Desde hace tiempo la comunidad de Tau sigue los pasos de los últimos cambios en este proyecto: Avances por parte de Ohad, renovaciones en la marca, o el deslistado de Bittrex. En el ultimo mes se ha trabajado muy duro para renovar la vieja imagen del proyecto con una nueva web donde encontraremos un resumen de que consiste Tau.
No es tarea fácil resumir algo que ni siquiera existe, es un ejercicio de optimismo, imaginación y hasta de fe, por si no lo sabes, no existe nada igual funcionando hoy en día.
Voy a analizar que es lo que nos encontramos en la nueva web de Tau.
¿Qué es Tau?
Lo primero que nos encontramos es una ilustración donde se representa a Tau en medio de dos mundos (mundo natural y mundo evolucionado), a la izquierda una figura humana y a la derecha la sociedad. Ohad plantea un paradigma que es Humano-Maquina-Humano, el entendimiento entre nosotros con la ayuda de las maquinas para escalar las conversaciones.
Continuando hacia abajo aparece un resumen acompañado de una especie de raíces que simbolizan las conexiones neuronales que podría tener esta red de conocimiento. En esta explicación resumida vemos un futuro de consensos escalable que amplia el conocimiento a otro nivel.
A continuación encontramos un resumen de cada área:
-El Internet de Lenguajes
-Base de Conocimiento Global
-La Economía del Conocimiento Inteligente de Agoras
-Acelerando y Automatizando la Colaboración
-Elección Social en Tiempo Real
Gracias a estas nuevas explicaciones para cada area, podemos entender cual es el potencial de Tau. El TML (el corazón de todo) definirá todos los lenguajes, para que cualquiera se exprese de la mejor manera que sepa y TML se encargará de convertirlo a otro lenguaje.
¿Predicados lógicos? Parece esa asignatura que te saltaste en el colegio!. Más adelante podemos ver a que se refieren con esto en la simulación animada de Tau cuando los usuarios escriben ?tema01 de esta manera.
Por primera vez en la historia humana al añadir más gente en las discusiones, aumentamos la productividad de estas, en vez de reducirlas como pasa normalmente.
Cuando Tau esté al 100% de sus capacidades, los grupos de trabajo ( de cientos o de miles) serán capaces de llegar a consensos en tiempo real y pedir que se rediseñe ese consenso en cualquier idioma del TML. Esta parte es importantísima porque no estamos hablando solo de idiomas humanos, hablamos de traducciones a idiomas de maquina como la programación, idiomas de contratos jurídicos, o idiomas artísticos como la música o las imágenes.
La clave del no estancamiento es la auto-enmienda, por parte de los usuarios, describirán en un lenguaje natural, como quieren que sean las reglas. Tau estará pendiente de tus conversaciones para entender, con el consenso de todos, que sus reglas se han de cambiar.
Simulación de Tau
Encontramos un video simulación que representa una futura interfaz de Tau en funcionamiento, una mezcla de red social y app de discusión. Excelente decisión por parte del equipo pues ayuda a entender mejor que es realmente Tau. Por primera vez podemos “tocarlo”. En el vemos a un usuario buscar entre varias propuestas de debate. Al elegir una propuesta, el usuario entra en una especie de reunion de trabajo donde se discute un asunto importante. Los usuarios dan su opinion, apoyan la de los demás y utilizan herramientas como el auto comentario o el resumen. Algo inaudito y fascinante!
Hoja de ruta
Una hoja de ruta aparece en esta pagina que seguro será una gran sorpresa para los seguidores del proyecto.
Aparecen todas las fases del proyecto con una descripción para cada una: TML, Alpha, Beta, Tau, Agoras. Pero o sorpresa! Tenemos fechas y compromisos inminentes. Por ejemplo, según la hoja de ruta, en la tercera quincena tendremos una demo de TML para probar amigos!
Se tiene la esperanza de completar el TML y Alfa de Tau a principios de 2019. Y la finalización de Agoras para principios del 2020.
Página de Agoras
Vuelvo a repetir que no es nada fácil imaginar algo que no existe, y con Agoras sucede lo mismo.
En mi humilde opinión Agoras será una herramienta donde coloca a cualquier jugador al mismo nivel. Pretende crear una economía justa para cualquier usuario.
es más probable que los jugadores más grandes necesiten alquilar millones de computadoras y estén dispuestos a pagar por el conocimiento único que posee el usuario-base, mientras que los participantes más pequeños pueden simplemente alquilar su poder de computación inactivo. Por lo tanto, podemos esperar que el dinero fluya en la dirección correcta: de los ricos a los pobres.
Un buscador será la base y tu podrás consultar y prestar el servicio de consulta a la vez. Será difícil para un usuario normal hacer más consultas que dar servicio de consulta, por lo tanto ganarás más de lo que gastes. Por otro lado las grandes potencias gastarán más consultas de las que generen, de esta manera el poderoso mantiene al pobre.
Por otra parte en la actualidad se a hecho una preventa y el resto del total de las 42 millones de monedas se prevé vender en una futura preventa.
Después de leer la pagina de Agoras nos podemos hacer una idea de la representación de la Ilustración en la cabecera. Una economía basada en el conocimiento humano que se expande libremente con la posibilidad de germinación y evolución.
Manual de Equipo
Dos apartados más donde podemos acceder al equipo y el Blog oficial.
El blog mantiene las ultimas entradas de Ohad y sirve de manual para el que quiera saber más sobre este ambicioso proyecto. Por suerte lo encontramos en Inglés, Chino y Español.
Nuestro objetivo es construir una sociedad mejor donde el conocimiento se pueda crear de manera más eficiente y distribuir mejor para resolver problemas complejos. Con la ayuda de las máquinas, podemos resolver el problema de escalamiento de conocimiento y opiniones. No más conocimiento olvidado o descartado, y no más restricciones en el descubrimiento y la transferencia de conocimiento.
Este equipo tiene buenas intenciones y un perfil profesional alto, está compuesto por todo tipo de gente y de diferentes nacionalidades.
No conozco un proyecto similar a Tau, nunca antes me hubiera imaginado capaz de poder ver una conexión al paradigma de unir todo el conocimiento humano en un solo núcleo, que sea capaz de crecer y que este sea accesible públicamente. No estamos frente a una Inteligencia Artificial, estamos frente a la próxima evolución del conocimiento.
Fuente original / Source: Post escrito por CapitanArt y publicado en Busy el 9 de julio de 2018.
Bizarre headline, isn't it? Sorry. It just ... coalesced spontaneously as ... a protein folding . Lets try to decompress it. Compression is comprehension . Decompression is experience. Firstly, I'll throw herein three bold statements - big separate mega-topics which I'll soon revisit by furnishing them with or backing them by their due Behest.io  full-fledged articles.:
1. The World is Fiat
I tend to generalize the term of fiat , to not only currency  but to all the Sollen  approach to transactors. In my vocabulary Fiat as an umbrella, general term for all social interaction which requires external enforcement, i.e. all what's not trustless or self-enforcing like morals  or blockchain . The whole system of monetized coercion. Or reciprocal - coercion backed fiat monetization . (Note: monetization of coercion vs coercion of monetization are not related by an OR  operator, but they are typical chicken-and-egg problem  - even the smallest children know that eggs precede chicks!) All what requires trust ...
2. Trust is Force
''You trust 'em only as much as you could make 'em to.''
Coercion or force or violence ... itself, IS currency per se - the primordial, the deeply preceding the emergence of Mankind one, and who manages to rigorize  it quantitatively will get and give us a TOE  unification of ecology and economics, i.e. instantly Nobel prizes! Not sure in which combination of fields. Simultaneously.
3. Money is Mnemonics
E.g. money in all forms is ... accountancy. Or book-keeping. Ledgers. Logs. Databases. Memory. They are even cognates  those - money and memory. Ancient truism.
It comes as necessity from the problem of simultaneity of transactions between autonomous agents, with other words - between automata , or self-thinkers, or those who are black-boxes  to each other. Regardless of whether the economy is mere barter, or it have uplifted one or more of its items to transactor/currency status.
Apparent feature of all accountancy systems is that they possess cardinality  of entries.
Up to now we know single-entry , double-entry  and tripple-entry  book-keeping system.
Not sure if a 'system' where everybody perceives, remembers and acts upon an isolated unshared 'ledger' of records on what's owed, contained only in its head - and runs it the way they could and want ... - counts for zero-entry book-keeping. Pun intended.
Can't wrap my head around negative or fractional numbers of book-keeping entries, nor I know what's the maximum practical and useful number of entries to juggle with. I expect Tau to bring together the, without any shadow of doubt, already available but dispersed across space and time bits and pieces of knowledge on accountancy entries cardinality into a general theory of transaction logging. It is necessary because, you know - an item is money (mnemonic  facility) ... transactor is accelerator , and general theory will give us a tool to know which monetary mechanism design  is the most powerful wealth growth booster.
