Discussion for OT-RFC-20: Knowledge Mining for Decentralized AI

[NZT48]

Hello Knowledge Miners,

I'm thrilled to share with you our latest RFC: "Knowledge Mining for Decentralized AI"

This RFC represents a significant step in advancing the OriginTrail ecosystem, and we're eager to get your insights. You can access the detailed PDF version of the RFC by following this link. We warmly invite your valuable feedback and comments on this proposal. You can contribute by opening a PR or reviewing the markdown file available here.

Trace on!

[hottogo]

Very cool development.

My main comment is around the incentive.

Trac tokens are spent to publish knowledge to the decentralized knowledge graph. To participate in knowledge mining someone will need to spend Trac as explained in the RFC. The knowledge miners then receive Nuero/OTP as a reward for their contribution, the amount being based on the quality and quantity of the contributions.

Many see Trac tokens as more valuable than Nuero/OTP tokens, so the obvious question is why would someone spend Trac to receive Nuero/OTP? Perhaps because they will spend only a small amount of Trac for a large amount of Nuero/OTP? Is 1 million Nuero/OTP enough to offset the expected Trac spent?

Nuero/OTP do have value and will have increasingly more value as the the parachain gains traction, so incentivizing action through offering Nuero/OTP can work well, but perhaps not if you have to pay Trac to receive the Nuero/OTP.

Are there additional rewards available in the future, perhaps from keyword staking, on top of this initial incentive? Just trying to properly understand the incentive to encourage the community to spend their Trac (which we are all reluctant to part with).

We don't want to end up like the Bitcoin pizza guy and spend our Trac too early!

[c0rwyn]

I'm sure that in the future, the knowledge base we cover here will consist of everything I'm about to mention, but I'd like to suggest a few more priorities in that pursuit:

One niche of science that is hardly ever thought to be included in something like DeSci is psychology. Most people have no clue how imperative it is to understand our own psychology, and the lack of this understanding is at the forefront of many of our current societal issues, namely cognitive dissonance which leads to confirmation bias and what I refer to as cognitive dissent: the utter denial of new information for the sake of (subconsciously) protecting our self-confidence. If we better understood our own minds and the underlying drives that shape our conscious decisions, the world would be a much more productive place (to say the least).

Another priority I'd like to add is nutrition which is very much, largely ignored when it comes to intellect and mental health. But what I have recently discovered is the importance of unbias/untainted (by centralized industries) knowledge concerning nutrition and how a proper understanding of what our bodies truly need leads to more coherent thinking and stable minds overall that results in greater empathy and (where the capacity is present) intellectual enlightenment. (This push to healthy minds and bodies also takes power away from some of the most corrupt industries that currently run our society.)

And lastly: I'd like to remind everyone of the quote that is posted on the website stating: “The way you train that (AI) system will have to be crowdsourced … if you want it to be a repository of all human knowledge, all humans need to contribute to it.” And what is critical to understand about this quote is that it has to be ALL HUMANS, not just those who have the institutional credentials assigned to them by what we currently considered our educational authorities. These institutions are very clearly propagandized and so indoctrinate their students with centralized dogma that needs to be challenged. ALL people should be allowed to add to the repository of decentralized knowledge, no matter what their official credentials are or are not, or who believes them to be lunatics, political radicals, etc.