> a cryptographically secure, decentralized ledger is the only solution to making AI safer.
This article manages to say that a consensus algorithm is the answer to problems with AI without using the word "consensus" a single time. Probably because it doesn't even consider that's what blockchains are.
The article talks about using "proof of gradient" to do inference instead of crunching hashes. But this is nonsense, because inference takes inputs and produces a deterministic output. There's no mining. Checking the work takes the same resources as doing the work. Proof of work output can be checked with essentially a single hash.
As much as this would be wonderful in a universe where it's possible, it's simply not possible. The author throws out a bunch of buzz words for things that sound similar in AI and crypto and tries to make them sound like they are interchangeable. They're not.
It’s standard for white papers to write equation and theories that takes effort to prove wrong and it usually is(get the lazy guys to invest), even just by skimming the few parts that the analogy to finding the right hashes is to calculate gradients does not make any sense, I just stop there.
> Checking the work takes the same resources as doing the work.
> As much as this would be wonderful in a universe where it's possible, it's simply not possible.
We do live in that universe, under some currently believed assumptions. An NP-complete problem is an example of something where checking a solution is (thought to be) easier than finding one.
Zero-knowledge proofs make it such that checking that a computation (such as inference) has been done correctly is easier than doing the computation (even keeping some parts private). A great reference is here: https://people.cs.georgetown.edu/jthaler/ProofsArgsAndZK.pdf
That's pointless work because there's no incentive to do the "mining" (because nobody "wins" ). If you implement a system to choose a "winner" then you didn't need the computations in the first place because you've invented proof of stake.
This article manages to say that a consensus algorithm is the answer to problems with AI without using the word "consensus" a single time. Probably because it doesn't even consider that's what blockchains are.
The article talks about using "proof of gradient" to do inference instead of crunching hashes. But this is nonsense, because inference takes inputs and produces a deterministic output. There's no mining. Checking the work takes the same resources as doing the work. Proof of work output can be checked with essentially a single hash.
As much as this would be wonderful in a universe where it's possible, it's simply not possible. The author throws out a bunch of buzz words for things that sound similar in AI and crypto and tries to make them sound like they are interchangeable. They're not.