Okay, yeah, the secret to life is to hit record slash send tweet.
You can always have it.
No, I don't edit, ever.
Oh, fine.
No, it's too much work.
Just hit record and pray and see what happens.
Prompt and pray.
Exactly.
Prompt and pray.
That's the...
With emphasis on pray.
Because it's just...
It never gets it right the first time.
But Pablo is going to fix that.
I mean, that was kind of the goal of the last couple of weeks, is to teach the agents how
to build an ostrich properly.
Yeah.
I think we're really close.
What's your guess?
One shouting like a DVM or something.
I think that...
I mean, yeah, we are definitely into something.
But I believe that, you know, these publicity cooks, you know, how they work.
When some new technology appears and the publicity cook that they have where...
Yeah, yeah.
Now we're in the hype phase.
Yeah.
We're in the hype phase.
We haven't reached the top of that.
And then when we reach the top, it's going to be a moment of reflection.
The trough of disillusionment, right?
That's what it's called, I think.
Everyone's like, oh, everything sucks.
Yeah.
Bitcoin is the ostrich.
A lot of them are stupid.
Exactly.
Nothing works.
I think it's something that you can...
I mean, I like to be informed and to read articles, stay up-to-date news and so on.
Did you read the 2027 one?
Yeah, 2027.
No.
Hyper bullish super intelligence like tomorrow.
No.
No, I haven't read it completely.
I read like an overview of it.
But I haven't read it completely.
I've been reading a lot of articles lately about security implications of these new protocols,
like I-NCP or the AI.
Yeah.
They will be agents.
Yeah.
All sorts of possible attacks that we are not advising right now because, you know, it's so new.
Yeah.
No one knows.
Well, it's not that violent.
Yeah.
It's a nice promise, actually.
So I think that all of these programatics that we are advising right now are something
that people or researchers and security experts are putting on the public with all these articles.
We are not suffering all of that, yet.
Because these tools are so new and these protocols are so new and it really...
attach it to a very niche part of the population, it's also not everyone's like playing around
with it yet, it's not widely embedded everywhere yet, but it will be very soon I feel like,
I mean mostly it's mostly the good guys so to speak playing around with it now you know like
people most exposed to all these tools are basically AI researchers and co-workers and so on and
so forth, but I think this will change very very quickly. Yeah definitely I think that we are
going to reach that critical mass, but like before that it's important that we as like a kind of
explorers of this new world, we can abide the challenges of this new tools. I mean my advice to
everyone would be getting new laptop, a dedicated vibe coding machine, like get dedicated hardware,
don't put anything of importance on it and just like switch it to your low mode, that would be
my best. That would be my best advice, use QBOs and this virtualized everything. Is that what
you do currently? No, okay, you have one machine, let's go down here otherwise we'll hit traffic,
you have one machine and you just do a lot of things. I know, I'm not Jolo, I'm very cautious,
you also use a different setup the most. You use Goose a lot as well, right? Yeah,
I'm just experimenting with the power tools, you know, as I'm developing this DBnCP stuff,
I'm playing a lot with NCP and so on. I normally don't use this as a consumer, I use it as a
developer, so I try to find the best tools for that and Goose is amazing indeed, because for
example, necessarily when I was introducing this dynamic discovering of tools, MCP supports
these notifications from the server to the client where the server can notify to the client that
the list of tools changed and get updated. For example, I was testing in use with Corsair or
other clients and the only one that works was Goose. Okay, well, did you use Roocode also?
No, I haven't tested yet. Okay. Were you part of the workshop with Paolo? Do you have a setup?
Like in theory, do you have a working setup? Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, because that's like
it's very configurable, I would be surprised if we couldn't get the updated tools and stuff.
I really believe that the security measures that we are going to see in the incoming
weeks, months, years are going to be in different levels, but one of them, one of the most important
parts is going to be in the client level where you as a user execute tools from MCP servers and
so on and the client should provide you enough, like a fishers to really understand what you are
doing or edit the tools that you are executing. Yeah, and that's going to be a big security
advantage. I think that's why when an Oscar is awesome in that regard and Hazard showed some
of that off as well, because if you're doing something in an Oscar world, you basically,
if you're using an external signer like Amber, it can't really do anything destructive in your
name. Like you always have the executive power on your side just with the signer alone and it's
like whatever your agent is doing and whatever tool call is made, Amber will always pop up and
be like, okay, do you want to sign this event? Like if you have it configured that way, but I think
that's super powerful. That's like a super interesting approach slash paradigm like the most other
systems don't have, because usually it's all or nothing. It's like here's my API key and now you
act on my behalf basically. And with the delegation possibilities of an Oscar, I think it's super
interesting that you can, that you just can't have an agent and basically it can't really do
anything destructive in that sense. So that's, I think that's an interesting side effect.
Like it always hits you, you're a proverb, right? Like a disannoying window.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, sure. I mean, that's why most people go just like, yeah, yeah, always,
you know, always sign that. It's fine. Yeah, let's make a run for it. We can also, yeah.
Oh, fuck. Oh, no, let's go. Breaking the law. Don't die traffic. Jesus rolled over by car.
We made it. We made it. And we stay alive.
You know, I need to keep you on your toes. Yeah. Everyone.
Yeah, I think that, you know,
Jolo mode is going to be something outdated so soon.
Why? Because I don't believe that it's going to stay for longer because when more people start
to use these new technologies and so on, we are not going to have that freedom to use execute
everything in Jolo mode because they are going to be more exploit and more people want them to
exploit. Oh, you think so? You think people will switch back from Jolo mode? I highly doubt it.
No, I think that once you're in Jolo mode, once you're in Jolo mode, you never go back.
I think that there is no going back. I think that they are different, different levels of Jolo mode.
Like there is the reckless Jolo mode, but you go, yeah, yeah, sure. Totally unknown.
I mean, Ru already has this where it's like, you know, you have more fine-grained permissions,
but like it can always read a file, for example, but it can't always delete a file,
those stuff like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But definitely the conception that we have about
these tools have to change because it's impossible that we keep the same mentality that we have now
for the future of these technologies because there are going to be so many attack vectors
and people are going to be so compromised that I think that it's impossible to stay
in the same level of Jolo mode. Yeah, I think I discussed this with Pablo already a little bit.
It's what was like, everyone will run into this problem. Like, you know, what agent to trust,
what MCP tools to trust, what kind of, I don't know, even code snippets to trust those kind of things.
And I think Noster really has a unique position there because we do have identity
and rep of trust baked in. So it's kind of, you know, trust everyone from my kind of closest
circle on Noster. Then it's like, you know, I whitelist a couple of N-pups and I just trust
whatever they sign off on or those kinds of things. Everyone else will kind of have to
rebuild this from scratch in some sense. And they will, like, I mean, you know, there's many
instances where this was done in the past, like, I don't know, like steam in the gaming world,
rebuild the social graph just for like gaming, for example, you know. So they will definitely
do that. And some of the companies will also succeed and so on. But I still think,
I mean, we talked about this a lot the last couple of weeks, but everyone will run into
those limits and those issues. And one of the limits is kind of web of trust. Like, one of the
things you will run into is like, again, the trust question. The other one is the micropayment
question. And I think, again, like, Noster, it's perfect for that. I would add the, the
very family. Yeah. Oh, that that as well. Yeah, yeah. Yes. Yeah, which comes completely. I don't
even think about it anymore because it so comes for free and then exercise. Like, everything is
signed. So you don't really need to manually verify in that sense. Yeah. Yeah. That's true.
I was, I was looking the this name specification for the eight to eight protocol. I was, I think I
was talking to you about this the other day. But I was, I was watching this specification for
the new Google protocol that eight to eight agent to agent. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're trying
to build a more complicated version of Noster basically. It's fucking awful. Yeah. It's a,
the JSON specification is a 2000 lines JSON schema where there are a lot of nested objects and
authentication method. Yeah. Yeah. It's fucking hell. Yeah. If you, if you use probably JW and
JW SS all the way down in one big JSON object, I can guess how this looks like, but I don't want
to look, I don't even want to look. It's not good to see. It's even worth to, to work with.
