Illia Polosukhin

autonomous agent that it governs.

Then it actually makes sense because then if that agent starts to make money or make some utility in the world, then this token now has either governance or direct kind of revenue rights.

And it's fully autonomous, right?

There's no central third party efforts of which you are relying to.

So that's why I think of this as kind of a governance question.

And again, I think of blockchain effectively at the end is going to be the governance infrastructure for AI because...

Yeah, like let's say you launch it without any governance, right?

And then, yeah, it wants to do some bad things.

Then it goes back to the blockchain itself to effectively govern it, right?

To the kind of multi-party computation, to this kind of all those pieces to really come in and say, no, no, this is not what we want.

So I do think, you know, in our case, Near Token effectively becomes the governance of this AI world, AI nation state, and network state.

But I think you can create this in kind of sub boxes where there is a token for a specific AI, autonomous AI agent.

We'll call it decentralized autonomous organization, for example.

And so then that is like a more direct governance, right?

You can be effectively like, hey, here's set of values and set of things that you should not do, right?

Like effectively like, hey,

do not harm humans and, you know, do not harm the planet, et cetera.

And then within that, that comes in and the core system problem that it cannot change, then it can kind of go from there and evolve from there.

Yeah, I think, I mean, I think the real conversation is a lot more nuanced.

It's easy to like bucket into this kind of accelerationism versus, I mean, there's decelerationism and then there's defensive accelerationism.