2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. I respect the idealism of blockchain developers who, I believe, are sincere in their faith that they are building a better world. But I am confounded by their inability to see that they are falling victim to exactly the same fallacies their hacker forebears embraced: this notion that we can code ourselves out of the deep holes we’ve dug; that we are building utopias in our virtualities that will finesse away the imperfections of human character.

      <big>评:</big><br/><br/>将区块链与互联网发展史作同类比较,的确能发现相似的轨迹,但也难逃倚老卖老的嫌疑。从何时起,我们给自己立下了「后来者无论成功与失败,始终跑在前人滑破的气流里」这一金科玉律?值得一提的是,见证时代前沿发展的进步主义者,在世界观上大多并不前沿,甚至很前现代。<br/><br/>试问:你渴望完美无缺的人设吗?若是,那你又可否期待「能加速该进程」的技术横空出世?自渡与普渡,向来是技术社群必须直面的哲学迷思。

    1. Contrary to mainstream thinking that this new technology is unregulated, it’s really quite the opposite. These systems apply the strictest of rules under highly deterministic and predictable models that are regulated through mathematics. In the future, industry will be regulated not just by institutions and committees but by algorithms and mathematics. The new technology will gradually out-regulate the regulators and, in many cases, make them obsolete because the new system offers more certainty. Antonopoulos explains that “the opposite of authoritarianism is not chaos, but autonomy.”

      <big>评:</big><br/><br/>1933 年德国包豪斯设计学院被纳粹关闭,大部分师生移民到美国,他们同时也把自己的建筑风格带到了美利坚。尽管人们在严格的几何造型上感受到了冷漠感,但是包豪斯主义致力于美术和工业化社会之间的调和,力图探索艺术与技术的新统一,促使公众思考——「如何成为更完备的人」?而这一点间接影响到了我们现在所熟知的美国式人格。<br/><br/>区块链最终会超越「人治」、达到「算法自治」的状态吗?类似的讨论声在人工智能领域同样不绝于耳。「绝对理性」站到了完备人格的对立面,这种冰冷的特质标志着人类与机器交手后的败退。过去有怀疑论者担心,算法的背后实际上由人操控,但随着「由算法生成」的算法,甚至「爷孙代自承袭」算法的出现,这样的担忧逐渐变得苍白无力——我们有了更大的焦虑:是否会出现 “blockchain-based authoritarianism”?