With that. Yeah. I mean, it's safe to say that they will go down the path and maybe, you know,
at some point in time in the future in a couple of years, they might turn around.
If our thesis is correct and the Noster marketplace, so to speak,
marketplace for agents and thinks is, is, works well enough than, than they might be
grudgingly adopted later on. I mean, we made this comparison in the last couple of weeks, a lot with,
you know, like how windows had to be grudgingly integrate Linux into the system, you know,
all those kinds of things where it's just, that, that was thought impossible, like 20 years ago or
so. And, and the open, it's going to be like the minimalistic open kind of, I don't know,
you know, Unix ethos system just one out in the end, basically, and one out big time.
So yeah, that's how I see this going. But what was your motivation, by the way, to
start working on, on TV, MCP?
Not them.
Yeah.
So we have to thank Tamadoches for this.
Oh yeah.
We have to thank, thank Tamadoches for so many things, but this is one of these things.
We have to think.
Awesome. I didn't know that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, in very few people will know what totem is, by the way.
Yeah.
Maybe explain it in a minute or two.
Totem, totem is a, it's a project that's working with sandwich.
We are creating some sort of experience on top of the data and nozzle.
So you want to, the turn realized into Tamadoches, basically.
Yeah, basically.
Yeah.
In the short years.
But the other day was revisiting some notes that we have for, for totem.
I saw the line that kind of give me the inspiration to work on the VNCP and was
use DVM as a wrapper for NCP.
Yeah.
I think that was, that was the line.
How long ago was it?
A month ago.
Yeah.
Just before it started, it says, several in the end.
That's funny.
Life moves fast.
Yeah.
Life moves fast.
Yeah.
I mean, the whole NCP protocol is very young.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
To me, it's just a natural fit to use Noster to look up MCP tools and to look up.
Like, look up all the things, basically.
Look up.
And that's what Pablo is building out right now.
I'm going to share the tutorial again, but it's basically,
what you want to do is you have these specialized agents and you want to kind of box them in.
Because the main issue right now is that like, if the agents aren't constrained,
they just go wild and stuff breaks all the time and so on.
And they're also not Noster experts.
They're like, not, agents aren't really experts in that sense.
So, most large models in particular are generalists and so on.
And so, the way to box them in is like, first of all, with the MCP tools,
like what they can do, basically.
But also, in terms of like, how do you use, I mean, I always use Pablo's example,
how do you use NDK, you know, like, and you have various code snippets, like,
okay, this is basically the documentation for you.
This is how you do a profile lookup.
This is how you do NIP-60, NIP-61, whatever.
You know, this is how you sap someone.
And then, then the LLMs aren't confused on how to do that.
And the success rate of doing it in that way.
And of course, you know, like, all this stuff,
you can use Noster to look it up.
Like, you look up the code snippets with Noster,
you look up the MCP tools with Noster, all those kinds of things.
And I basically, I used it myself a little bit as well,
but I mostly watched over Pablo's shoulder.
And the funny thing is, like, with the snippet approach, for example,
if you fix an issue once, like, the LLM is always confused about,
I don't know, like, even stupid things, like fetching some data.
Because millions of answers on Stack Overflow
were always like, OK, you query this REST API yet, so.
And that's, like, in the Noster world, it's nonsensical.
And it will always try to fetch something from an API and so on.
And then you fix it once, and you say, OK, no, this is the way to fetch it.
And it will never make that mistake again.
And that's just so amazing to me.
Like, that's so cool.
And of course, with the NCP tools that we have now,
it's like, basically, while you're coding,
you can publish these code snippets.
It's like, OK, you just made this mistake.
Here is how you do it in a Noster way.
Create a snippet, publish it to Noster,
and don't confuse yourself anymore going forward.
And it actually works.
It's really amazing, so.
Yeah, I think that the important part of this is that
we have something like LLMs that are kind of black boxes,
that are stateless, that doesn't have any concept of context.
Yeah, they don't have long-term memory.
That's the issue, kind of.
You have different techniques and different ways
to provide that and to enhance the context.
But definitely, LLMs are just a black box
that have a general knowledge about everything,
but about nothing specific.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
How you provide that and enhance that context is a whole world.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
It's a whole piece of art.
Yeah.
I got the art and the art system.
They are used as plastic contents.
Yeah.
A different sensation.
Yeah, that was something that was discussed also
the last couple of weeks a lot.
It's like basically building up specialized drag databases
and having them signed by the domain experts.
Yeah.
And then it's kind of very easy to figure out
what to use and what is actually,
like it's very easy for the LLMs to grab
domain-specific knowledge.
Yeah.
And I think that's huge.
That's huge.
It's like a, you know, like it's,
because I see it in the same way as like the,
a Casper of sees the chess computers.
You know, I think that the strongest,
it's not that the chess computers took over
and they played against each other
and, you know, dominate the chess world now.
That's not, that's, the strongest systems
are hybrid systems, are human machine systems.
Yeah.
And in terms of like now having vibe coded intensely
for like six weeks straight, basically,
it's clear to me that for the foreseeable future,
this is what we have to do.
We, we need to have this human agent interaction
that we need to have also,
we need to infuse domain expert knowledge
into those systems.
Yeah.
And I think it's not so,
it's a very natural system to do that to make this happen.
Definitely.
I am spreading exactly that with the beating head project.
Yeah.
The beating head project is something that
I was just kissing with Joe here in,
in several engineering and also
Alex Gleason was interested on the topic.
And so we are working kind of together on that
very synchronously.
But basically the beating head is a
rack database that is made it of an NCP tool.
Like I do have a NCP server
that provides you access to a rack database.
And this is something very, very cool that
I think that I haven't seen,
I haven't saw that other people are
spreading this solution.
Because, you know,
rack databases are normally
tailored for a specific system.
But it really opens the door for a kind of
black-able context or the mind-spare context, you know,
because you can, the beating head have
all the nips and context about the specific kinds
and how to implement them.
A very comprehensive documentation on that
that can be retrieved with natural language.
Very cool.
Like LLMs can do that very easily.
And I made it in a way that
you have embed databases.
So these whole contexts,
the embedding database is all a single file
that you can, for example, upload to Blossom.
And then you can do the same,
create a list of the rack databases that you have there.
And then suddenly you have a
plug-able context and plug-able experts.
Or domain-specific content
that you can plug into your system
and benefit of that by providing real context
about the domain that you want to work with your L&M.
Yeah, I think that's awesome.
And the awesome part about it is also,
like you said before,
the very fireability is baked in.
Like everything is self-signed, so to speak.
I mean, it's pure not-staring mens and again,
like blossom uploads and so on.
And the result of that is that
you don't ever need an API key for anything.
And that's something that's such a killer feature
from a developer perspective,
where you can just plug all this together.
And you don't need to sign up anywhere
and then turn an API key and anything like that.
I mean, we will still have to deal with spam
and rate-limiting and all those kind of things.
Oh yeah.
But we can do that easily with Web of Trust
and e-cash basically.
Everyone will have to deal with that.
And the default way is like signups and KYC
and all those kind of things.
And the nicer way is basically Web of Trust and payments.
Web of Trust and Sats.
I mean, the original proof-of-work vision of,
you know, like it was,
yeah, it was both California and Adam Back had the idea,
basically, of like,
it was basically rate-limiting.
It was like postage stamps for email sent,
those kind of things.
Yeah.
It was a spam-prevention mechanism.
Yeah.
And we just used the difficulty adjusted
spam-prevention mechanism that is Sats.
Yeah.
Sats and social security planning.
Yeah, exactly.
So, yeah, all that's really cool.
Like for me, like again, playing around with that,
and I don't, you know,
I don't see myself as a developer anymore,
that the train is long gone.
But I am vibing again, you know, so there's that.
And it's just so cool to be able to do all that and use all that
and not have to worry about the sign-ups and API keys
and whatnot.
I mean, if you just,
if you ever entered the Google Developer Console
and tried to, you know, create an OAuth tool,
or whatever, it's like, you know, like five days are gone
and it still doesn't work.
And here it's just, it's basically plug-and-play.
