Stephen Wolfram

I don't think one can say beyond saying if you have a set of rules that will cause the species to go extinct, that's probably, you know, you could say that's probably not a winning set of laws because even to have a thing on which you can operate laws requires that the species not be extinct.

So this system generates more truth than... Try to make sure that the things are true.

I mean, look, as a practical matter, when people write computational contracts,

And it's kind of like, you know, if this happens in the world, then do this.

And this hasn't developed as quickly as it might have done.

You know, this has been a sort of a blockchain story in part and so on, although blockchain is not really necessary for the idea of computational contracts.

But you can imagine that eventually sort of a large part of what's in the world are these giant chains and networks of computational contracts.

Mm-hmm.

And then something happens in the world and this whole giant domino effect of contracts firing autonomously that cause other things to happen.

And, you know, for us, you know, we've been the main sort of source, the oracle of quotes, facts or truth or something for things like blockchain computational contracts and such like.

And there's a question of, you know, what, you know, I consider that responsibility to actually get the stuff right.

And one of the things that is tricky sometimes is when is it true?

When is it a fact?

When is it not a fact?

Yes.

I think the best we can do is to say, you know, we have a procedure.

We follow the procedure.

We might get it wrong, but at least we won't be corrupt about getting it wrong, so to speak.

Yeah.

So that's beautifully put.