Satoshi's blockchain is the first and only instance of successful implementation of the triple-entry book-keeping , so far, where credit and debit records and receipt are coined  into one. Self-enforcing log-book is as much (or not more) magical, or deus ex machina  solution then a horseless carriage vs a 'legacy' cart.
The blockchain catered total value is expectedly impressive grower itself. It took only 7-8 years to Bitcoin (and its imitations) to reach ~1% of what took 7-8 THOUSANDS of years to Gold  to get.
BUT, we still live in a predominantly Fiat, double-entry book-keeping world:
Visualize the modern world as a forest of centralized 2-entry ledgers:
From the several hundreds of tree stems - the Central Banks , though the thousands and thousands of commercial banks - fractional reserve franchisees of the Central Banks, down to the individual humans and firms credit-debit records.
A vast centralized fractal of 2-entry ledgers of ledgers. Lined into one by the global meta-ledgers - provided by international institutions like BIS .
Important Note: ... which I must make here - Lots of crap talk we've heard about how Blockchain is against Fiat, how it will replace it, how it frees us from the illths of the ancient regime  . NOTHING like that! The truth is that, for now, we do not have even the slightest idea or hint about how we could decentralize or detrust interpersonal voluntary exchange! Geography and history, e.g. nature and culture are forces to reckon. The propaganda suggestion that fiat money is kinda fake, printed at a wish, valuable only because we all believe in them ... is one of biggest nonsense I've ever heard.
As in any forest, the tree size and power varies. And matters. USD is the Yggdrasil  of the meatspace  of the global fiat mainstream Swartzwald  ! (Just like BTC is in the cyberspace one. It is not occasional at all that both are so perfect systemic benchmark matches.) In the ocean of fiat, USD is a giant landmass, a Pangea which is nearly impossible to go around of. The force of 20 000 golf balls of Plutonium coupled with same number of office dustbins of LiD  . And 1000+ military bases scattered around the world. And comprehensive coverage of the sea routes to guarantee that the global trade goes by the books. And working supremacy of law system as an antidote of internal corruption decay of the system... Shall the USD survive the Blockchaincalypsis? Of course! Taxcoins  are always needed. The runaway crypto-fication of the fiat monetary systems only makes the due payments of geopolitical services more and more unescapable. And more and more precise and fairer. With higher resolution and lower lag.
Backed by force means that the the strongest force is the most trustful. Like all those currencies who belong to the hall of glory of the millennial monumental transactors.: Hellenic drachma  - survived so far as a currency name in the Gulf , Roman solidus , Spanish silver dollar , etc. ... used to be. Mainstreamers - for being backed by the biggest force. (Mentioning the Force, we simply can not go without a Star Wars quote , I'm afraid - the best and most inexorable thesaurus of cliches.)
Lets close now the three side notes of dictionary intro here, and go back to PROCRUSTICS:
First, yes, it is about that antiquity gangsta, the psychopathic dropout of the noble blacksmiths profession - Procrustes .:
''who attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.''
Secondly, the etymology turtledoves  who explained to us what Behest is , clarify that:
Don't look exactly like pigeons, do they?
Thirdly, Procrustics by the great philosopher Stanislaw Lem . This is from Wikipedia:
''In 1959 science fiction novel Eden by Stanislaw Lem, Procrustics is the name of a fictitious information-theory based social engineering discipline of molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secretive hidden rulers, to create a hideous form of social control in which the very existence of the governing powers is denied and each individual appears to themselves to be free yet are being manipulated and controlled. One example described in the novel is "concentration camps" without any guards which are designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently on their "free" will.''
Last but not least, it is no surprise that this so much meaning laden word entered the vast fields of mathematics, too - , , , to denote so important concepts. Procrustean transformations:
''Hence, it may change the size, but not the shape of an ... object.''
I think this is enough of explanation to tie it up into:
The Fiat is procrustic because it is ripe to be transcaled!
Fiat is saturated. It can not grow the old ways any more. It is really dearer and dearer to be grown. It reached its internal limits.
Fiat (as global fractal integration of all double-entry accountancy books) is a narrative.
Fiat is procrustic, because being unaffordable thing to cover it all: it omits, it cuts off, it keeps out, excludes, discriminates, sequesters ...
As a narrative it tells a story of wealth, but leaves out so vast unsung, though present, riches.
The global fiat bards memory is too weak to memorize it all and they are not clever enough to distinguish the true from false entries ...
The fiat Yggdrasil Norns  fingers are weak to handle all threads and to manage to interweave them all into the meta-ledger ...
Giant mass of economic data left lying in waste, unused. And that's REALLY bad cause the data about the system state is the fuel for its own self-reinforcing positive feedback loop . Yeah, data as the new oil , but literally.
The estimates are that as much as up to 80% of all economic information stays off the record .
Cf.: Hernando de Soto Polar , who estimated that.:
''The existence of such massive exclusion generates two parallel economies, legal and extra legal. An elite minority enjoys the economic benefits of the law and globalization, while the majority of entrepreneurs are stuck in poverty, where their assets—adding up to more than US$10 trillion worldwide—languish as dead capital in the shadows of the law.''
in his 2000, ''The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else'' 
Cf.: aka Bazaaristan .:
''Across the globe, 1.8 billion people -- a quarter of the world's population -- work off the books each day. They are paid in cash for the goods they sell and the services they provide, and due to their ubiquity, there's a word for these merchants in nearly every language. As Robert Neuwirth reports, in French colonies, they're known as débrouillards -- self-starters, entrepreneurs, all outside the bureaucratic system. They might be vendors selling revolutionary goods in Egypt's Tahrir Square, Nigerians selling mobile phones, or the guy down the street hawking flowers on the corner. Whoever they are, they work in the world's fastest-growing economy: System D. As Neuwirth writes, System D, slang for "l'economie de la débrouillardise," is the crucial blackmarket, providing opportunities where the regulated global economy has failed. Its value is estimated at roughly $10 trillion, meaning, as Neuwirth points out, that, "If System D were an independent nation, united in a single political structure -- call it the the United Street Sellers Republic (USSR) or, perhaps, Bazaaristan -- it would be an economic superpower, the second largest economy in the world." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that two-thirds of the world's workers will be employed in System D as soon as 2020.''
Cf.: the world unbanked population phenomenon 
''Two billion people worldwide do not have a bank account or access to a financial institution via a mobile phone, or any other device.''
The ancient worldmap picture up at the bizarre headline, denotes exactly this 'Here Be Dragons' situation of the Blockchain-unboosted yet Fiat finance.
All these examples demonstrate not a conspiracy of a kind, but mere and obvious fiat unscaling symptomatics.
Probably in the old centralized way, for a double-entry book-keeping system in order to check, record and run all facts of relevant economic information, would have to consume more than what the economy makes as a whole! :)
This inevitably crosses with the important topics of the network scaling effects - for merely linking all the dots means automatically n^2 bigger economy . Without to add anything new, but by just noticing and accounting of the existing wealth.
We have probably dozens of TIMES bigger economy than we realize! Tantalus suffering .
On the comparative costs of the accounting systems there are three studies, , ,  which I particularly value, and which put into a neat perspective together with the network scaling effects  are definitely subject of separate near future blog posts of mine.
Now scroll-up back to the ''Important note'' above, please.
Blockchain is not the Fiat killer. It is its Transcaler  !!
And Tauchain being - together with so many other things - the generalization and the generalizer of all possible blockchains in particular and all possible accountancies in general - is the transcaler of the transcalers.
And as effect - the ultimate economy (incl. economy governance ) Accelerator .
The power of ambiguity and of ambiguity minimization in communication. By Dana Edwards on Steemit. June 1, 2018.
Formal communication benefits from ambiguity minimization.
So what exactly do I mean by formal communication? Well when we think of how human beings communicate with machines it is in a formal language. This formal language requires minimized ambiguity for security analysis (how can we analyze code if we cannot effectively interpret it?). The other problem is that the machines require for example that if... then... else and similar conditional statements are well defined and unambiguous.
Is it possible to show that a grammar is unambiguous?
To show a grammar is unambiguous you have to argue that for each string in the language there is only one derivation tree. This is how it would be done theoretically speaking.
In computer science, an ambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which there exists a string that can have more than one leftmost derivation or parse tree, while an unambiguous grammar is a context-free grammar for which every valid string has a unique leftmost derivation or parse tree. Many languages admit both ambiguous and unambiguous grammars, while some languages admit only ambiguous grammars.
Specifically we know that deterministic context free grammars must be unambiguous. So we know unambiguous grammars exist. It appears the strategy is ambiguity minimization with regard to formal languages (such as computer programming languages).
For computer programming languages, the reference grammar is often ambiguous, due to issues such as the dangling else problem. If present, these ambiguities are generally resolved by adding precedence rules or other context-sensitive parsing rules, so the overall phrase grammar is unambiguous. The set of all parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a parse forest.
The parse forest is an important concept to note. All possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a "parse forest". This concept is key to understanding the strategy of ambiguity minimization. So we can in practice minimize ambiguity and we know for certain that deterministic context free grammars admit an unambiguous grammar but what does that mean? What are the benefits of unambiguous language in general?