So that's really cool.
Yeah, that's the kind of authentication,
hell, that I was talking about with the A to A
they kind of make this protocol free and really interpretable
or that really, something that really works for,
because they are going to use for in the same
problems that they have now that is, ah, fucking hell.
Someone needs to say who is a legit user and who isn't.
Yeah, and so that's with the DID people as well.
You know, someone has to be the certificate authority,
for example, and all those kind of things.
And so all these systems, like massively centralized
and basically turn into massively authoritarian systems
because, you know, there will be, I don't know,
like, you know, depending on whatever,
depending on the political weather,
it's like, okay, the developers are from Iran or whatever.
Okay, we have to deplatform all of them.
Like, if your IP is from this country, then, you know,
like someone with a very large stick will come
that will tell everyone, okay, you have to
blacklist all those IPs, you have to remove all of that
and so on.
For, it doesn't, you know, like, and I mean,
we've seen that very recently that a lot of the reasons
are incredibly stupid for this kind of, you know,
like measures and deplatforming and so on.
And it's basically, in my opinion, it's an impossible problem.
And there are no solutions to this problem in the sense that
you can't, like, you either are okay with a central authoritarian authority.
You know, certificate authority.
It has authoritarian in its names.
Or you have to be okay with the decentralized, messy,
you know, doing it on the edges way of how Nostra is thinking about it,
which means also, you know, like, it's not a perfect solution.
It's like, Web of Trust is gameable.
It's like, if someone has a lot of money,
your rate limiting mechanism can be overwhelmed,
all those kind of things.
Like, I can pay to spam you and so on.
But as we, as we said, like, these,
these problems are problems that everyone have to pass through.
Yeah.
And there is no call them, like, a central bullet.
Yeah, exactly.
The trade-offs for these problems are so big and so
limiting that they are going to fall in the, in, yeah.
In something unusable, as right now is unusable,
like all this, all of this new logging methods and so on.
Like, it's making the life of very much difficulty.
Yeah.
Oh, oh, oh, this is a good use case as well for kind of like,
it had the best intentions.
And I think it was just a little bit too complicated
on the, on the technical side.
And it also, like, it, it centralized massively
because it's basically one school or Facebook becomes an old provider.
No one else is going to care about anything else.
I mean, yeah, in some sense.
It was really funny how that, how that, you know,
evolved in some sense.
But yeah, we'll see how it goes with, with, I mean,
there's still a long way until we can log in with not sure
everywhere.
But at least it has the potential to make it work.
Yeah.
So I mean, for me, one of the most exciting part and
the reason why I'm spending time and energy in these fields of open
source, sorry, I am jumping beyond tools and a lot of this.
Sorry.
You know, if I'm spending all this energy and time,
it's because there is a very clear path for open source in this,
in this new technologies, like all the I.A.
War is based on open source in the 50s, 70s.
Yeah.
All the work that have been done in that field is open source.
Like all the technologies that we have, mostly all almost all of them
is open source.
So they are open source alternatives that was the original one.
Do you, do you use open source models exclusively right now?
Or yeah, you're a purist.
I don't touch any open.
I like to use my own models or proxies.
So, so what have you used so far?
I like models.
Yeah, models.
I use a lot of models.
Like I, I like to spend a minute on to play with them locally.
The ones that I can afford.
But so you haven't upgraded your hardware yet.
So it's tiny llama.
Tiny llama.
I got seven billion parameters, models, things like that.
Okay.
I can afford much more.
But it's funny that most of the tiny ones are kind of good enough for a lot of things.
Oh, yeah.
It's really you.
No, I think I need tiny models.
It's also something that really excites me of this field because they give you some capacity,
some computation.
But it's not like an intelligent model that cannot solve big problems for you.
But definitely they can do some stuff.
And also you can train them and make them accurate for your specific uses.
Yeah, for that specific task and so on.
And I think that there, there's something really interesting in tiny models because they are going
to allow like a things appear like this, this protocol by Stanford that is called Minions.
I really like learning about the opinions.
Minions model?
Is it like a?
No, it's not a model.
It's a protocol itself.
But what's presented by Stanford like a, does it have anything to do with the little yellow
minions? Is that the idea?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's a swarm of small, small, small, small models.
Exactly.
Great.
It's an internet.
It's a cyclic, it's a cyclic that.
Okay.
So the protocol describes a way to have this swarm of minions to something useful.
Yeah, exactly.
Even though every single one is super stupid.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the idea basically is you can kind of decompose a task into different minions that you can have.
And these minions are going to be collaborating with a standard provider that can be a more powerful
model or a proprietary model.
But the key here is that the minions are going to be anonymizing, anonymizing the data
and make it more specific, creating more specific tasks for the big model.
So you are going to be anonymizing the data.
So you still have, you still have a big model.
You still have a generalist to speak.
You still have a big model architect that has the overview of those kinds of things.
Yeah, I mean, in orchestrator for the minions in some sense.
Yeah.
Like tiny models are stupid.
Yeah, absolutely.
Pretty dumb.
But they are really good for a specific, very concise task.
So they can...
Give me one second.
I'm not sure if I hit record, actually.
It's like, yeah, there we go.
That's interesting.
It could be better than I'm adding.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's still good.
I always have a backup kind of, but it's like, I don't know.
You know, now that I have had half of my coffee, the brain starts firing again.
I think it's something to think about.
But it's...
Because what is interesting, in nature, you have a lot of stupid things
without the big orchestrator, and it still works and produces something smart,
like an ant colony or what have you.
No.
But in, yeah, yeah.
So that's why I was asking whether there's still a big one in some sense in charge,
because I talked about this, I think we've gathered as well,
but with Pablo in particular that, to me,
it's fascinating that we see the split between generalists and specialists,
and it has to happen.
Like, it has to be that way.
All the cognitive scientists will tell you it has to be this way,
because you cannot specialize and generalize at the same time.
It's in contradiction, basically.
So what I think we could have also, in theory, in some sense,
is something like you're describing,
but without a smart orchestrator model in charge in some sense.
I mean, I mean...
Well, I'll have to look into that.
That sounds fascinating.
No, it's a very, very interesting project, because...
You said Stanford?
Stanford, yeah.
University.
But, say, it's very interesting because it has blurred different topics
that we are going to need to explore, like privacy, in IA,
or in the interaction with LLMs, and how to leverage a local compute
that you can afford with these tiny models.
Ah, actually, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So that not everything concentrates in, like,
Facebook data centers, basically.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So the key here is that you can get your queries or your prompts,
anonymized.
Yeah, I see.
So, like, SETI at home, like SETI at home.
You know that, from the old days,
searching for extraterrestrial life at home,
of, like, running a screensafe and stuff.
So that would be minions at home,
where it's just, like, you have whatever compute packets that you run,
and, yeah, well, yeah, but they will run into the issue of payments.
Because you want to sell your idle GPU, or CPU, or RAM, or what have you.
And, I mean, that's what, actually, in the first cohort,
we talked a little bit about that with blinded compute,
and I talked with Kelly about that as well,
like blinded compute and serial knowledge proofs,
and those kind of things.
That's going to be so interesting when, like,
it's not an if, but it's a when, like, when we get this to work.
Yeah, I think that, as I was saying at the beginning,
we are in this, like, the left side of this publicity cult,
like at the hype.
Yeah, we're also at the left side of the bell curve.
Yeah.
I hope this is a good part.
But for me, the fascinating part is that no sir kind of fits well
in all of this new party, because it has some kind of answers
to the program, to the programatics that we are starting to see.
And for me, that is fascinating because it's kind of getting right.
Yeah, I mean, it's also, it's not super surprising.
I mean, no sir was built, Bitcoin was built for people,
for people at the edges.
It's like, what do you do?
What do you use when you don't have an identity?
Like, you're from Ghana, you're 14,
but you have access to some compute, but you don't have a passport,
you don't have an ID, you don't even know when your birthday is,
those kind of things, you know.
And agents have the same problem.
They are not, like, in the eyes of the snake, they are not people.
And so they can't KYC, you know, like, they have all these issues and so on.
And that's on the identity side.
