Editing
Talk:Science DAO Framework
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Failures of the scientific academic establishment == One of the reasons this SDF is important is that science has been falling behind on crucial developments in engineering. For instance blockchain has no authoritative economic theory that explains its consequences.<br> As another instance, AI has no rigorous foundation and no authoritative theory around it. They've been working on it pretty seriously since the 60's. But the innovation is so dramatic that it doesn't slow down long enough to do an academic autopsy on the subject. <br> It's a huge failing of academics, IMO. We are not keeping ahead of these advances that are affecting the public. It used to be, when electricity was unleashed on society, for example, there was a 100 year old physics theory that had explained it all. Similar for nuclear and quantum theory. They preceded the engineering applications, which gave business time to react in more healthy ways. But we're unleashing dramatic changes to society, with AI and P2P communication. But academia is barely even part of the process, and they ignore it until it's settled into the cracks of our lives. But academic analysis is crucial for being able to guide the innovation in healthy ways for society. Our failures to do this, to make sense of these innovations, to stay ahead of them and guide them in positive ways, is a major abdication of our responsibilities as academics. <br> For instance, math has no theory that explains why NNs solve these statistical problems so well (for instance, overfitting with these weird statistical architectures doesn't seem to be the problem we would expect). Far less do we have any math theory to predict what will happen when we add new functionality, like memory, to these AIs. Far less can math give a model for controlling these AIs on sophisticated problems, like censoring ChatGPT. (Which is pretty crucial if we don't want to re-enact Terminator's Skynet!) We're way, way behind the engineering and even the marketing. So math has failed. Computer science has failed. Econ and law are guilty of their own sins on these subjects. [[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 21:57, 26 April 2023 (CDT)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to DAO Governance Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
DAO Governance Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit source
Add topic
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information