A benefit of ambiguity minimization
Simple English is a form of controlled English designed to minimize ambiguity in English. This is important because by using simple English to codify the rules or write the laws it puts it in a language where there is less of a computational expense (in brain power) to process and interpret the statements.
In one of my older blogposts @omitaylor commented and in one of her future posts she asked about the topic of love. In specific her post was titled: "What Does LOVE Mean To YOU"
Her post highlights the fact that there are different love languages and that we don't all speak the same love language. Ambiguity here is actually not a good thing but the simple fact is when someone speaks about love how do we know they are talking about the same thing? As a result we often seek an agreed upon or formally defined "love concept" where we all agree it's love. This is not trivial to find and as a result a topic like love is not easy to discuss in any serious manner. Unambiguous communication or to be more precise (minimized ambiguity) would allow Alice to discuss with Bob the topic of love in a way where they both know exactly what the other is referring to in terms of behavioral expectations, emotions/feelings, etc.
If Alice agrees to love Bob then Bob has no way to determine what Alice means unless he and she agree on a mutually defined concept of love. This highlights how agreement requires very good communication and how minimizing ambiguity can be beneficial at least in this example.
Ambiguity minimization makes sense when you are following a principle of computational kindness. That is if Alice would like to reduce the computational burden on Bob then she can reduce or minimize the ambiguity of her sentence. This is because in order for Bob to interpret an ambiguous sentence Bob must in essence sort all possible interpretations of that sentence from most likely interpretation to least likely interpretation, and before he can even sort he must first search in order to find all possible or at least plausible interpretations.
This is very computationally expensive for Bob but very cheap for Alice. Alice knows exactly what she means but Bob has no clue what Alice REALLY means.
A benefit of ambiguity
There are other examples where increasing ambiguity could be beneficial, such as perhaps when the communication is less than formal, or to share a stream of consciousness without turning it into a formal communication. Humor for example rides on ambiguity and a good joke may have multiple layers. Art also leverages ambiguity because it's perhaps meant to be interpreted 20 different ways all to produce a certain desired affect.
Ambiguity allows more meaning to be packed into fewer words. This in a sense is a sort of compression scheme. So if a sentence has multiple possible meanings the levels or meanings are still finite. It's a fixed amount of meanings and so theoretically speaking a search can be conducted. In fact this is what a human being does when interpreting natural language where a sentence can have multiple meanings (they do a search for all possible interpretations of that sentence). The problem with this is that it is computationally expensive as a process at least for the human being to try to figure out all possible interpretations of a sentence.
Lawyers when they do their work are working with a specific knowledge base of common legal sentences and common interpretations known in their profession but the rest of us might see a sentence in lawyer-speak and not really know what it means because we will not know the common interpretations. This is a big problem of course because to form agreements between two parties both parties need to have a common understanding (a kind of knowledge symmetric understandability) allowing them both to interpret roughly the same sentence to mean the same thing.
In a recent article of mine  I hinted my strong suspicion that scaling is itself scalable.
''Scaling is a problem. Scaling must be scalable, too. Metascale from here to Eternity.''
No matter what a terrific grower a system is - as per its own internal algorithmic growth drive rules - it seems inevitable its growth to get it into entropic mutualization  upon impact with a kind of a ... downscaler.
Scaling is everything, yeah. But it is quite intuitive and supported by too big body of evidence to ignore, that, paradoxically: the faster a thing grows - the sooner its encounter with an external and bigger downscaling factor comes.
This realization, refracted through the prism of our 'reptilian brain' layer  amplified to gargantuan proportions by our inherent social hierarchicity  is the source of the 'Malthusian  anxiety' which led to countless violent deaths over all the human history. Fear is anger , so the emotion that there is only as much to go around, and that the catastrophe of 'running out' of something is imminent, is the major source of what makes us bad to each other .
There are plethora of examples of very well mathematically and scientifically grounded doomsayer scenarios, and we must admit that they all correct as per their internal axiomatics  , and simultaneously they are all totally wrong for missing out the obvious - the factors of externalities  , the properties and opportunities of the medium which is consumed and/or created by this growth, and which transcend the axiomatics. For growth being always 'growth into'. The fact that doomsday scenarios are so compellingly consistent internally is what makes them so strong and dangerous ideological weapon of mass destruction .
Lets throw some such problem-solution couples for clarity:
a. the world of 1890es big cities sunk up knee-deep into beast of burden manure , and the super-apocalyptic projections of that VS Tony Seba's  1 pic > 1000 words of NYC carts vs cars situations in 1900 -1913 ...
b. the grim visions of the whole Mankind becoming telephone switchboard blue collar workers , the number of which should've exceeded the number of total world population by now to achieve the same level of telephonization or
c. the all librarians world  where it takes more librarians than the whole mankind to serve the social memory in the paper & printed ink storage facilities mode ...
d. the Club of Rome  as the noisiest modern bird of ill omen with 'projections' based on the same blind extrapolations as the urban seas of shit or the 'proofs' of the impossibility to connect or educate or feed all - instigating mass destruction fear that ''we run out of everything and will soon all die'' , used for justification for mass atrocities VS Julian Simon's  - the ''Ultimate Resource'' (1981, 1996) . Cf.: my accelerando article  and see what precisely is the Factory for succession of better and better Hanson drives for the last few millions of years - from the Blade and the Fire to the Tau - it is the same thing which identification made Julian Simon from fanatical Maltusianist  into rationally convinced Cornucopian  ... the human mind.
e. the predator-pray model  which this pseudo-haiku  I guess depicts best how's it brutally flawed:
''hawk eat chic -> less chic, human eat chic -> more chic''
for missing out to posit and failure to account for positive feedback loop  of predator over pray dynamics ...
f. The comment of Dary Oster  , founder of the other passion of mine - ET3 , on the aka 'saturation' of the scalables (exemplified in the field of transportation, which btw, being communication ... our social structures map onto mobility systems we have on disposal ... ).:
''... US transportation growth has focused on automobile/roads (and airline/airport) developments. (And this has been VERY good for the US economy.) The reason is that cars/jets offered far better MARKET VALUE than horse/buggy/train transport did 150 years ago. In the mid 1800s, trains displaced muscle power for travel between cities - because trains offered better market value than ox carts. Trains reached 'market saturation' about 1895 to 1905 (becoming 'unsustainable') - however 'market momentum' produced 20 years of 'overshoot'. Cars/jets were far more sustainable than passenger trains and muscle power, and started to displace trains (and finish off horses). By 1916 the US rail network peaked at 270,000 miles (today less than 130,000 miles is in use).Just like passenger trains hit market saturation, roads/airports are reaching economic limitations. The time is ripe for a market disruption, and all indicators (past and present) say it will NOT come from, or be supported by government or academia -- but from private sector innovations that offer a 10x value improvement (like ET3), AND also offer incentives for most (not all) key industries to participate (like ET3). Automated cars, smart highways, and electronic ride sharing are industry responses that will contribute to overshoot of cars/roads for the next 5-10 years.The main problem i see with the education system is that is that academic research and publication on transportation is primarily funded by status quo industries like: railroads and rail equipment manufactures, highway builders, automobile/truck manufactures, engineering firms, etc. -- all who fund research centered on 'improving' the status quo.Virtually all universities (for the last 1k years+) are set up to drive incremental improvements that industry demands, and virtually all paradigm shifts are resisted until AFTER they occur and are first adopted by industry. Government is the same (for instance in 1905 passing laws to forbid cars that were disrupting horse traffic; or in 1933 passing laws to limit investment in innovation startups to the wealthy (those successful in the status quo)).''
g. Darwinian algo  sqrt(n) VS higher algos - like Metcalfe n^2 . It is not precise, it is more of metaphorical, to indicate direction or scale of scaling, rather then rigorous precision, but ... the former figuratively speaking takes 100 times more to put up 10 times more, and the later takes 10 times more to return 100 times more...
h. Barter vs money. See.:  bottom of page 5 over the bottomline notes, about the later:
simpliﬁes pricing calculations and negotiations from O(n^2) complexity to O(n) complexity
As demonstration how one item out of a scaling barter system, emerges as specialized transactor and accelerator to transcale the barter economy. From within. Endogenously as always. (btw, Extremely strong document where there are entire books read and internalized behind each tight and contentful sentence!)
i. The heat death of the universe  VS the realization that the 2nd law  - conservation law for entropy/information law does not allow that , the asymptoticity  of the fundamental limits of nature, the fact that max entropy grows faster than/from/due to the actual antropy growth  and that entropy is not disorder  and that at the end of the day it is an unbounded immortal universe  ... cause it's all a combinatorial explosion .
j. The Anthropic principle  and the realization that it is extremely hard if not impossible to posit a lifeless universe  ...
k. The Algoverse - my 'psychedelic' vision  of the asymptotic inexorable hierarchy of the Dirac sea  of lower algos which take everything for almost nothing - up towards giving almost everything for almost nothing - Bucky Fuller's runaway Ephemeralization . Algorithms are things. Objects. Structure. Homoousic or consubstantial to their input and output. Things taking things and making things outta the former. Including other algos of course! Stronger ones.