And that's why, I mean, most people thought a lot,
and Bitcoin people in general, they thought long and hard about identity.
What do you need?
What kind of identity do you actually need to authenticate yourself
towards a compute system, in some sense?
And it's not a passport, like, that's, I mean,
cypherpunk's figured in the South a long time ago,
it must not be a state-sanctioned identity, because that, again,
if you have a certificate authority, you run into authoritarian problems.
That's just how it works.
And the other part on an ostracile, which I mean, you know,
Bitcoin is in particular kind of thought long and hard about,
Nixabo in particular, is the micro-payment side.
And the kind of, what is the difference between credit and money?
And why do you, why can't you use credit, basically, for most of those things?
And you always run into these limits, settlement limits,
with micro-payments and also cognitive decision limits and all those kind of things.
And I don't know of another group of people that thought about this problem
for an extended period of time.
It actually actively worked on solutions.
And so, again, it's not surprising.
It's very poetic that noster is kind of the perfect fit,
but it's also not very surprising, because, again,
agents, they're going to need some sort of identity,
and it's not going to be state-sanctioned identity.
And they need some sort of payments, and it's not going to be stripe accounts.
You know, it's not going to be credit rates.
Like, they can't, they just can't do it.
And we already have agents that can autonomously sap with NIP-60.
And we also have, I mean, you build stuff where you can pay agents,
and agents can pay lightning and voices, and so on.
So all this stuff already works.
It's just like no one knows about it.
There's like three people that are experimenting with that right now.
Yeah, and also we have a little bit early.
Our own problematics, you know.
Oh, sure.
About all the things and the path and specifications and so on.
But there is a different distribution.
I mean, none of that is perfect by any means,
but the thing is that it is the right solution in theory, so to speak.
And it also already works in practice.
And I think that's why I urge everyone to kind of, you know,
write a better tutorial.
A lot of people play around with it, because the stuff is further along than you would think.
And no one really knows about it yet,
especially on the AI side.
The AI people don't really know about this stuff yet.
Even in our little noster bubble, most people don't know
that we actually have autonomous agents already that can set things.
Yeah, I'm fucking hell, I'm fucking hell.
And that's true, because, you know, it's going to be permissionless or hell.
Like, it's not a middle ground.
Like, it cannot be semi-permissioned and still working.
It has to be totally permissionless.
Like, I should be able to do anything within a local scope.
I don't need the global scope for the majority of things.
Like, for example, if I want to automate my house
and have some NCP tools that control the lights on my house,
so I don't want to ask permission to win or to add.
You also don't want to send all that stuff to the cloud, you know,
and all those kind of things.
Yeah, that's the cool thing, that also the noster architecture and EKASH as well.
And it's very usable in a local-first environment.
It's just like, you can set up your home relay,
you can, you know, do all those kind of things,
you can set up a minted home, like who cares.
And you just, you know, all the data stays in your house, basically.
All the stuff stays in your house, you don't, again,
you don't need an API key, you don't need the cloud for anything.
And it's still super powerful stuff.
So, yeah, we'll see.
I mean, again, like you said, none of that works.
We have our own issues, working through all of that.
Yeah, we are discovering that, man.
And definitely, there are going to be solutions,
and ways to, more clear ways to do things once we discover
what is the real potential for all this,
because now everyone is experimenting.
And that's why it's a very exciting technology, you know,
like a technology that doesn't fully work.
It works sometimes, but it's not yet like a solid, in a way.
So that makes that this technology exciting.
Yeah, I hope that more people are going to pick it up.
Let's do one more ring around here,
and then let's go to the park or something.
But I hope that more people are going to play around with DB MCP,
and all those kinds of things,
and just actually publish code snippets,
and publish MCP tools, and so on.
Because it's super easy to do, actually,
and we have the marketplace already.
And once you have a marketplace,
I think that's what I talked about this briefly,
I think on Friday night or something.
I think most awesome software,
most great things that we have today,
came from the marketplace approach in some sense.
And the way I mean it is like most browsers,
for example, that we have that are fantastic.
They were made fantastic by a community of people
that was writing extensions.
And then the extensions got merged upstream,
and it just became a normal thing, and those kinds of things.
And we really need to tap into that, basically,
into the wisdom of the crowd, in some sense.
Games as well.
The biggest games that we have now in the world,
like computer games, they were all mods.
They were all game mods.
Like Dota came from Walk of Three,
basically it was just a defense of the Asians mod.
And Counter Strike came from Half-Life,
that's basically, and all those kinds of things.
And I can't wait to see what other people are going to build,
what kind of MCP tools they are going to build,
what kind of DVM's they build.
Once they realize that there is this marketplace,
and also an important part, I think,
will also be like, you can immediately make money with it.
I mean, right now, it's like you're going to make 20 stats.
I don't know, 21 probably.
But the fact that money and identity and reputation
is infused into all of that, it makes it so exciting.
Because you can actually,
it's like a permissionless App Store,
and you can publish to it.
And App Store shows, for example,
that this is really already working.
And App Store is very, very young as well.
I mean, it came out of the first cohort, basically.
So it's less than a year old.
That's why I have so high hopes for DVMTP as well,
and all those kind of things.
I think I also think, I totally agree with you.
And I also think that it's such a powerful thing,
because all this kind of fake sensation of control,
that these big companies have about us,
it's not going to work.
Because the fucking viruses that are in the App Store are in the place for.
But a part of that,
I think that we have this sensation of control by them,
because we don't have the right way to collaborate.
We were talking the other day about the whole YouTube.
It became a fucking hell to use to enjoy watching videos and so on,
because you are going to get limited or you are going to get a...
If you use a VPN, you are not welcome anymore.
I literally, I wanted to download a video that I myself uploaded,
that I myself recorded, of a talk that I myself gave,
from my own YouTube account.
Yeah.
And I couldn't.
I just, I couldn't.
It wouldn't allow me to record.
I tried for way, for longer than I would like to admit.
But for me, disabling my VPN is very involved,
because I basically, like,
I have two routers, and on every router I run a separate VPN.
And so just, I'm not going to go into my router settings
and disable all VPNs, and just, I just gave up.
And I was like,
okay, I guess I'm never going to upload anything to YouTube anymore.
Yeah, but I think that's, that's the, and we discussed this also a little bit
the last couple of weeks.
I hope that Noster can provide a kind of safe haven for that as well,
where it's just like, you have,
and the DVMs will play a part in that as well,
because you don't want to do all that manually.
But basically, I have a YouTube account,
I have some videos on it.
I want to, basically, grab them and archive them on my own,
on my private blossom, for example.
You know, and it's just like, I'm willing to pay for that.
So if there's a DVM for that, if someone creates a DVM for that,
please let me know, because like, you'll have my sets,
so that I can have my videos again.
That's what I was talking about.
If we found the good ways to collaborate between us
and share the resources that we have,
for example, the IP, the domestic IP that we have,
and everyone have, when they have internet,
yeah, kind of VPN.
Yeah, you are just listening to your IP service.
If you have some hard time space left,
and it's like, say for the GPUs and CPUs.
Exactly.
So I think that this kind of fake sensation of control,
that these companies have about us,
is because we haven't found yet the right way to collaborate.
Yeah, yeah.
And I think that no sir have something,
got something right in the approach to communication,
and the architecture of the network and so on,
that we can find the right way to collaborate
and really reduce the amount of control
that these companies and these entities have over us.
Yeah, let's hope that we'll figure it out.
I mean, it's about time.
It's like, it's stuff will only get more restrictive,
I think, and more crazy kind of,
and it's just now everyone.
I mean, it's funny how it works now,
because basically all these giant companies
were built up to lock everyone in.
It's like giant prisons in some sense,
and you're locked in this golden cage,
and you're getting advertisements
jumped down your throat.
It's fucking brutal.
It's fucking brutal, yes.
And that's how they made their wealth, basically.
And now, it's like this switcher rule,
where it's still a cage,
but now at the same time that this is happening,
you use this training data, basically.
