I think it would be useful to come up with a set of goals for your work. This topic actually encompasses a lot of ground, some of which has been explored previously.
It would be good to know:
What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to fully explore the microeconomics of a single technology or whether you're trying to create a grand unified theory of how technology relates the economy.
What data you would hope to use/collect (smartphones prices? Road building causing transport to become cheaper?)
What timespan you are interested in studying (Last 20 years? Last 2000 years?)
After that, I would recommend doing as much research as you can into what has already been done in the area. You might be surprised to find that researchers in fields like Economics and Philosophy of Technology have actually already come up with a handful of models/theories that are pretty well accepted in their fields.
Finally, one piece of advice that I cannot emphasize enough: I would recommend against setting out to do something that is very ambitious (like creating a grand unified theory). Start with a very concrete question you are trying to answer that you are sure nobody else has answered, and you may find that it leads to a larger question over time. But going into it trying to find a deeper question will cause you to overlook the questions that you can actually figure out how to answer.
Good luck :)
Thanks a lot, Paladin :) Yes, it would be definitely better to focus just on tech deflation and maybe some similar forces, impact of road building is too broad. I would look into some common technologies and resources, that get cheaper over time, like computing power, memory or solar cells and try to show how these trends interact with price levels. For the timespan, I think it would be useful to have a longer one, because of visibility of the changes. Though the nature of these technologies and economy overally is exponential, the biggest focus should be on last decades and future.
Do you mean some concrete theories I should know about? :)
Sounds interesting. I'd recommend checking out Peter Schiff, he talks quite a bit about "beneficial deflation"
I will definitely do. Sound like Kurzweil a little, who inspired me to this. I think economics and futurology should work more together, as traditional economy makes little sense alone these days.
As of today, AI centralization is disappearing thanks to cloud AI and also the need for training data is getting smaller, as more intelligent systems can use less data. Do you think this will decrease the value of this token significantly?
Well I’d preface by saying I’m no AI expert and can only share with you an opinion that is formed through casual reading. I don’t think cloud AI means that AI centralization is decreasing; by centralized AI I refer to the AI owned and developed by the big tech giants with their own data silos - a resource extracted from the general public by providing certain services for free. So whether AI lives in data centre or in the cloud, I think of it as centralised if it is owned by a few tech giants with their own agendas. SingularityNet would be decentralised: meaning community sets the agenda through in-built governance mechanisms, the network of AI will not be ‘owned’ by anyone and so there will be no discrimination on who can use the network or add to its services and that the users would be in control of their own data and can benefit from its exploitation. In my analysis above I pointed out that perhaps the best way to fight the freemium model is to allow the users to financially benefit from their own data - and we can see this in action in other projects such as Steemit and Basic Attention Token.
If more intelligent systems need less data than one may think that perhaps the data created by users in order to train AI may not be of much value or that its value may decrease over time - but what about the data the users consume or create? In a world where humans may be rendered unemployable, I think any source of revenue will count and perhaps one of the sources of revenue may be choosing to remove the middlemen and directly benefiting from the content or inquiries we create (like the examples of Bitconnect and Subtitiles I gave in my analysis) and also to be rewarded for the advertisements we consume etc.
In any case I don’t think the value of the token is tied to the data created for training AI or how much users are being compensated - the token is planned to be used as a mechanism of value transfer between AI nodes, to purchase AI services from the network, for governance and for curation of AI nodes on the network (another way users can benefit from SingulairtyNet). As the network will increase in value, so will its token - and my opinion is that the number of AI and AI federations in the network might be a better way to gauge the value of the token.
Hope that helps.
Unless they're writing their AI in Urbit and implementing Nock/Hoon on the blockchain, this will have absolutely zero effect on AI.
And if they are writing their AI in Urbit and implementing Nock/Hoon on the blockchain, it will also have absolutely zero effect on AI.
Because blockchain technology is the biggest scam since laetrille. It's a solution in search of a precipitate. The only reason it's not an ex-parrot is because it never was an avian of any kind. It's pushing up daisies. It's pining for the fnords. Hail Eris. All hail Discordia.
It is supposed to solve the biggest problems of AI, namely 1) small companies don't have the big datasets that Google or Facebook have 2) new startups can't offer complete services, they might have best translating service but they lack image recognition AI... so it is again big companies that rule the AI world This could decentralize the market and really boost innovation. It will support startups, while using the big player's services, so it would be helpful for everybody. I wouldn't call this scam.
I think the need for training data will decrease. Also when anyone can train their model, there will be no need for using AGI. So it is bad, although there is happening so much more and I believe the overall potential of AI will win at least this year.
Every energy token represents 1 kWh of green energy to be produced by a certain time in the future.
So you guys believe that the price of these tokens will grow, though price of electricity is decreasing exponentially of about 50 years... I think Power Ledger is better solution because of this, because token value is based on the value of colaboration, rather than energy price.
Why I should pay x dollars for 1kWh when in a few months the value will be 0,y * x for it?
On another forum I used to frequent, someone compiled a list of Kurzweil's predictions and changed the years ever so slightly: take his predicted years and add ten years to them. It's been a sort of meme for years, but when you finally saw it laid out, it was uncanny. Kurzweil literally scored a 90% accuracy rate.
But that doesn't change the fact he was off by ten years.
Maybe because he meant first uses of the technology. He worked on voice typing in early 2000s, though in came to mass usage about 15 years after that... So I think the thing he misses the most is the speed of adoption, not existence of the technologies. His predictions about direction of tech are usually correct, though he often makes mistakes in the exact interface (intelligent roads vs. intelligent cars, voice typing vs. writing, paper vs. displays etc.).
If the price of POWR is basically tied to price of electricity, which is falling exponentially, what will hodl the price of POWR high?
I think you need to read the Whitepaper ;)
I am still not getting it. When electricity is abundant, what will make people use these expensive tokens? Energy price falling, demand growing slowly, profits are being pushed down. Then there is this thing as a part of electricity making process we expect to be higher and higher valued... Sure the market of PowerLedger will grow but the price target will get lower, right?