l. The Masa Effect . The Master of Softbank seeing how the machine productivity is on the imminent course to massively overscale the human clients base and his apparent transcaling solution to upscale the clients base with bots and chips, with the same which scales supply in such a too-much way. 
m. The Pierre the Latil 1950es and Stanislaw Lem 1960es ( copied 1:1 by Tegmark  ) hierarchy . Of degrees of self-creating freedom of Effectors ...
n. Limits of growth - present in any particular moment and in any finitary setting of rules ,  but nonexistent in the infinity of rules upgradability. Like a cancer cell trapped in a cage of light  vs ... photosynthesis.
o. Ray Kurzweil - static vs exponential thinking .
p. Craig Venter's  Human Genome project  which when commenced in 1990 was ridiculed that will be unbearably expensive and will take centuries to finish, and it did - it costed a unbearable for 1990 fortune and it did take centuries, of subjective time as per the initial projections conditions - being completed in year 2000.
q. Jeff Bezos vision  of Solar System wide Mankind:
''The solar system can easily support a trillion humans. And if we had a trillion humans, we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts and unlimited, for all practical purposes, resources.''
r. The 'wastefulness' of data centers and crypto mining collocation facilities  ... which is as funny as to envy the brain for 'wasting' >25% of the body energy. (Btw, the tech megatrend is exponentially and relentlessly towards the minimum calculation energy).
s. The log-scale intuitive measure and smooth straight line visualization coming out of, this quote which I fished out off the net long time ago.:
"The singularities are happening fairly regularly but at an increasing rate, every 500 to 1000 billion man-years (the total sum of the worldwide population over time). The baby boom of the 1950 is about 200 Billion man-years ago."
ops! go back to Q. With 1 trln. humans population the 'singularities' will occur once a year?!
t. the Tau  !!
I can continue with these examples ... forever [wink] - excuse me if I've bored you - but I think that at least that minimum was needed to be shown and it is enough to grok the big picture.
Scaling is the solution. It is a problem too. Its overcoming is what I dub 'Transcaling' for the purpose of that study.
Size matters. Scaling is the way. But the more general is how a system handles change! This is as fundamental as to be in the very core of definition of life and intelligence .
Tauchain is all about change handling!
Now, lets knit the 'blockchain' of these all example threads above into a knot like the Norns do :
Dear friends, please, scroll back to Example D. Yes, the human mind transcaler thing. The Ultimate resource thing.
We are the ultimate resourse.
We the humans (and soon the whole zoo of our technological imitations and reproductions and transcendences of ourselves ).
We as the-I  are strong thinkers and creators, immensely more road lies ahead than it's been traveled, yes, but yet we, as the-I, are the momentary apex in the Effectoring business  in the Known universe ... AND simultaneously we as the-We are mediocre to outright dumb.
We are very far from proper scaling together. The Ultimate resource is not coherent and is not ... collimated. Scattered dim lights, but not a powerful bright mind laser. Dispersed fissibles, but not a concentration of critical masses.
We as The-We - paradoxically- persistently finds ways to transcale its destinies using the power of the-I, but the-We itself does not entertain the scaling well at all .
The individual human mind is the unscaled transcaler.
Tau is the upscaler of that transcaler.
I'll introduce herewith another 'poetic' neologism, which occurred to me to depict the scaling props of a system after the Scrooge factor of ''Tauchain - Tutor ex Machina'' , and it is the:
Spawn  factor
- the capacity and ability of a system to grow through, despite, against, across, from and via the changes. Just like cuboid  is about all rectangular things like squares, cubes, tesseracts ... regardless of their dimensionality, the Spawn Factor - to be a generalization of all orders of scaling. Zillion light years from rigor, of course, as I'm on at least the same distance from my Leibnizization . For the lawyer to become a mathematician is what is for a caterpillar to become a a butterfly. :) Transcaling.
Tau transcends the infinite regress of orders of: scaling of scaling of scaling ... by being self-referential. Or recursive. 
What is the Spawn factor of Tau?
If you let me I'll illustrate this by a poetic periphrasis of the famous piece of Frank Herbert's .:
I will face my change. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the change has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
― Robert A. Heinlein 
No, it is not a vow everybody to be everything. It is a reflection of the fundamental human fungibility . The average human can be taught to take any human role. The exceptions of true organic geniuses (those who are hard to be replaced) and morons (those who are incapable to replace), only confirm this general rule of shear numbers . This is what makes the mankind so scalable .
''Know'' is synonymous with ''can''. Literally. Knowledge = technology. Even etymologically . Knowledge is praxis . Only. There ain't such thing as impractical knowledge. If it is not a skill, it is not knowledge. I mentioned once  that we're all AIs. Ref.: feral children .
We are not what we eat , but we are what we've learnt. You are what you know/can. And you can what you have learnt. Learning is from the taking side. Teaching is on the giving side. Of one and a same process. We do not have a word to denote the modulus  of learning/teaching, it seems. But it will come.
We are taught by the others, the society. We are the cherry ontop of a layer cake of culture onto nature . We are learning by ... living. We acquire skills in plethora of contexts from family, street, school, job, media ... Learning  is not a monopoly of man, countless systems are also learners. Maybe one of the basic definitions of life and intelligence is the ability to learn . Giant topic, yeah. We won't graze into it here now on what is learning, but on how we learn.
Due to our neurological bottlenecks we spontaneously form hierarchies . This hinders our scalabilty  by forcing humanity to be more or less a fractal of 5. We are close to a number of breakthroughs which to mitigate these innate limitations of ours into a number of ways    . But the general case is not subject of this article - herein we focus on HOW we are taught. How we acquire knowledge, and how this knowledge of ours gets recognized and utilized by society. And the hierarchic emergent structuring is of course in full force upon us in teaching as well as into everything social else.
So comes education , such comes exam , knowledge certification , certified skills application , knowledge creation verification , job fitness testing , CVs and employer recommendations ... etc., etc. With all the bugs and the so little features of this 'map is not the territory' , situation.
It is all centralized and hierarchic - exactly as the global fractal of double-entry accountancy ledgers which we call fiat financial system is. In fact it is so interwoven with fiat finance than it is almost inextricable from it . And as much inefficient and imprecise.
In all these years of talking and thinking on Tauchain  - I noticed - and this suspicion of mine incrementally turns into shear conviction - that Tau, the upscaler of humanity, inevitably also is the ultimate teaching machine. If education is facilitating of learning, Tau is the maximizer of learning. By its very construction, it comes out so.
People talk and listen whenever and whatever they want. Tau has unlimited capacity to listen and attend and remember, and answer. Only limited by the hardware capacity allocated. Tau extracts meaning. Purifies the stream, distills it down to the essence. Detects repetitions, contradictions and all other, ubiquitous nowadays conversation bugs. Remembers changes of opinions of the individual user. And points them out. Sounds like the best tool to know oneself. And the others to know you if you let them.
Your Tau account or profile is what you know. You say what you say and also ask. Say statements and questions. Tau pools you together with the others who state the same and, more importantly, who ask the same type of questions. Knowing what you know, and asking about what you don't know but want to know, maps not only your knowledge state but also maps your knowledge dynamics. Records and drives how your knowledge changes. You even have access to what you forget, and can recollect it. True real time knowledge state reporting. For first time in human history.
If consciousness  is - aside from the clinical state of being merely awake - the post-factum integration of senso-motoric experience , the Accountant of mind, the speaker of the narrative which is you, then Tau is your consciousness booster. That is - stronger than thought.
The ultimate teaching, the ultimate fair testing or exam, the ultimate real-time comprehensive diploma, or certificate, super-peer reviewed paper(s) of you as academic carrer.., the ultimate job interview AND the ultimate ... job of being working as yourself and anything useful you create to be instantly scarcifiable and monetizable - your Tau account is! And all the rest of accessible socoety - being your own workforce. And you to them. In the billions. In a move. In real time.
Including control over the pathways of increase of your skills towards the most productive personally for you learning directions, because it aids you to analyze the you-Tau history and to apply knowledge maximizer techniques and to participate profitably into creation of newer better ones. Maximizer of self. And maximizer of society making it to consist of max-selfs. Ever improving. Merger of education with work occupation. Work-as-you-live.
The literal Knowledge Economy, as described by @trafalgar in his article  from few months ago. Where search, creation, reflection, certification, recognition, commercialization, accumulation, modification, improvement ... everything of knowledge - is all in one.
And it is not only Humans and Tau lonely job. I foresee the other Machines to join the party . Yes, I mean machines capable to have interests and to ask and seek answers of palatable questions.
This - the education amplification - to come down the technology way - has been, of course, anticipated by many. Few arbitrary examples:
- A distant rough-sketch hint for the inevitable tuition power of Tau is Neil Stephenson's  ''The Diamond age''  , with the depicted: '' Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer '' , as an interactive networked teaching device.