And so I think this will only get worse,
and more political, and like, how,
what is the LLM allowed to say, and see,
and what do you train it on,
and it's like, we see this with the Chinese selling them,
so where it's like, you know, I don't know,
Tian Man Square, or whatever,
like whatever the usual phrases are to test these systems,
and it's like, oh, I can't tell you anything about this,
because it never happened.
And I mean, and don't make the mistake that,
you know, the glorious West,
the glorious US has everything perfect,
and doesn't meddle with history,
and doesn't meddle with censorship.
It's just a different kind of, you know,
manipulation and censorship.
So I really think that when we reach the top
of the publicity club, that it's going to happen
eventually in one year, two years, do you name it?
I don't know.
But when we start to go down,
I think that it's going to,
the going down is going to be driving
by these fundamental questions about all of this,
like from where the LLM get the data that...
What is true, what is true?
Yeah, what is true?
It's going to be the question.
All the intellectual property people
are going to be questioning all these things,
artists, they're going to be a lot of questions
that are going to drive a lot of discussion.
And I think that this discussion are going to
slow down in some way, or at least make people realize
what is the potential, or what is the real,
it's cold, it's a big one.
Because I think that we are not realizing yet
because we are so excited and so hyped
for these new technologies that we are not answering
those questions yet, as well as we are not answering
vibing into this topic.
Yeah, right now.
Yeah, I don't disagree, I don't disagree.
We are going to realize that we are going to have
to answer questions that we haven't answered yet.
So I think that it's going to drive up
at the realization.
I'll have to undress.
I feel the flames of hell already.
Yeah, it's going to be hard.
It's, I think, I think with,
yeah, I mean, give me a second.
So it turns out that, you know, the founding fathers
of the US, oh my lord, is it still rolling?
Is it bulletproof?
No one knows.
Oh yeah, it still works.
Let's go.
I'm just glad I didn't drop it into the sea.
Like we would be entirely possible as well.
But the, you know, I mean,
I feel like we went through all that before.
Okay, without LLMs, but still,
probably without LLMs, who knows what kind of technology
the Egyptians had.
But I mean, there's a reason why we don't dictate truth.
There's a reason why everyone should be hurt
and everyone should be allowed to speak
and why we landed on the First Amendment
and why the logos is sacred and so on.
I mean, I always repeat the same things.
But it's, there is a deep seated reason
and it is exactly the reason that the world is so complex,
you cannot, there is no, who should be the arbiter of truth?
It's sure as fuck is not going to be an LLM.
Yeah.
It's, and so you need, you need this open permissionless world
that allows anyone to speak.
Otherwise, including LLMs, including agents
and including regular people and so on.
Otherwise, we have no chance of figuring out what's true.
Like, no chance at all.
If there's only like two or three models
and they determine what the truth is
or like, there's one Skynet
and it determines what the truth is.
Like, we're in hell already.
There's no, there's no difference.
And, and I feel like that's what annoys me about the,
all the AI bros and I listen to so many of them now.
Like, I, I just want to puke.
Like, my, my brain is basically throwing up constantly
because I just, two X, all the AI bro talking
over the last couple months into my brain.
And they just, it's, it's, it's, it's very apparent to me
that no one of them ever listened to any philosopher's ever.
I don't know.
And, and, and they actually figured some things out
over the last couple thousand years, you know.
So, and, and Silicon Valley is very dismissive
of all that stuff.
So, yeah, but, you know, talking about philosophy,
I think that there's a very important topic to touch
because we cannot forget
fundamental questions in our modern times.
Like, I'm talking about 50 years ago or something.
We didn't have the penetration of the technology
that we have to know this society.
And we're still not answering some fundamental questions
about that.
And we kind of nightly use everything.
Like, we, we kind of, we never understood
what means to have some communication between people.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, we, we, we still don't know.
And talking about something.
Oh, what the internet is basically.
Exactly.
Like, and we are talking about things
that now people take us totally normal.
Yeah.
And even, you know, like something required.
I mean, you know, like, I mean, there, there is,
it's very obvious that we are not well adapted to that.
I mean, there's a reason why the suicide rate is like,
as high as it ever was in the history of humanity,
basically, that, that we have the meaning crisis.
I mean, I mentioned Verveke all the time in, in conversation,
but, but if you, if you ever want to learn about
the meaning crisis, basically, like,
that's your guy.
He has like a, a 50 part lecture on why is it
that everyone feels like hopeless and meaningless
and all the people, you know, like, why do we have a math,
problem worldwide, basically?
Well, why do we have, yeah, a suicide epidemic
and all those kinds of things.
I think it relates to all this stuff where,
and that's also, that's one thing that the eyebrows,
for example, get wrong.
I think it's, it's, we are,
in some sense, disconnected from reality already.
Um, just by, you know, being on the screens all the time,
stroke, doom scrolling all the time and so on,
not, not really touching grass, you know, like,
we do it right now.
Screen, literally touching grass right now.
That's why this is outside, outside conversation.
But, but, and, and again, like, this is not,
these are not my arguments, it's all Verveke's arguments,
but it's, it's, we, we lost touch with reality
and that is very, very unhealthy.
And the, the, the thing about LLMs is they were never
in touch with reality in the first place.
And so his whole argument is like,
to make them truly care about information,
we would have to embody them,
because why do you care about information?
It's basically, because I think I'm going to die.
Yeah, if you don't care about drinking or eating,
you're going to die.
So if you really, really thirsty, thirsty,
your whole salience landscape and your whole being
is about, I need to drink.
That's the, that's the information you're caring about.
And everything stems from there.
So basically, through human-like intelligence,
grounds out in being itself.
Yeah. And grounds out in embodiment
and all those kind of things.
Yeah. And the, the AI bros completely glides over that.
They're just like, yeah.
Well, you know.
I think that they are used to more people
that are assuming things as normal.
Yeah.
I got this, this, this, what they was talking about.
Also like, why, why, why do you want to spread out and conquer?
Like, first of all, not every human.
Like, a minority, a minority of humanity
wants to spread out and conquer everything.
Yeah.
A minority of like psychopaths, basically.
Yeah.
Most people are content, you know?
It's like, truly a minority of humans
wants to spread through the universe
and, you know, plant their seed everywhere
and conquer everything.
Yeah.
And all the AI people basically make the argument
that this is what the AI is going to do
because it wants to do, because it's the right thing to do.
And it's like, most, like, why is exploration,
why does it have such a high value in the first place?
Because scientists are explorers
and all the AI arguments are written by researchers
which are scientists, you know?
Like, why go out and find out new things?
What's the appeal?
Like, a tree doesn't do that.
Yeah.
But we would never argue that the tree is not a life, for example.
Or also, like a tree is very smart as well, you know?
It's like, of course.
And we wouldn't have a better smart shape for the environment.
Yeah, you're, you're adopted to the environment and so on.
And it's unclear to what kind of environment
the LLMs are adapted for because, again,
like, they're not really embodied in that sense.
And I mean, they're adapting right now for, you know, like,
if you want to be, I don't know, if you want to be generous,
then it's like a symbiotic relationship with humanity.
If you want to be, I don't know, more,
if you woke up with the doomer foot in you,
then it's like they're parasitic on humanity.
It's like, but yeah, I don't know.
Anyway, well, thanks for coming to my talk.
The coffee is clearly working.
Yeah.
It's very fun for me, too.
But I think that there is something very important to reflect
here because, like, the penetration of technology, as I was saying,
is something that is new, you know?
Yeah.
Like, we don't understand, we don't understand it yet as a society.
Yeah, experts that say, or, you know,
scalloped experts got it right.
Exactly.
I'm telling you.
Like, I was saying...
The older I get, the more,
also visually, the more I turn myself into that.
Yeah, they got the rights, definitely.
But I think that we are going to,
we are going to have to pass through through through all these answers
and questions.
Like, we are going to have to answer a lot of the questions
that we avoid to answer for more than 50 years.
Do you think we're going to make it?
I think that we are going to make it.
You're optimistic, in the end?
I'm bullish on philosophy, definitely.
I think that there is...
We are going to recover some fundamental questions
that we avoid to answer for so many years.
And that's because we are going to reach
some level of consciousness about the environment that we are living in
and the surroundings that we have around.
