The way people see technical constructs and systems, as permanent fixtures of value, to invest in, safer than countries, land or business, is exposed to the same disruption, that revolutionised the original systems in the first place. Why would you see more impermanence, in an encrypted special number, that someone stores for you, somewhere safe and trusted, whilst accelerating technologies and tricks, try their hands at guessing. Quantum computer waits, to tell you the tulips market, is gone.
A common technologist philosophy is one that tools don’t really need people to run them. In particular, I find myself in a frequent argument with friends about speculations on the market of encrypted scarce members of a blockchain. These friends, talk like the buffaloes, the stories are about the imagined possibility of higher and higher value, but they do not recognise that at some point, there is a cliff, and little chance to turn around. We would rather hold onto the dream of what is likely to be dust than cash in, and get something. This problem appears to be intrinsic to human behaviour, we seek collective tragedy somehow. The story of collective tragedy is perhaps more of a heroes journey than being careful and boring.
All good, but what kind of intelligence is this?
Will the superintelligent gamble the same way?
Is it risk taking that drives new evolutionary candidates?
If so then the superintelligent must be failure machines…