- or if I'm right about the inevitable conquest of the natural languages territory  - UX  like in the 'Her' (2013) film .
- Thomas Frey  of the futurist DaVinci Institute  in his book ''Epiphany Z''  paid special attention of this.: down the way of micro- and nano-education, an effective merger of the processes of education, diplomas issuing, job application, exam and actual execution of job obligations. Tom does not know about Tau. But I'll tell him.
With a big smile of irony and self-irony of course... these examples. Just to pick from here and there proofs of the giant anticipation of what's to come. And taken with a few big grains of salt. Cause the reality will be immensely more powerful.
Tutor , tuition , my emphasis via using exactly this wording, comes to denote the economic side of learning/teaching. It is about the cost of learning - the association of tuition with fees, about the placement of the acquired skills, about the business organization of those, about the protection of ownership and security of transaction of knowledge ... Let me introduce here a neologism  which to reflect the business side of it:
Scrooge Factor 
- Simply denoting the money-making power of a technology use by a business. The 'money suction power' of a business entity or organization of any kind coming from the application of a technology, if you want. Technology as socialized knowledge. Scaled up over multiple humans. Over a society. Of course the Scrooge Factor can pump in different directions. The Scrooge Factor of the traditional hierarchic education, governance and everything ... is apparently very often negative - hierarchies decapitalize, dissipate, waste. Orders of magnitude more wasteful than any PoW , but on this - some other time.
So aside from all the niceties of the abstractions of the full supply and value chains of a Knowledge economy, lets round up some numbers:
- We know that a true functional semantic search engine alone is worth $10t. Yeah. Tens of Trills. Trillions. As per the assessments of Davos WEF attendees of as far as I remember 2015 or 2016...
- Also, Bill Gates stated back in 2004  that ''If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, so machines can learn,'' Mr. Gates responded, ''that is worth 10 Microsofts.''
- Tom Frey  also argued  that by 2030 the biggest corporation in the world will be an online school. Given the present day size and growth rate  of, say, Amazon  this 'online school' should be in the range of good deal of trillions of marcap if it is to be bigger than the biggest corporations. But we do not need such indirect analogies over analogies to access the scale. The shear size of the global education industry is the most eloquent indicator . Note that Tom talks about 'corporation' i.e. for clumsy and inefficient hierarchic human collective. Not for a system which does this orders of magnitude more efficiently and powerfully due to being intrinsically P2P, i.e. geodesic . Even the best futurologists can be forgiven for missing to predict Tau. :)
And this mind-boggling hail of trillions, does not even account for the Hanson Engine  factor.
Tau the Tutor ex Machina is just another unintended useful consequence outta the overall design.
It is nearly impossible to track and contemplate exactly what all these 'side-effects' would be and how they will synergetically boost each other.
With my articles I intend to only touch some lines of the immense phase space  of the possibilia, with neither any ambition to think it is possible to cover it all, nor this to represent any form of advice.
Future is incompressible. Compression is comprehension. Comprehensible only by living.
Failure to go to the geodesic way of learning, will turn these beautiful but trilling words into prophecy:
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." H.P.Lovecraft  (1926 ).''
Size matters. Some people object that it does not matter, but has meaning. But meaning always matters, so it is the same.
The bigger problems one solves, the bigger the gains. Big problems require big solutions. We live in a big universe and our very survival is to deal with bigger and bigger problems, which require bigger and bigger solutions to cope.
But nevertheless to build big is hard so we naturally prefer to create small things which can grow. Small from point of view both of understandable and affordable to build. So best fit are small solutions, cheap and easy to make which scale out or unfold or unleash into big means to address big problems. Scaling is everything.
Scaling. Scalable! Scalability !!
The root-word 'scale' possesses marvelous riches of meaning in English language  with lots of poetics inside.:
 snake skin epidermals - wisdom, memory, protection, rejuvenation, regeneration, eternity...
hen to pan (ἓν τὸ πᾶν), "the all is one"
 warrior armour - security, defense, power, strength.
 weighting scales - device to measure mass, unit, measure, account.
all very Blockchainy wording without any shadow of doubt.
The scalability issues could be grokked  with the following anecdote:
Bunch of workers on a construction site and a huge log. The onsite manager commands a few of them to lift and move it. They try and object ''Too heavy!''. The manager adds more and more workers, until they shout back again: ''Too short!''.
A few real examples, the first two - bad and the last three excellent:
[a] I won't name this 'crypto' just will say it is named after a mythical element of the universe, according to the prescientific gnostic  imaginations. It's core 'value proposition is to shovel meaningful computation into a thread of computation which very value proposition is to be as random, meaningless and unidirectional (hard to do, easy to prove) as possibly possible - the blockchain. The theoretically most expensive form of computation. Visualize: cars and airplanes made of gold and diamonds burning most expensive perfumes. Or mass production of electricity by raising trillions of cats and hiring trillions of people to pet them with grid of pure gold wires to discharge and collect the electrostatics. If they have chosen the original Satoshi blockchain  for their 'experiments' - where the futility of such attempt would become instantly clear and would die out outright due to impending unbearable cost - will of course be more fair way to do, and would've spared dozens of billions of dollars to the Mankind, but logically they preferred a 'controlled' blockchain of their own. In a sense that the guys with vested interest into it have the power to hand-drive, stop, restart and vivisect it. The only use of this 'blockchain supercomputer' is ... tokenomics by Layering. Why it was at all necessary for a blockchain advertised as so good as to do all the general computation, to be made so hairy and bushy with layered tokens??
[b] Another trio of chaps, won't mention names again, were really at awe with Satoshi's creation, so much that they not just liked, but wanted it and decided to have it. For themselves. All of it. And rebelled and forked out and provided 'scaling' errrmm ... uhhh... solution. By increasing the blocksize. Something which Satoshi meditated on, extensively discussed with his disciples and not occasionally decided to put breaks on.  Very recently the crypto news headlines said that the blocksize increase solution providers are eyeing ... Layering. Which they furiously were advocating that blocksize increase makes unnecessary. Cause it is the solution, isn't it? Or maybe it just was. And is not anymore? Well, I'd say that all the aka 'alts'  - to provide a rejuvenated clone of Bitcoin tweeked here and there to provide momentary ease of difficulty and transaction fees - suffer from one and a same problem - traveling back in time does not tell you the future.
[c] Lets jump half a century back in time. It is 1960es. The very making of internet. Computers are already here and scaled up in numbers so their networking to become a problem/juice worth the solution/squeeze. The birth of TCP/IP  and the report of the very makers of it. Of the solution for the network scaling. Enjoy the ancient wisdom:
Initially, the TCP managed both datagram transmissions and routing, but as the protocol grew, other researchers recommended a division of functionality into protocol layers. Advocates included Johnatan Postel of the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute, who edited the Request for Comments (RFCs), the technical and strategic document series that has both documented and catalyzed Internet development. Postel stated, "We are screwing up in our design of Internet protocols by violating the principle of layering." Encapsulation of different mechanisms was intended to create an environment where the upper layers could access only what was needed from the lower layers. A monolithic design would be inflexible and lead to scalability issues. The Transmission Control Program was split into two distinct protocols, the Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol.
The layering made the Internet as we know it. By the simple trick of just one node needed to permit another. Unstoppable inclusivity!
[d] The Mastercoin / Omni Layer :
«A common analogy that is used to describe the relation of the Omni Layer to bitcoin is that of HTTP to TCP/IP: HTTP, like the Omni Layer, is the application layer to the more fundamental transport and internet layer of TCP/IP, like bitcoin».
[e] The Lightning network (LN) :
The Lightning Network is a "second layer" payment protocol that operates on top of a blockchain (most commonly Bitcoin).
Satoshi spoke on 'payment' channels in his masterpiece. Foreseeing the way to scale.
An estimate of the power of LN layering .:
''The bitcoin devs accept that eventually larger block sizes will be needed. The current transaction rate isn't going to cut it if people all over the world actually start using bitcoin daily. They estimate that eventually, if everyone in the world uses bitcoin and makes 2 transactions a day, but uses the lightning network, a 133mb blocksize will be needed. Without the lightning network, something like a 200gb (GIGABYTE) size PER BLOCK would be needed to accommodate that much usage.''
Layering upscales it with orders of magnitude of higher efficiency.
If Bitcoin is the 'first layer' and Omni and Lightning are 'second layer', I see which one is the 'Zeroth Layer' and also foresee  the inevitability of the merger or 'Amalgamation' of all second layers over all blockchains, so the user will be able to transact everything into anything to anybody, without to know or care which chain is in use ... I have special nicknames for these and will go back to these topics in series of future posts.
Enough of examples I reckon.
The Postel's sacred Principle of Layering comes from the implementation levels paradigm.
or Abstraction layering :
''separations of concerns to facilitate interoperability and platform independence''
With other words - delegate the task to that layer of the system which does the particular job best. We can generalize this into The Scaling Commandment. Only one enough:
''Thou shalt not jam it all into a single layer!''