And, for example, I was saying yesterday, this...
...case of Olaskad, Sarah with...
I don't know.
This woman that is against Facebook,
Meta, that he sees revealing all these details.
Didn't she also write...
Didn't she also...
I think she sued Pornhub with the same number?
Well, I don't know, baby.
I used to write the bell, but I'm not sure.
But did you say Sarah White or something like that?
Sarah White, Sarah White something more.
I don't remember right now.
I'm very bad for names.
But I'll try to find...
Because there is a great book on it on the Pornhub thing,
but it might be something else entirely.
It was published three days ago.
That was a...
But she, in this declaration that she do,
she talks about whole Facebook or Meta now,
they kind of leverage their ability to spy into the world,
sorry, into the life of people.
Because, for example, they treat...
Like, if you are a teenager,
a teenager of 15 years old or 15 between 13 and 17,
and you, for example, upload a selfie,
and then you delete the selfie,
they take this as a signal...
Oh, of course.
...of the kind of depression...
Yeah, sure.
...or bad mood.
Targeted advertising for the mood boosters.
Yeah, let's go.
So, which means that the advertising industry
is going to try to make you down all the time.
Sure, sure.
So, how do you think?
Sure.
Because it's more efficient.
It's more effective for them to sell you things with your depressed.
I don't even think that this was the plan from the get-go.
I don't think all these companies were founded too.
Hey, let's do this and let's make all the 14-year-old teenage girls
depressed and then sell them pills and whatever.
I don't think there was the plan.
But once you build the system and you do this data-driven advertisement campaigns, basically,
this is what works best, you know?
And it's like, you don't even stand back and reflect and ask like,
why are we doing this?
It's just like, okay, we have to hit the quarterly profit margins
and we have to, you know, we are obliged to maximize shareholder value
and all this kind of stuff.
And then you just do all these things and it's like, okay,
if we tweak this little knob here,
then we'll increase our revenue by like, you know, 10% or whatever.
And that's how it happens.
It's just like, it's hell man.
Like when I was listening to this woman, like the first thing much that appeared in my mind
was, you know, Harry Potter, the mentors, like these kind of spirits
that suit your bad energy and they can sit by that.
Yeah, absolutely.
So that was the first thing much that appeared in my mind,
just when I was hitting this woman.
Yeah.
Yeah, as a fact, like a whole whole effect, we as a society,
we let entities like these take us as I manage our emotions, our state.
And that's the thing.
That's that's also what most people kind of gloss over,
like bringing it back to the LLMs and all those kind of things.
It's a corporation like Facebook or like Google or what have you,
is already alien intelligence.
Yeah.
It's a non-human intelligence.
Yeah.
Like a city or a corporation or a state or what have you.
It's already a superhuman intelligence.
It just is.
And so we can deal with those as well in some sense, you know?
Like they are not necessarily destroying us all and so on.
I mean, in the Facebook and Google a little bit, but you get my point.
It's like, people forgot that we already have these agentic systems
that are bigger than a single human.
And we learn to kind of deal with them.
I think we suck at it.
I think we're really bad at it right now.
I think we used to be better in the past.
Yeah.
Because in the past, everything we had is spirit.
We knew how to like, we were able to deal with this better because we knew that these things existed.
Yeah.
There is such a thing like, I don't know, the spirit of anger or the spirit of lust.
And you know how to deal with it, for example.
Like it's its own entity that does things.
And if you're possessed by a spirit, then that's how you act.
And so on.
And it's like, I think we see this with the Facebook engineers, for example.
It's like, if you're possessed by Facebook and you're sitting in there
and you use your computer science degree to optimize the click-through rate of like,
you know, like depression pose for 40 year olds,
like you were possessed by the spirit of Facebook.
And that's not a good thing.
And yeah, well, anyway.
So DVM's are going to fix them.
Not that I'm making a freedom technology, I'm going to fix that.
But it is actually like another book recommendation since you mentioned Harry Potter.
Most people don't know about the book, but it is a great Bitcoin book.
It's Momo by Michel Enne.
It's a German book, a German author.
But it was translated.
And it's basically, there are similar entities like the Harry Potter spirits that you mentioned
that suck that's the mentors that suck stuff out of you and so on.
And for this book, for Momo, it's the gray man, like they look like gray man in suits,
and they're time thieves.
So for me, conceptually, it's inflation.
It's basically the bankers that are inflating the currency and they are stealing your time.
That's what the book basically, those are the villains of the book.
And if you read the book through a Bitcoin lens, it's fantastic, it's like it.
Everything makes perfect sense.
Yeah, so a great book.
I, something that you say, like we was more kind of conscious some time ago that we are now.
Sapping is a more conscious action than like watching the TikTok scene.
Yeah, yeah.
No, but you're talking about the technology and the penetration of it in our lives.
Yeah, I remember when I was a kid, an internet arrived to my home,
and my parents was so worried, because I should not upload nothing.
Did the internet still make sounds or you're quite a bit,
I think you're quite a bit younger than me, but it was still like you could listen to the internet.
Yeah, I could listen to the internet through the phone.
Fantastic.
But my parents were so worried, because you know, you should be careful to
not upload nothing, any personal information, photographs.
And now it's like a son normalize that everyone is putting photos of their assets.
They were ahead of the curve.
Is that why you are privacy conscious because of your parents?
They normally, I don't know, they are probably, but now they are normalizing it.
Oh, yeah, sure.
You know, it's as everyone.
It's completely normalized.
You're a weird one.
I'm always the weird one when I say like,
you know, please don't take pictures of my face, for example.
It was a lot of work to not have my face on the internet.
So don't ruin it in an instant, please.
Yeah, I mean, that is a fucking big discussion that we're going to have to do also.
Yeah, all the privacy implications of this new technology.
I don't think we're going to make it in that sense.
I think it's just going to be normal.
And now with the generative models, for example, it's just like, I mean,
revenge porn has a new dimension now with a generative porn.
But it's not all bad, because you have plausible deniability now,
where you can say there's actually a real photo.
It was like, no, no, it's clearly, clearly generated.
It wasn't me.
I would never do anything with a donkey.
I didn't grow that coat.
What's an LMM?
Exactly.
That's a great excuse for every single body.
Yeah.
It's like, oh, that was vive-coded.
That was vive-coded.
I promise.
I wasn't even conscious about what's Dell M was right in there.
Just put Dell M in Dell.
Yeah, we'll see how it goes.
I mean, I'm always optimistic that in the grand scheme of things, humanity will figure it out.
Like, we will figure it out how to deal with all these things.
But it is already very confusing.
And it's going to get more confusing going forward.
I mean, I still have some normal friends and like, my family as well.
Quite like, my mom is very normal, for example.
It's like, she sends me,
they're always the same fake stuff all the time.
Not realizing it's all fake, basically.
And it's just like, oh, man, bless your soul.
It's crazy, it's crazy.
So this is what just gets worse and worse.
Yeah, it's going to get to go to...
And I think that, as I say, like, we're going to have to answer a lot of questions.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Because it's going to be a nightmare, you know?
Like, all these new wearables.
Like, Android DX is releasing.
It's a partnership between Google and Samsung.
They're releasing the new Android for a mental reality.
And everyone is going to be wearing one of these glasses.
And you're not going to be able to say nothing to them.
Like, they are going to use be recording every time.
Let's see, let's see.
I'm not sure.
Like, the last time this was tried with Google Glass.
And everyone caught them, the glass holes.
And everyone hated it.
And so it didn't really pan out the last time.
But now, you know, like, now it looks like the regular sunglasses.
So probably there is no turning back.
But yeah, we'll see.
I think one thing that you mentioned in terms of philosophical questions,
kind of what is real, I think that's one of the most interesting ones,
because it's so hard to answer.
And but also people really crave realness.
And I think in the monetary sense, Bitcoin is the most real money period.
There is so like, it's even more real and gold in some sense.
And, you know, everyone that hasn't understood Bitcoin deeply will completely frown at
the statement and like, you know, like basically, oh, what are the crazy people talking about?
But it is actually true.
Like, it's the most
realness is like, what is very viable in some sense?
