How much content are we able to create on the day?

avatar

I recently saw a post raising the question of how we could reward a proof of brain when artificial intelligence was able to write texts on its own.

In fact, the response to the title of this post can vary from 1 to some very high finite number. Once the person has more creativity, references and disposition, they will be able to create new content for our community.

The point I really want to explore is the question of what we understand as something worthwhile in order to be rewarded. After all, intelligence can do 99.9% of the work, but that 0.01% had to use their brain to go after developing it, or the end user to put it to run on their computer or cell phone.

So you can tell me: "His brain didn't even make an effort by clicking a simple button and running the algorithm".

However, it is useless to fight against technology, we have to look for ways to adapt and reshape the situations. We who are here now, will be the great content rewards, unless some whale appears and consumes dozens of purchase orders and makes a bigger stake than everyone making us obsolete.

If the community decides what content should be generated by humans and not by machines, so be it, if they decide which machines are welcome, great too. Everything has to start from the consensus, and until we find one, we will work our brain hard to produce the final result.

Tens of thousands of posts about this debate will appear, and will make us create more content on that topic. It is a topic that generates new content, I believe that we will all have a lot to gain, even until we find a way to mitigate or reduce this future problem.

As long as this moment does not happen within our community, we will continue to produce original, quality and human content. After all, robots will produce text, not create engagement and friendships, that part depends only on us. Hugs.

Recentemente vi uma postagem levantando a questão de como poderíamos recompensar uma proof of brain quando as inteligencias artificiais fossem capazes de redigir textos por si só.

De fato a resposta para o título dessa postagem, pode variar de 1 a algum número finito muito alto. Uma vez que quando mais criatividade, referências e disposição a pessoa tiver, ela poderá criar novos conteúdos para nossa comunidade.

O ponto que quero explorar de fato é a questão de o que nós entedemos como algo valorozo para que seja recompensado. Afinal, a inteligência pode fazer 99,9% do trabalho, mas aquele 0,01% teve que usar o seu cérebro para ir atrás de desenvolve-la, ou no usuário final para coloca-la para rodar em seu computador ou celular.

Então você pode me dizer: "O cérebro dele nem fez esforço clicando um simples botão e rodando o algoritmo".

Porém, não adianta lutarmos contra a tecnologia, temos que procurar maneiras de adaptação e remodelar as situações. Nós que estamos aqui agora, seremos os grandes recompensadores de conteúdo, ao menos que alguma baleia apareça e consuma dezenas de ordem de compra e faça um stake maior que todos nos tornando obsoletos.

Se a comunidade decidir que conteúdos devem ser gerados por humanos e não por máquinas, que assim seja, se decidirem que maquinas são bem vindas, ótimo também. Tudo tem que partir do concenso, e até encontrarmos um, trabalharemos bastante nosso cérebro para produzir o resultado final.

Dezenas de milhares de postagem sobre esse debate aparecerão, e nos fará criar mais conteúdo sobre esse assunto. É um tema que gera novos conteúdos, creio que todos teremos muito a ganhar, mesmo até encontrarmos uma maneira de mitigar ou diminuir esse problema futuro.

Enquanto esse momento não acontece dentro da nossa comunidade, vamos continuar produzindo conteúdo original, de qualidade e humano. Afinal, os robôs irão produzir texto, e não criar engajamento e amizades, essa parte depende apenas de nós. Abraços.


Posted via proofofbrain.io



0
0
0.000
11 comments
avatar

However, it is useless to fight against technology,

If you don't maintain integrity - a human characteristic NOT able to be copied by an algorithm - then the whole exercise is pointless.
Use tech, don't let tech use you.

If the community decides what content should be generated by humans and not by machines, so be it, if they decide which machines are welcome, great too.

Why would you 'welcome' something no sentience onto platform that is called proof of brain?

Everything has to start from the consensus, and until we find one, we will work our brain hard to produce the final result.

Consensus is a low IQ methodology, to reach a low IQ results.
Hierarchies are a thing - because they work.
Every living organism for the last 100 million years will attest to this.

Hierarchy with integrity, and recognized merit with the commensurate rewards, is the successful way forwards.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

Excellent points that I hadn't thought of, and I'll put them as parameters for me to think more about this subject, thanks for bringing this new vision to me


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

Your practice of italicizing for quotations is confusing. It might have been why the other user was offended by your conversation.

For quotations start each line with a greater than character ">".


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

MMMmmmm...ok. I'll try another format...Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh snap, I'm writing about this right now lol. It's an interesting topic of conversation and I think it is an important one to discuss here in the POB community.

We who are here now, will be the great content rewards, unless some whale appears and consumes dozens of purchase orders and makes a bigger stake than everyone making us obsolete.

This is not a healthy mindset from my point of view. The success of POB shouldn't be determined by any one person who has a larger stake on the platform since it's not a given that the person with that stake is someone everyone should agree with. If you take BTC as an example since POB's tokenomics are similar, there are big whales holding vast sums of BTC yet the show still goes on. No matter what decimal your BTC holdings at, you're not obsolete and neither is the BTC in your wallet. Also, keep in mind that POB was designed with hostile takeover resistance in mind.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oops, write and mark me in the comments so I can read haha.

In fact, the relationship that you brought with btc makes sense, I will look a little at that point of view


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

Lutar contra esse processo evolutivo das máquinas em relação a produção de conhecimento é inviável. Como você mesmo falou, é preciso remodelar os planos e nos adaptarmos. No entanto, considerando que fomos nós (humanos) os responsáveis pela sua criação... Acredito que sempre seremos superiores (pelo menos no sentido de criar conteúdos).

0
0
0.000
avatar

Essa postagem me fez ter visões novas sobre esse assunto que tratei na postagem, adoro quando os comentários me fazerm aprender mais


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

However, it is useless to fight against technology,

Is it really though? Technology is a tool. People have written bots that steal money. We don't fight against the technology, we use technology to fight the technology. There are bots that scan the block-chain for things that look like keys. Bots written by bad guys will steal money. The bots written by good guys will try to put the money into savings to prevent theft.

Flagging incentives is part of that counter technology. Once they can pass the Turing test us humans will have bigger issues to worry about.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think today was one of the days that I learned the most in the community with the comments on this post, I could perfectly edit a lot of the post

maybe i rushed into some thoughts, or didn’t study them further while writing, thanks for your comment and the comments of everyone else, it helped me a lot in forming a new vision on this subject


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000