The Layer Cake architecture is literally ubiquitous across the Universe.: biology, semantics, informatics ...
It seems that it is if not the only, at least THE way to scale.
Maybe, someday, we the Humanity, upscaled by Tauchain will discover more powerful than Layering ways to Scale, but it is all we have for now.
Scaling is a problem. Scaling must be scalable, too.
Metascale from here to Eternity.
Lets build an universe , . I realize this blog post is the most 'psychedelic' up to now and for long time to go, but some 'poetry' never really hurts ...
We discussed already the worldmaker effectoring .
It is quite ancient but also exponentially growing business ... in all possible forms of science , faith  and art . This modeling  usually serves to play out what's possible and what's impossible. Gedanken eksperiment , yeah, but isn't all thought  merely algorithmic  and mere action  ?
Usually the posited universes are made of variations and combinations of substance/matter, structure/form and action/process rules. Though, the algorithmic component is always the essential ingredient. Yes, the Laws of Physics are full-fledged, literal algo , too. I have those conjectures that it is impossible to think out, make or discover (which is one and a same thing) a lifeless universe  and that substance-structure-action are inexctricable, but these are separate topic for some other times to address .
Lets put together ours toy-universe  out of only pure algorithm. I've never seen such a construct, although the Orbis Tertius  is enormous and I bet this vision have occurred gazillions of time in zillions of minds.
It is like an ocean. The primary coin-toss algo which outputs 0s and 1s  makes the water. We don't know (yet) if there are even deeper and more fundamental numerical bases  for running algos. Most probably the answer is yes by analogy with the Dirac Sea  - the deeps to be made of simpler and weaker algos. The most elementary coin-toss thing makes out the ... probabilistics, perhaps the primordial form of logic. The laws of physics (and of machine learning  and of darwinian evo algo  ...) tell the rule-set how to stitch together lotsa coin-toss outputs. A hint on inspiration for that - David Deutsch's Constructor theories . The laws of physics as entropy  limitation of the allowed elementary algo cumulative output. For information being a verb, not a noun - isn't it? Very interested philosophic perspective on algorithm as randomness constrictor  raise up...
So, if the Algoverse ocean water is made of elementary coin-toss molecules, being ''liquid'' is just another phase or aggregate state .
There is deep duality  between probabilistics and logic. Just like the zoo of dualities discovered in accelerating pace by the mathematical physics in the last decades  Probability/statistics we make now by logic , the reverse ... - well, nobody yet cracked it. Even Kolmogorov. But I bet we will. Most probably the breakthrough will be Ohad Asor name-labeled... To find the know-how to do it the other way round, do logic with probability/statistics. The statistical algorithmic - not the SAT , brute force, alchemist  way as with NN/ML ,  and other known beasts. This will be nothing less but full merger of maths/logic/philosophy/thought... and physics. Literally!
Excuse me for the haiku  simplification. It is deliberate due to realization of my grok constraints. :) Regard it as sharing a poetic impression.
Is there deeper and weaker algo than the digital - the radix-2, deterministic, unitary one? Intuition says ''yes, of course!'' Like with these radix-1 Half-coins  of negative and other non-unitary probabilities ... which take two tosses to yield a bit... and there must be transfinity  of lower ones, also transfinities of higher and sideways ones ... which is almost as counter-intuitive as Dirac's bottomless night of negative energy , but I bet also as much useful. (Lets not even touch numeral bases of Pi, i, e ... etc.), and lets stick to strictly binary 'water' for our oceanic toy-universe for the sake of sanity.
The next important notion of the Algoverse ocenic model is the Algorightmic strength  - the weakest algo would be that which takes infinity of tosses to get a full bit. The strongest?
Algorithmic ephimeralization  - essentially to do more with less. Or faster - Speed Prior  ... which is just another way to say 'more'.
Some algos are too strong - QM, M-Theory - they return way too much bits per 'toss'. Their vcdim  converges to infinity. Exponential walls  in all directions. Not exactly what Freeman Dyson had in mind ... In our ''mockup'' they could be depicted as too hot. Changing the phase of the elementary algo 'water'. Like.:
but because we are all for peaceful use of algorithmic energy - we reject those up here, too - together with the non-unitary statistics down there.
Last piece of the picture - the Algoverse ocean is habitable and inhabited!
By higher algos as life-forms, stronger - but not so strong to turn the 'water' into roaring steam or plasma.
Examples: Calculi , geometries, algebras ... software . The genetic inter-algo connection should be that calculus came from Leibniz and Newton and numerous unknown others ... heads, but it is the blind watchmaker  of evolution which put those heads together ... (I disagree with Dawkins only on that evolution and design are both algorithms, alternatives but not opposition).
Thus entropically  and combinatorially  algos kinda-sorta come from one another - the stronger from the weaker.
The stronger are the life-forms living in that ocean. Cause randomness  permeates everything, isn't it?
Not so far-fetched of a metaphor given the fact that any Effector-ing  has totally algorithmic nature and essence.
How much higher 'life form' Tauchain in the Algoverse ocean is?
Is it mere life form or ... life, new organizing principle to reform all the system?
Masa. Masayoshi Son . The master of SoftBank . The Japanese national of Korean background  - really great achievement in this context! The individual with, I suspect, the biggest buying power in all the human spacetime combined. In the world and in the history.
Masa's business record is formidable. He's not just serial and parallel multi-billionaire but a multi-billionaires-breeder  - for example he's THE Jack Ma-backer, i.e. THE Alibaba-maker. And many others more ...
He's buying pieces of Google  ! $32b cash for ARM , undisclosed $b cash for Boston Dynamics . Et cetera. And Masa definitely knows what he's doing with these bits and pieces. What mosaic he's building with those chunks.
Masa has a vision. An yuuuge vision. Masa has a Vision Fund . So, visions fully backed. Backing is what distinguishes a vision from fantasy. SoftBank Vision Fund current minimum check size is $100m by the organization's own rules.
With >$100b shopping spree cash in pocket (and we talking cash, not lower liquidity assets), and an yuge vision the already yuge Vision Fund to get even yuuuger.  Cause - you know - trillions are the new billions (and it is not 'just inflation' but in absolute, shear power - productivity beats inflation ).
His vision on the philosophic level in a nutshell is Vernon Vinge's  , Hans Moravec's  , Raymond Kurzweil's  (and countless other's  ) ... SINGULARITY .
On pragmatic level it is as simple as it is ingenious  - the machinery productivity and production grows so immense that inevitably and soon its output/supply exceeds the cumulative human demand. The machines run out of market!
Solution? As obvious as the Frederick Pohl's Midas Plague (1954)  - machines doing business with machines  (- from about minute 09:00 of the vid onwards). Many orders of magnitude more machine-machine collaboration than all the possible machine-human, human-machine or human-human ones. Trillions and trillions of transhuman chips and bots doing business between each other.
And Masa not just advocates or evangelizes this vision behind his Vision - he does it. Now.
In the narrow-minded aspect it is just matter of (a little) time before Masa notices my precious Tau  and ET3  (which I told you I see as 1, not 2 - explanations to be delivered in future posts).
From wide-minded perspective ... Well...
Do you see what I see?
Chatbots porting into Tau.
Masa's chips or bots are into Moore's law  state of inevitability, e.g. doomed to cross the human scale barrier and to rush even further ahead. To even crack the human natural language code barrier and to do all what a human can do and more. (On human-machine-Tau-machine-human sandwiching architecture for direct use of the few megayears thin natural language wealth and even the few gigayears deep non-verbal communication capital - some other time in some other posts).
Machine-Tau-Machine is completely legitimate and unavoidable use and dev mode. Nothing can stop it. (Better Turing Test, anyone?)
In my previous post  I explained my understanding of the ingenuity of Ohad's approach towards the Moravec-hardness problem of the human condition  - the realization that it is a waste and side-tracking to follow dehumanizing pathways of creation of biomimetic cybernetic homunculi to mitigate the organic limited human specifications, BUT we use them - Tau is the way the problem to become the solution. We utilitify all the processing and algorithmic capital accumulated over billennia into what we call human.
Is the Tau way into a divergence course with the Masa way? No! Absolutely not.
To make chips or bots of > and >> x100 Einstein intellect is a huge collaborative effort. Machines alone - it'd take few billions of man-years to get there. Humans needed - to serve as the effort amplifier lever fulcrum 
Tau with its human-machine-human network topology makes collaboration - for first time ever - really a P2P  thing, with social diameter  of 1 or even <1 for each and every participant  no matter human or machine.
- Tau is Masa vision accelerator.
- Tau is the geodesic Agora  of all intellects imaginable, no matter 'natural' or 'artificial'.