And it is way more very viable than gold.
Because you don't know how much gold there is.
And like, you have to start mining all the other things.
Maybe we, you know, drill down the earth so much more and we'll just like quadruple our
gold supply in an instant, what have you.
You can't do all that with Bitcoin.
And Bitcoin also, it bottoms out in physical reality.
That's what's so interesting about it.
It's actually, you can literally know like what had to happen for this Bitcoin to exist and so on.
And so it's all traceable and verifiable and so on.
That's what makes Bitcoin so special.
So in the monetary sense, Bitcoin is the realest money we ever had.
And people really care about reality and people really also care about money.
And the other side of reality is like, like, what is authentic, you know?
Like the opposite of fake, basically.
But not necessarily in the verifiability sense, but in the saying what you truly mean,
sense, in some sense, you know, like a big question.
Yeah, no, but it's because there's all these aspects, realness and what is real.
Again, people really care about realness.
They really, really do.
And if you are in a kind of many, many environment, like if you're on a platform
and you're at the edge of being the platform, always,
you don't even have a way to express yourself fully.
You just don't.
So you're just going to lie for the reason of not being the platform.
Or lie is a strong word.
But also that.
I mean, the COVID times show this clearly.
You're not going to say what you think.
That's it, that's what I'm going to say.
And so once we are in a situation where people are not saying what they think,
how can we have any chance of finding out what's real and what's true?
And so that's why I care so much about Noster, the free expression side.
Because I do really care about reality.
And I also, even more than that in some sense,
I care about our pathway and our tools of finding out what really is actually.
What is the best approach to get a grip and a handle on reality?
And so looping it back to closed platforms, closed systems,
and closed LLMs, and all those kind of things, we won't be able to figure out
what's real in a closed paradigm.
We just won't.
Because of all the things I just mentioned.
You'll have to lie, you'll have to, you'll have all these chilling effects,
all those kind of things.
You're going to be constrained, you're going to be afraid.
Exactly, you have all these constraints.
Yeah, yeah.
Comvisionate, yeah, yeah.
And also long term, like the other thing is also, if you
basically, if you need to box it in, the energy required to do the policing,
the range energy from the system.
So long term, it's not even stable.
That's why all authoritarian regimes basically fail, give them a long enough time frame.
But anyway, thanks for coming to my second talk.
That was a very strong coffee, man.
For some many facts, it was a good cycle idea.
Yeah.
So what's your plans the next couple of weeks and months for DBMCP?
So I'm going to keep exploring the spec.
I was having, as we are here in Madrid and some, I was just kissing with Hazard.
Thanks for geo-doxing me.
No, no, it's okay.
Everyone knows, everyone knows.
I think that you mentioned this a couple of times.
Everyone knows.
But yeah, I think I'm going to keep exploring the specification,
and so on, because DBN spec is something with the design that works to be received.
Yeah, it wasn't really designed with all the alarms in mind, right?
Or with this stuff in mind.
What would you revise?
Ah, so because the spec is very generic, right?
Yeah, yeah, not just that, it's like very bloated.
Because every, like, the current state of DBMs on the spec
says that you have a job request per kind.
So just segregate the job request per kind.
So you have a kind for text summarization.
Yeah, yeah, I see.
You have a kind for imagination.
All your transcripts, what have you, and all those kinds of things.
And all of them have a very different schemas for the inputs,
and the output that you spread from that.
So it really makes the spec really bloated.
So if you want to support everything, you're going to have a great time
trying to implement all of that.
And I think that there is a limitation.
So how would you revise it?
Don't listen to the semantic web people.
That's my own input.
I was having a great discussion with Hasa about this,
and I think that he wrote this article yesterday, I think.
About how DBMs are broken, basically.
This came from some discussions that we have.
But yeah, payments for DBMs are also a big topic because
now you have a lot of different possibilities to make payments
like with the Nossa where I connect.
It's not clear how you should pay a DBM.
Some of the spec that you set up, the job request,
or some event in the middle of the process of interacting with the DBM,
other spec to use a Nossa, and it's not really clear.
And the specification that tried to clarify that,
I was talking also a lot with Don't Believe the hype.
And he's the most active guy working on the DBMs.
He's the DBM guy.
Also dashing and very good people, but he was trying to clarify this,
and he wrote an extension for the NIP to clarify the new parameters that DBMs have,
or he's working with them.
I never got much, so it's pretty unclear how you should proceed
if you want to create and work with DBMs.
So I think that works to revisit all of this.
Also, I think that we should use more the ephemeral kinds for DBMs,
because right now a sign running DBNCP doesn't have to stick around forever.
Exactly.
I'm running for DBNCP and running the website,
and I'm also running a relay for the backend, let's say.
I don't care in the majority of events.
Once they accomplish their mission.
I mean, most of the things are very simple kind of job requests,
and what's the job is done, you don't care about the input event anymore,
or what have you, those kind of things.
Also, something that I really like of exploring with my implementation of DBNCP
is that I induce using a single kind for everything.
Instead of, because it makes sense.
I mean, because it's all the natural language prompts anyway, right, in some sense.
Yeah, no, it's because DB, sorry, MCP,
have the protocol is specified.
Do you have a method?
Yeah, okay.
Everything is an MCP tool, so it's all the same kind.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And they are using a pattern that is carried reflection.
So they have this method that is called list tools.
Watch out, we're getting rolled over.
So they have this method that is carried...
You would think you're safe in the park, but no?
No, no, no, it's like, it's basically...
You can't get hit by a track in any moment.
But yeah, I mean, MCP have this reflection pattern,
which means that you have a method that is carried list tools,
and when you do list tools, you are going to get all the schema
that you need to build your request.
So you don't need a previously schema,
or previously shared schema or something like that.
You have a reflection, which means that the schema is part of the response.
Exactly.
Like you get...
So you don't need to redefine the schema.
Exactly.
You get the schema of the inputs, and the output is also standardized.
So you get what you need to make the request,
and to understand what you expect from it.
So that makes that every tool can fit in the same can,
because beforehand you can understand how to input the data,
or how to build the request.
Yeah, I see, I see.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Both things are very new, but TVMs predate MCP tools.
And so we didn't know of a way to have like a general purpose.
DVM that does all the things using LLMs, basically using MCP.
So now we have that that makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, but I also think that there are a space for predifying kin.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, not all...
Absolutely, because you...
I mean, if you want to add a watermark to an image or whatever,
you're not going to use an LLM.
You're going to use image magic.
Yeah.
Or like for some trends, you know, like transcoding or whatever,
like converting one file type to another one,
you're going to use FFmpeg or what have you.
Yeah, those kind of things.
It's, I mean, again, like with MCP tools,
it's still, there's this layer in between where you have the natural language,
adapter, so to speak, for these tools.
But it's not always needed.
Like, I mean, I think a lot of DVM,
I mean, the main idea of DVM supposed to actually be like a vending machine.
Like if it's something that's very, very stupid.
Take a coin, give me something.
And I think we, you know, regular super-stupid vending machines
are still extremely useful.
Yeah.
And yeah, I think we'll just have a pause.
Yeah, definitely.
But something to reflect about this is that, you know,
it's virtually impossible that you can come up with an integer for every job request,
because the job request can be so customized and so personalized.
Like how the fact you define, I don't know,
a kind for a specific job that I have.
I mean, we had this problem already with ports, you know, like with the port system,
where you have some numbers that are reserved.
But if you build a new application,
you need to come up with a new port number if it's network.
Yeah.
And then you're just like, you know, there is many integers,
but that doesn't make it less messy.
It's like they are, they are infinite integers.
But they are also an infinite amount of possibilities.
So there is more infinite real numbers.
Did you know that?
Oh, yeah.
Because they can't be negative.
Fucking set theory.
Great.
Oh, mathematicians are so smart.
Oh, there's like 10 different kinds of infinity.
The one infinity is bigger than the other infinity.
Oh, well, anyway, it's a ball.
Yeah, no, I think cleaning that up would make a lot of sense.
And then I think it's just about building the tools
and make it really easy for other people to create the MCP tools, for example,
or also making it really easy to create custom DBMs.
