close to it as supply allows. If supply doesn’t allow for sufficient diversity then this is a call for increased innovation and creativity.

Note: I started writing this reply a long time ago and it just sat in the buffer but it’s long and well written so am posting it now. Sorry for the wait.


#190

@dirvine seems to disagree with Maidsafe as an AI. I look forward to your input…most of us on here are enthusiasts, but not designers of autonomous entities :blush:

People talk about AI as building larger smarter computers (IBM Watson etc.). My conjecture is that it’s not a large thing you build, it should be like ants. Lots of very small things with very few rules that are easily followed. Deborah did like this approach as I attempted to dispel the AI myth of a supercomputer. Each complex system should not do too much, like ants they have a limited function to do, too many functions is inordinately difficult to cope with. It’s the combination of complex systems that make up larger systems, not building Goliath systems, humans are not that smart (yet).


#191

I used to have a site Actual Intelligence, but abandoned it in case people thought it was some ego thing. For me there is only intelligence and artificial doesn’t factor. The variables in life are mad and the understanding tiny, so my goal is to create aeoba type life. We will see where it takes us, I think fixing data and comms first for us all will be a huge help, we people will supply much of the intelligence though and if we allow it to, I think the network can ‘understand’ some things for us. I am terrified of ‘big data’ though, to me its inviting decisions on all these variables with people who do not understand the implications of bombing a country or sacking staff based on a bottom line.

So fix data, comms and grow the calculation ability with semantic type understanding of data inputs to be used by qualified people. Then we may be able to detect unbalanced data, propaganda and uneven news and data in different countries. As we move forward, then perhaps very modular capabilities, such as testing, sharing and calculating code modules will help a lot. The ability to share info between devices and people will likely play a big factor as we drive down loss and increase efficiency in our system.

I think in summary, the future looks to be brilliant and the march forward of human intelligence will accelerate when we can get this network rolled out and hopefully push forward what the Internet has allowed us to glimpse and that is the exposure of corrupt and evil practices, not by the terrorists, but from our own corporations and elected governments. Making them honest and more transparent is probably evolutionary and unstoppable. This part I hope will happen quickly. Everything else, well …

The Internet has certainly not made us dumb or evil. on balance doing it right should enhance us as the network grows. I feel just now we are aware there are people out there, we got a glimpse and it has been taken away again, I hope we don’t provide the glimpse of what’s possible, but actually connect all of the worlds people and allow them to form the intelligence I feel sure they have locked inside them as a group/species. We are all better every day and all we need is the channels to work together to make magic happen.

Who said we had lofty goals :smiley:


#192

Swarm intelligence and cellular automata.


#193

out of context


#194

Finger vein pattern device being rolled out by Barclays Bank…
See post: Authentication: finger vein recognition being rolled out by Barclays


#195

I find this to be a barrier to thos who are technically (computerwise) illiterate and intimidated by the whole notion of new social networks let alone decentralization. A lot of the time I have a hard time getting people to use Friendica or Diaspora because they’re dentralized networks.

I agree, I have many friends and family who are very computer illiterate. They struggle to send emails without assistance. I don’t know what the solution is but it needs to be kept simple.


#196

A thought. There is much talk that paying for a new account or service will stop bot creation but I don’t think it will. It’ll just put a price on each new account and mean you need to procure that income before you can generate a new account. If you have a scam artist with a bot generator and the price of a new account is a dollar then you pay the dollar and generate a bot then scam someone out of $100 and generate 100 bots then scam 100 people out of $100 to get 10,000 bots. Then just rinse and repeat. Of course not all attempts would be successful and one might want some proceeds for themselves but that’s the process. Same works if you have a ligit business advertising a product but I think most of us are worried about scams when talking about bots. It might improve the quality of advertising bots or making scamming more competitive but it won’t get rid of it.


#197

I wouldn’t want audio data of my voice sent to any node on the network. Plus speech synthesis could be used to create fake identities.


#198

From the BBC article: “Only a living finger is accepted by the scanner, reducing the risk that
fraudsters will use substitutes or copies to break into a bank account.”

That seems like a potential security risk. Sooner or later someone would develop a scanner emulator that can produce fake identities. If used for the SAFE network such program can generate non-human identities. It’s a different use case for a bank where it’s only about identifying a bank account owner who the bank already knows who it is.


#199

Greetings all, first time poster here.

What about the user being presented with a series of random instructions about where and how to move the mouse pointer? I’m thinking things like “Move the pointer towards the biggest tree in the picture”, or “Use the pointer to make a heart shape on-screen”. Something along those lines anyway.

Could a (cheap) ‘SafeDongle’ be the solution to allow say, up to 3 accounts to be created? Maybe it could have other uses too.


#200

Only a human can ultimately verify another human I think. For example a realtime video chat for 10 seconds would be pretty unbeatable by any tech for a good while I think. Is there a way members of the network could log others in (in real time) with such a method whilst maintaining the anonymity of the users?

Perhaps such a test could only be applied to ‘suspicious nodes’, or could be a prerequisite for the trust of a node to increase above a certain level.


#201

Google has AI which watched a bunch of youtube videos and figured out what a cat is. The semantics of ‘move the pointer towards the tree’ and such simple commands are viably hackable.