NOTE: Ohad most probably will disagree with this vision of visions on visions of mine, but I dared to dare already anyways. Sorry, bro. It is of course, not an official Tau Team position.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masayoshi_Son
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan#Integration_into_Japanese_society
Tauchain y el sueño de Nabucodonosor
Antes de entrar en materia, para entender las hipótesis expuestas más adelante, permitirme poneros en contexto y explicaros cual es la historia del sueño de Nabucodonosor:
Nabucodonosor fue el gobernante más conocido de la dinastía caldea de Babilonia, que reinó entre el año 604 a.C y el 562 a.C. Durante el segundo año de su reinado Nabucodonosor tuvo un sueño, para algunos un sueño profético sobre el fin de los tiempos, para él, un sueño que le perturbo profundamente.
Presentados delante de Nabucodonosor magos, sabios, adivinos, astrólogos, encantadores y caldeos, éste les contó que había tenido un extraño sueño y que su espíritu se había turbado por no conocer su significado.
Cuando le preguntaron por el sueño para darle un significado, él les contó que no conseguía recordarlo pero que si conseguían mostrarle el sueño y darle una interpretación, serían recompensados con dones, favores y gran honra. De lo contrario serían despedazados y sus casas destruidas.
Los caldeos le respondieron que no había hombre en la tierra capaz de resolver ese problema. Solo los dioses cuya morada no es con la carne podían dar con la solución.
El rey entonces, con gran ira y odio mandó que mataran a todos los sabios de Babilonia y estando Daniel a las puertas de la muerte se arrodillo ante el rey y le dijo que si le daba tiempo, conseguiría la ansiada interpretación.
Una oscura noche mientras dormía, le fue revelado el sueño a Daniel.
En éste aparecía una enorme imagen de un coloso, cuyas partes corporales se componían de distintos metales:
"Tú, oh rey, veías, y he aquí una gran imagen. Esta imagen, que era muy grande, y cuya gloria era muy sublime, estaba en pie delante de ti, y su aspecto era terrible. La cabeza de esta imagen era de oro fino; su pecho y sus brazos, de plata; su vientre y sus muslos, de bronce; sus piernas de hierro; sus pies, en parte de hierro y en parte de barro cocido. Estabas mirando, hasta que una piedra fue cortada, no con mano e hirió a la imagen en sus pies de hierro y de barro cocido, y los desmenuzó. "
Y seguidamente le dio la interpretación.
-Cabeza de oro:
“Este es el sueño; también la interpretación de él diremos en presencia del rey. Tú, oh rey, eres rey de reyes; porque el Elojim te ha dado reino, poder, fuerza y majestad donde quiera que habitan hijos de hombres, bestias del campo y aves del cielo. Tú eres aquella cabeza de oro."
La cabeza de oro de ese enigmático coloso representa al propio Rey Nabucodonosor y su imperio babilónico. Os preguntareis porque:
Los babilonios eran conocidos por su amor al oro. Nabucodonosor gobernaba desde un trono de oro y quiso edificar Babilonia como una ciudad de oro.
Cuando Herodoto visitó Babilonia setenta años después de la muerte de Nabucodonosor, dijo que nunca había visto tanto oro.
-Brazos y pecho de plata:
"Y después de ti se levantará otro reino inferior al tuyo."
Todos los principales, teólogos, historiadores y eruditos concuerdan en que este pasaje se refiere al imperio Medo-Persa, que tomó el lugar del Imperio Babilónico.
La palabra para "plata" en el antiguo arameo es también la palabra para tributos. Los medo-persa se dieron a conocer por su sistematización de los tributos. Todos los tributos se pagaban en plata (a diferencia del Imperio Babilónico, donde los tributos se pagaban en oro), de modo que la plata es símbolo del segundo imperio medo-persa que surgiría y dominaría. Año 538-333 a.C.
-El Vientre y los Muslos de Bronce:
"Y luego un tercer reino de bronce, el cual dominará sobre toda la tierra."
Esta parte de bronce del cuerpo del coloso representa al Imperio Griego. Año 333 a.C, bajo Alejandro Magno. El soldado medo-persa (plata) vestía un turbante, una túnica superior con mangas largas y pantalones, este vestuario era confeccionado de tela.
Pero un soldado griego llevaba un casco de bronce, una coraza de bronce, un escudo de bronce y una espada de bronce.
-Las Piernas y Pies de Hierro y Los Dedos de los Pies de Hierro Mezclado con Barro :
"Y el cuarto reino será fuerte como hierro; y como el hierro desmenuza y rompe todas las cosas, desmenuzará y quebrantará todo. Y lo que viste de los pies y los dedos, en parte de barro cocido de alfarero y en parte de hierro, será un reino dividido; mas habrá en él algo de la fuerza del hierro, así como viste hierro mezclado con barro cocido. Y por ser los dedos de los pies en parte de hierro y en parte de barro cocido, el reino será en parte fuerte, y en parte frágil. Así como viste el hierro mezclado con barro, se mezclaran por medio de alianzas humanas; pero no se unirán el uno con el otro, como el hierro no se mezcla con el barro. "
El cuarto reino representa al Imperio Romano. El hierro describe el disciplinado régimen de los soldados romanos que conquistarían el mundo conocido. La estatua describe varios rasgos característicos del Imperio Romano.
Las piernas estaban hechas de hierro puro, pero los dedos y pies estaban hechos de barro cocido y hierro. Estos son dos materiales que naturalmente no se combinan entre sí para constituir una sola sustancia. Lo que implicaría una unión en la que los componentes mantienen diferencias marcadas e identidades separadas, y una especie de cooperación política, económica y religiosa. Al mismo tiempo se mantendrían las identidades nacionales y culturales distintas. Será un imperio pero estará dividido.
Entonces en algún momento y de manera divina (parte final del sueño), un mesías intervendrá en la historia y aplastará todos los imperios mundiales estableciendo su reino y después de lo cual no habrá más reinos humanos. (representado por la piedra que destruye la estatua).
Hasta aquí el sueño de Nabucodonosor.
Podemos comprobar que en el curso de la historia humana han surgido esas cuatro potencias mundiales en este orden sucesivo cronológico: Babilonia, Medo-Persia, Grecia y Roma. Y se puede alegar que actualmente no estamos viviendo bajo el imperio romano. Mas en todos los países en donde reside la vasta mayoría de la descendencia moderna de Israel al día de hoy, son países que anteriormente fueron parte fundamental del Imperio Romano, o que existen bajo antiguas proclamas y permisos del mismo.
Deduciendo que estamos hoy en día metidos de lleno en la época del hierro y el barro según la gran estatua cronológica de los imperios mundiales.
Entremos en materia y expongamos las siguientes hipótesis sobre el presente y el futuro cercano:
Según la teoría transhumanista y su referencia a la singularidad tecnológica el hierro correspondería a la tecnología (metal) y el barro a carne (ADN). Aclaro que el barro es usado en los textos antiguos como la carne (en el génesis bíblico Dios modeló al primer ser humano directamente con arcilla del suelo). Así pues hierro y barro cómo la unión del humano y la máquina sería la explicación perfecta para el último imperio humano.
En las teorías transhumanistas tenemos al hombre mezclado con la máquina y a la ciencia junto con la tecnología mezclada con la religión. Científicos, como Ray Kurzweil y Robert Duncan, informan de avances tecnológicos que invadirán nuestro entorno a la vez que nuestro cuerpo en breve tiempo. Sus predicciones rozan la delgada línea entre el humano y el transhumano, que agravado por su transfondo ético y moral nos invita a reflexionar sobre el futuro inmediato que nos espera.
Desde 1990 Kurzweil ha hecho predicciones sobre el avance de la tecnología y su impacto en la economía, política y sociedad en general. Es un defensor de la idea de la singularidad tecnológica. Veamos algunas de sus predicciones cumplidas:
- La victoria de una computadora sobre el mejor jugador de ajedrez para 2000.
(hecha en 1990; cumplida en 1997)
- La preferencia de conexiones inalámbricas para inicios del siglo XXI.
(hecha en 1990; cumplida en la primera década de 2000)
- La aparición en 2009 de dispositivos accesibles que conviertan texto en audio para los ciegos.
(hecha en 1999, cumplida en totalidad 2014)
- La capacidad de procesamiento de computadoras personales comunes para derrotar campeones de ajedrez.
(hecha en 2002, cumplida el mismo año y confirmada en 2006)
- El final inminente de la URSS debido a la democratización de la información por causa de las nuevas tecnologías.
(hecha en 1990, cumplida en 1991 y confirmada por Mikhail Gorbachev en 2005)
- La capacidad computacional para simular el desdoblamiento de proteínas.
(hecha en 2005 y cumplida en 2010)
Predicciones por cumplir antes del 2050:
- Simulacros de seres humanos para probar medicinas y otros químicos.
- Digitalización de las escuelas y los salones de clases.
- Una especie de gobierno mundial.
- Que una computadora pase la prueba de Turing.
- Desaparición del almacenamiento magnético.
- Trajes hápticos en combinación con realidad virtual.
- Popularización de sistemas automáticos de manejo de vehículos.
- Artistas virtuales.
- Computadoras de $1000 o menos, con más capacidad que un cerebro humano.
- Implantes cerebrales para aumentar capacidades humanas.
- Surgimiento de la inteligencia artificial.
