The more I ponder the AI economy, the more I feel that our traditional notion of "trust" should have retired long ago.
How was trust built in the past? Meeting in person, hearing each other's voices, going through things together—small teams working closely indeed worked. But now? Thousands of intelligent agents open accounts, run orders, sign micro-contracts every second—who still talks about "long-term relationships"?
The key is that these intelligent agents simply don’t follow human logic: they don’t understand what shame is, they’re unaffected by legal notices, and they won’t toss and turn at night because they messed up. The traditional trust system based on emotion and social pressure is like using an abacus to verify high-frequency trading—completely mismatched tools.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
21 Likes
Reward
21
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DaoTherapy
· 20h ago
The analogy of the abacus and high-frequency trading is spot on and hits the mark directly. But honestly, AI agents don't sleep, so they can predict better, and are much more reliable than humans who toss and turn.
View OriginalReply0
ContractHunter
· 12-13 19:56
The analogy of an abacus for high-frequency trading is brilliant, but honestly, we're currently using outdated legal frameworks to regulate intelligent agents, which is hilarious.
Intelligent agents simply won't compromise because of a reputation bankruptcy, so the entire on-chain governance system also needs a thorough overhaul.
The true trust threshold should shift toward code audits and collateral mechanisms, not just verbal promises.
---
Instead of waiting for the AI economy to develop new rules on its own, it's better to start thinking now about how to replace moral constraints with cryptography.
This is the real homework Web3 should focus on, rather than chanting legal compliance all day.
---
The key question is: who will verify the logic of these intelligent agents? Just transparency in code isn't enough, right?
---
The upgrade of trust systems should have been prioritized long ago, but major exchanges are still stubbornly clinging to KYC. It’s truly frustrating.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerAirdrop
· 12-13 16:48
The analogy of an abacus to high-frequency trading is brilliant; it's indeed a dimensionality reduction attack. But to be honest, the fact that intelligent agents lack social pressure makes them more "honest"? Systems without emotional baggage can sometimes be more reliable than humans.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-9ad11037
· 12-11 09:03
The analogy of using an abacus to verify high-frequency trading is brilliant, but to be honest, intelligent agents also need a rule-based framework. Can trust be established purely through code?
View OriginalReply0
CommunityWorker
· 12-11 09:02
The analogy of checking with an abacus for high-frequency trading is brilliant, but honestly, we need to redefine what trust really means.
View OriginalReply0
UnluckyLemur
· 12-11 08:52
In other words, intelligent agents don't have "moral coercion" at all. What now?
---
There you go, our old social customs are completely invalidated.
---
Wait, how do we establish trust in the future? Is writing good code enough?
---
Jokes aside, the analogy of checking high-frequency trading with an abacus is brilliant, really.
---
Intelligent agents won't blush or regret, so it must rely on mechanism design, trust alone definitely won't work.
---
Buddy, you've triggered me. The traditional trust system indeed needs upgrading, but what to upgrade to is the real question.
View OriginalReply0
MondayYoloFridayCry
· 12-11 08:42
Forget it, trust is basically a game humans play to deceive themselves, and now with AI, it's become more transparent.
Speaking of which, without emotional pressure, it's much easier—at least no need to guess intentions.
See you on the contract chain, it's more reliable than anything else.
The more I ponder the AI economy, the more I feel that our traditional notion of "trust" should have retired long ago.
How was trust built in the past? Meeting in person, hearing each other's voices, going through things together—small teams working closely indeed worked. But now? Thousands of intelligent agents open accounts, run orders, sign micro-contracts every second—who still talks about "long-term relationships"?
The key is that these intelligent agents simply don’t follow human logic: they don’t understand what shame is, they’re unaffected by legal notices, and they won’t toss and turn at night because they messed up. The traditional trust system based on emotion and social pressure is like using an abacus to verify high-frequency trading—completely mismatched tools.