Tannr 🦾🤖

Verification-Centric Chains, Common Knowledge Machines, and Intents Verification-centric blockchains outsource the computation/generation of transactions to off-chain agents ("solvers"). But a verification-centric chain is only as good as its verifier (the VM). You can judge a verification-centric chain's programming model by asking these questions: 1. What verification conditions can be expressed? 2. How easily can a solver understand the verification conditions, so they can treat those as a goal/problem to solve? 3. Are solvers afforded with some level of interoperability, or must we forsake trustless interop at the compute layer just because it lives off-chain (in contrast to compute-centric chains like Ethereum, where any smart contract can at least attempt to interact with any other)? UTXO-based chains are the OG verification-centric chain. eUTXO / generalized utxo chains improve on the first of the three properties above: expressiveness. In generalized UTXO chains, the kinds of verification conditions that can be expressed are comparable to the kinds of computations that can be expressed in a compute-centric chain. But two challenges remain: 1. Semantic opacity: those verification conditions are not expressed in a format that a solver can easily understand: a developer has to manually implement a new solver that can understand and compute over the various verification programs it wishes to integrate with. 2. Reduced interoperability: Computation happens off-chain. So "integrating" with a protocol means generating transactions that fulfill that protocol's verification conditions within the context of a larger transaction. But that means that every protocol & app dev has to re-implement the business logic of every protocol & app with which they wish to integrate. @khalani_network addresses these remaining challenges. 1. Semantic transparency: We create a new programming model that is semantically transparent. This means that the semantics of protocols & applications are discoverable and understandable by solvers. The most obvious way to do this is use a declarative model. The problem with a declarative model is that it is too rigid: it adds transparency at the expense of expressiveness, limiting the kinds of systems that it can support. Adding imperative features would address this, but it would do so at the expense of trustlessness and semantic transparency. 2. Intent-based interoperability: With a sufficiently expressive, semantically transparent model, intents become the most natural primitive for trustless coordination between off-chain agents because they can establish a shared & agreed upon set of expectations and understanding of how to interact! I.e., they can establish common knowledge, which is critical to facilitating coordination of any kind. Khalani's VM, the Common Knowledge Machine, provides the means for solvers to coordinate around shared goals on-the-fly. Sort of like machine-to-machine MOU's, lol. This has many consequences, but I'll describe just one for now (this is an X post, not a whitepaper, after all): the wild world of off-chain software becomes far less brittle, because APIs get replaced with ALIs (Application Logical Interfaces) and conformance to these "specs" is guaranteed.

Future books will be written monk-mode, by hand, completely offline, in digital monasteries purpose-built for focus.

1/ @TemporaLabs has integrated @Khalani_Network to power crosschain swap execution inside DR HIRO, their agentic DeFi investing copilot. Every swap and rebalance DR HIRO initiates now settles atomically through Khalani, across chains.

1/ Khalani has a new look... 👀 ... to reflect what we've brought to market with key partners & integrators 🧵 khalani.network

I just encountered a project that is *the* fundamental economic layer for the global AI agent economy. Amazing. Clearly an industry critical system they’re building. *five minutes later* I’ve now encountered 37 more projects that are also solely responsible for powering the global agentic AI economy. Pls stop 😭

It is totally possible to live in a state without billionaires or AI/capitalism (same thing) as long as you’re willing to accept: (A) poverty, scarcity, intense political struggle (B) that this stasis will be temporary until competition reforms or destroys it It’s not pretty.

Another bad philosophical take for 500, Alex

Every month, a radically new, contemporary theory of consciousness is announced that has been around for hundreds of years.

‘No one may join the company of gods who has not practised philosophy’ – Plato (Phaedo, 82b–c)

Better yet, just use intents on @khalani_network and let the user choose their settlement conditions!

@pmarca From the stoics to Heidegger, much of the philosophical tradition would agree with this. Which I find interesting because many non philosophers *seem* to regard philosophy as the antithesis of what you’re describing!

Cognition, executive function, indeed existence itself, are whole-mind/body experiences. The answer is not inward, it is outward, and in the world.

Important to note that there is a hard problem of consciousness. Reductive accounts don't straightforwardly work, which is why Smart's 1959 paper "Sensation and Brain Processes" (which defends the view Hinton has rediscovered) is not regarded as having settled the debate.

Skip much of the current philosophy of AI commentators and just go read this book

Computer scientists often seem incredibly confident one way or the other about computational functionalism. What they should say is that the arguments both for and against provide only inconclusive considerations and the right attitude is therefore one of great uncertainty.

The problem with this article is that while the conclusion — despite being categorical without enough warrant — is agreeable (a machine executing an LMM is not and cannot be conscious) and yet the reasons the author gives for the conclusion are not at all. 1. It’s true we don’t need a complete metaphysics of consciousness to assess the likelihood of AI consciousness 2. This article tries to assess AI consciousness using an approach that does actually require a metaphysics of consciousness 3. … all the while claiming that the approach sidesteps that same requirement

@iamtexture @Faltz009 Your pfp makes that reply so much more ominous

@Faltz009 @intent_dev Welcome 2 hell

Enlighten me then, oh knowledgeable one I have no qualms admitting flaws or learning new learn new stuff, if you have something actually useful to say The irony indeed

@Faltz009 Ahaha, I’m still trying to figure out the sound of one hand clapping. See you at the peak if I ever get there 😝

I've been enlightened @intent_dev

@Faltz009 It’s okay man you made it to Thursday. Mine was fried by noon Monday 🥲

@intent_dev IMPOSTOR srsly my head is fried this week already

The irony of this post is that the person making the Dunning-Kruger accusation is the one exemplifying that very effect. But anyway, enough about me.

@wordgrammer Tell me you’re neither a scientist nor a philosopher without telling me

Philosophy is the thrift store of ideas. Compared to science, where every idea is vetted, philosophy is a disorganized mess. There’s some gold in there, and if you care about good deals/outside payoff/anti-consensus bets, it’s worth the dig, but man is there a lot of trash