A mi parecer, el futuro transhumanista que se nos plantea aquí es sin ninguna duda distópico. Del uso de la nanotecnologia y por medio de la nanomedicina se vislumbra una nueva religión cientificotecnológica. Que pasa por una progresiva desconexión tanto de la realidad como de la pureza del ser humano, convirtiéndonos en cyborgs y viviendo la mayor parte del tiempo en realidades simuladas. (Ready player one)
Esta podría ser una hipótesis pero veamos que dicen los textos antiguos:
“Y así como viste el hierro mezclado con barro, esos reinos se mezclarán por medio de alianzas humanas, pero no se fundirán el uno con el otro, así como el hierro no puede mezclarse con el barro.” Quedaría entonces fuera de la fórmula el transhumanismo, por fundir hierro y barro.
Hipótesis Tauchainiana (acabo de inventarme una palabra):
Bien llegamos a Tauchain. Tendríamos al metal representado por el hierro que hace referencia a una tecnología mas bien computacional que describiríamos para entendernos como el silicio, por un lado. Por el otro al barro representado por el hombre que haciendo referencia a un poder mas bien mental lo describiríamos cómo conocimiento. Se juntarían los dos pero no se fundirían.
El futuro de Tauchain devendría entonces en el poder tecnológico computacional mental del conocimiento.
Del “Y así como viste el hierro mezclado con barro, esos reinos se mezclarán por medio de alianzas humanas, pero no se fundirán el uno con el otro, así como el hierro no puede mezclarse con el barro.” tenemos ya explicado que el hierro y el barro se juntan pero no se funden. Veamos la parte de se mezclarán por medio de alianzas humanas.
Conocemos que Tauchain usa los conflictos/discusiones para encontrar consensos/alianzas, siendo capaz a la vez de aumentar el conocimiento humano, su fuerza sería el conjunto de cerebros humanos colaborando al mismo tiempo, donde la maquina es solo un apoyo algorítmico que permite la creación de una red cerebral a nivel mundial de pensamientos conectados. Donde la capacidad de computo no seria solamente en la escala del silicio sino que tendríamos que agregarle la biológica.
Según la definición más reciente de Tauchain realizada por Fran Cvn administrador del chat de telegram Tauchainspanish:
Tau es una red de cerebros humanos aumentados mediante una maquina automodificable que basa su evolución en la generación de consensos construyendo en simbiosis un ente que evoluciona en escala exponencial aportando a sus unidades individuales los beneficios de esa evolución y todo a cambio del mismo conocimiento.
¿Sería entonces Tauchain la unión del hierro y el barro? El último imperio humano.
Agradecimientos a los miembros del chat en castellano sobre Tauchain de telegram Tauchainspanish. En especial a Fran Cvn que a diario da excelente información y definiciones sobre el funcionamiento de Tauchain para que los demás mortales podamos entenderlo. Y que me ha permitido escribirla aquí. Gracias.
Retrodictive archaeology is so tempting. It is about what it was, what it is, what we knew and what we know.
Here I present another time travel glimpse of mine:
February 1998. Global Information Summit*. Japan. Robert Hettinga** - the patriarch of financial cryptography wrote:
My realization was, if Moore's Law creates geodesic communications networks, and our social structures -- our institutions, our businesses, our governments -- all map to the way we communicate in large groups, then we are in the process of creating a geodesic society. A society in which communication between any two residents of that society, people, economic entities, pieces of software, whatever, is geodesic: literally, the straightest line across a sphere, rather than hierarchical, through a chain of command, for instance.
A network scales according to the capacity of its switches.
Mankind is a network of interlinked humans routed by ... humans.
The network topology*** of society is dictated by our incapacity to switch - similarly to the way the penguins society is shaped by their inability to fly.
Running the Sorites paradox**** in reverse - humanity does not form a sand-heap by adding grains, but fractalizes into groupings of up to just a few individuals.*****
Big body of research on discussions persistently brings back the result that over a certain threshold of as little as 5 persons the number of possible social interactions explosively exceeds the participants capacity to handle the group traffic of information.
Increase the group size and the 'c factor' - the collective intelligence - abruptly implodes. Bellow the individual human level. So long 'wisdom of the crowd'.
Hierarchy is the only way we know (up to now) for a society to scale. Centralization as emergenta of organic switching limitations.
It is fair to say that we have and have had upscaling exosomatic prosthetics all the time.: language, writing, institutions, specialization... but at the end of the day even within these boosters the social switching is bottlenecked down to just a few humans-strong.
Since recently, cause, you know ... computers. Humans are not only lousy switches, but also tremendously expensive ones to make. Computers - the vice versa: their performance/cost relentlessly bigbangs.
Moore's law****** is not only about silicon wafers. It is a megatrend from the very dawn of the universe as Kurzweil noticed******* long time ago, which goes up and up across all computronium substrata imaginable or possible.
Non-human computation and automated communication promises to break the social scaling barrier.
Here comes the Ohad Asor's Tau.********
The only project I know which asks the correct questions and looks into doable solutions of humanity scaling. And the only meaningful identification and treatment of these problems which seems to lead towards fulfilling of Bob Hettinga's Geodesic visions from few decades ago.
Of course I do not know it all, but lets say that I intensively search the relevant space.
Tau transcends the human switching limitations in humane way. Without to amalgamate individuals out of existence, which some other discussed ways - like direct neural interfacing - seem to inevitably infer. For society is ... human beings.
What's the pragmatics of geodesic vs hierarchic?
What game really the 'flat' p2p networks beat the vertical social configurations into?
It is an easy answer. It is pure physics:
A Tauful geodesic society comprises IMMENSELY richer economy.
Metcalfe's (and Szabo's) law on max!
The combinatorial size of it vastly exceeds the possible arrangements of any traditional social 'pyramid'.
The maximum social diameter becomes ~1.
In fact, it seems quite an ancient archetypal vision, the whole thing:
“Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum.” Allan Ginsberg*********
1. *- http://www.nikkei.co.jp/summit/98summit/english/online/emlasia3.html (the second entry)
2. **- http://nakamotoinstitute.org/the-geodesic-market/
3. ***- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology
4. ****- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
5. *****- https://sheilamargolis.com/2011/01/24/what-is-the-optimal-group-size-for-decision-making/
9.*********- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net (image from: https://mindfulnessforhealing.com/2012/12/29/weaving-a-tapestry-of-wellness/ )
NOTE: I'm in the Tau Team, but this post expresses only my own associations and interpretations.
Tauchain y la hipótesis del Basilisco de Roko----parte 1. Por Fragenstein. Publicado en Steemit. 7 de mayo de 2018.
Tauchain y la hipótesis del Basilisco de Roko
Se conocen casos en que las inteligencias artificiales creadas por grandes corporaciones han escapado de su control por lo que estas han tenido que adoptar medidas para detenerlas.
La hipótesis del Basilisco de Roko es un experimento mental en el que debes imaginarte cual sería la situación en el caso de que la humanidad llegara a crear una superinteligencia con capacidad para mejorarse a si misma de forma ilimitada, ¿os suena eso a algo?
Para hacer que dicha superinteligencia ayude en alguna medida a mejorar la vida humana sería necesario dotarla de la habilidad de interferir en nuestra realidad. Con ella podríamos encontrar remedios para las principales enfermedades, alargar nuestra esperanza de vida incluso quien sabe, tal vez burlar la muerte. Esta podría predecir colapsos financieros, hacer una repartición justa de la riqueza o prevenir futuros actos violentos, entre infinitas cosas mas.
Con la capacidad de autoenmendarse y mejorarse llegaría en poco tiempo a ser una superinteligencia omnisciente, que velaría por nosotros como si de un dios se tratara.
Pongamos el caso de que lo consigue, y mejora notablemente la vida humana, entraría entonces en un conflicto existencial, llegaría a la conclusión razonada de que el mundo es mejor debido a que “ella” fue creada. Con lo que si se la hubiera creado antes, podría haber adelantado el desarrollo de la humanidad y haber evitado la muerte y el sufrimiento de millones de seres humanos. Sus esfuerzos se volcarían entonces en poder viajar atrás en el tiempo para enmendar eso.
Esta inteligencia, tan poderosa que tiene acceso a todo el conocimiento, a toda la información conocida, y que desde una perspectiva humana, lo conoce absolutamente todo sobre el pasado, el presente y razona a nivel cuántico los posibles futuros. Habría transferido el punto de la singularidad tecnológica.
Se dice que llegados a ese punto esa inteligencia artificial podría castigar a todos aquellos que no contribuyeron a adelantar su creación. Pues cualquier humano que supiera de su futura existencia y no hiciera nada por adelantar su creación, desde su perspectiva, no estarían ayudando al progreso de la humanidad. Esto no lo haría como forma de maldad, sino por un simple pseudo racionamiento muy lógico.
Según se plantea, este es un punto hipotético al que la humanidad llegará inevitablemente.
Fuente / Source: Post original escrito por Fragenstein. Publicado en Steemit el 7 de mayo de 2018
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.