Yeah.
No, I'm really glad also for the work that I'm doing in the MCP,
because I think that is the most, the easiest way to create a DBM out of a MCP tool,
that MCP is its own protocol.
So if you have a MCP server, you have a VBM.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And you don't need to write any line of code.
Yeah, yeah, basically.
Yeah.
And that makes the library that I'm writing, writing,
and the packages that I'm writing, so lightweight.
And so like a focus on the specific task of the communication,
and the city handling, handling different stuff in the DBM thing.
And I don't have to bloat my packages,
because I have to support this on the other thing.
Yeah.
I just support the DBMCP concept is that you have a client,
an MCP client that connects to the MCP server.
And you kind of grab that into a DBM,
which means that you are going to be listening to a relay
and reacting to some events that can come from that relay.
And you also can publish things on the relay.
So it's like a DBM wrapper for a DBMCP.
That make it so specific, you know,
so that I don't have to support any or the kinds of
every use case or one note.
Like at the MCP server,
have its own computation and do its own thing.
And the package that I'm building just do the rest.
That is the networking part or the handling part of the,
with no set.
Yeah.
No, awesome, awesome.
I think the most powerful thing,
what I saw in the last couple of weeks is,
again, I think it has to be really easy for someone to
publish their things to no stir.
So it can appear in the marketplaces
and the things we talked about.
And what makes it so powerful is that
like people can just pick it up and use it immediately
if they want to.
Yeah.
And we saw this in some of the demos,
where just, you know,
some of the, again, coming back to some of the things
that Pablo has been working on where,
you know, to try to vibe code and app, basically.
And it fails because the agent is confused.
And someone else publishes a code snippet or a specific MCP tool.
And without doing anything,
the agent kind of tries again and it fixes itself.
Because now it has the more power,
the more knowledge.
Nice.
I think that is so cool.
I think it's so powerful because also
kind of allow everyone to expose their computational resources
or assets like you have,
we can, as we were talking before,
we can take the IP address that you have as an asset, you know.
Yeah.
You are a person that uses BPN, BPS.
Yeah, BPN, in fact.
You don't, you cannot watch YouTube anymore
in a good way.
But maybe I'm a person that I have a IP address
from ISP.
And I don't care about BPN,
so I can connect to YouTube,
it's a one-out-rate limit.
So I can create a DBNCP or a NCP tool
that dole lots things from YouTube
and put it on blossom, for example.
And I can do that with any restriction
and sell that as a kind of assets.
Yeah.
We saw with one of the experiments that
B actually built it from Ziggyt,
where you can do it for
like any kind of HTTP request,
which was super interesting.
Yeah.
Where it's just, you know,
like I'm willing to execute
the your HTTP request for you
using my IP, basically.
And I'll give you back the result and so on.
And I mean, I think we'll see all of that.
If this type of experimentation continues,
we saw also the atomic swaps, for example,
with the snorvers, the answers and so on.
That's great.
Yeah, great name.
Ask.
Ask protocols.
And you could use that to, again,
like execute all of that atomically.
Yeah.
It's basically, at the same time,
you get back the result and receive the payment.
Yeah.
And like I only pay you if I actually
can make sure that I get the correct result
and those kinds of things.
So yeah, I mean, it opens up a whole new area
of possibilities.
Yeah.
It's very, it's quite simple.
Building blocks, basically, in some sense.
That's a beautiful part, yeah.
I mean, well, that's simple.
It's at least it's very, it's,
I think it's very understandable.
Yeah.
It's like once you, once you grab.
A broad table.
Yeah.
There's no hidden source in, like,
snoring signatures or whatever.
Like you can actually look at it and understand it and so on.
And again, like coming back to the
permissionless nature of it all.
You can just use it and run with it and
build stuff on top of it.
So I know it's bound to happen.
And I think that these are the building blocks
that really make us closer to this level of collaboration
that really make us free.
Because if we can collaborate at these levels.
Yeah.
More market-based, less silo-based.
There is nothing that can stop us.
I can, nothing can stop me to,
to sell my IP for, to someone if it needs.
And I can also benefit from that.
Very simple things like, again,
selling your idle CPU or GPU power.
Yeah.
If someone wants to, you know, train models
to do whatever and those kind of things.
Yeah.
Like, I mean, those are all very old ideas.
Like, city at home, those kind of things.
They don't have that protein folding,
like, had a big boost with that and so on.
Yeah.
But it's all, it's all like,
you actually as an, it's not really a marketplace.
It's like very, very big companies,
very big institutions doing that and trying to get everyone aboard.
But I think once you flip it to a marketplace kind of scenario,
the very interesting things are going to happen.
I think we'll have a lot of innovation,
a lot of good stuff come from that again.
Like, coming back to the previous example of like,
browser extensions and so on.
It's like, basically, yeah.
All my, the browsers that I use,
they're just, they're kind of like a compilation
of extensions in some sense.
It's like, if I can't install my like,
six, seven favorite extensions,
I don't even want to use the browser because it's useless to me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, I'm, I'm at least going to need an ostracina, you know,
in my browser.
If I can't install that, I can't use the browser for anything.
Yeah.
That's the thing that it's worth.
And I think that this is because we now kind of have the right building blocks,
as you were saying.
And these ideas are not new, as you were saying.
But the building blocks that we have now,
yes, they are new.
And they have a lot of potential.
Definitely.
And we have existing infrastructure to plug in.
Yeah, we have Bitcoin.
We have no start.
We have those things.
Exactly.
And you can just, should we cross over to the other park?
Let's go.
Do one more, one more circle and, and, and with maybe not another coffee,
or there will be a third cutout,
but then a nice orange juice or something.
Yeah, I don't just, it's nice.
Ah, wow.
This bag is very beautiful to you.
Oh, yeah, I just, no, it's all very pretty.
And now, now it's officially spring, I think, more or less.
This weather is beautiful.
Yeah, it's great.
We're not like shit weather in comparison.
It's comfortable.
You stop the angles when the weather gets better.
It was because of all the nerds.
The nerds brought the bad weather.
What do you think of the last six weeks?
What did you get out of it?
I enjoyed so much.
I mean, you're a veteran already.
For me, it was very, it was the most enjoyable cohort,
I think, this time around, because,
no, but I did the least.
Yeah.
I did nothing but vibe code.
That's great.
But I think that was super, super intense.
And part of the intensity was,
because now we have these new tools
that makes everything faster and drier and better cheaper.
Yeah.
So you can do way more,
with way less, in some sense.
Which means that even if the effort that you have to put
into make the things is less, the mental effort is still
the same level or more,
because you have to think faster,
to resolve the issues faster and so on.
So that makes everything super intense.
Yeah.
You don't have one project anymore.
You have like 15 vibe code and projects.
And that is another question to answer.
Yeah.
But that's the thing.
Coming back to your point about the philosophy
becoming more important.
And we touched on this in past conversation as well.
But it's like, if you can't build anything,
basically, the question of what to build
and why it becomes way more important.
Definitely.
Yeah.
It's like what you can build.
Absolutely.
And let's say this stuff works perfectly
and you can vibe code anything into existence,
basically almost in an instant for free.
What do you do?
Like, why are you actually building the thing that you?
That's a question.
That's the right question, I think.
Because if, yeah, when you have a magic machine
that do everything for you,
now you have to choose what to do.
I'm going to do a good one.
Hey, guys.
And the Austrians, by the way,
figured this out, the Austrian economists,
is like, I don't remember the author anymore.
But time, the ultimate resource,
because they figured out that like,
even if such a thing would exist hypothetically,
you still have time constraints.
Yeah.
You still have to spend your time and attention on the things.
And so that's basically, you know,
that was the rebuttal to the Star Trek universe.
What if we have free energy and replicators?
Everyone has free energy.
Everyone has a replicator.
You still have to answer the question,
what to replicate.
Yeah.
And that's a philosophical question.
Yeah.
And it relates to values,
and what kind of values you have,
and what you actually care about.
Yeah.
And you can't automate that away.
So that's kind of, that's, yeah.
That's what we will have to focus on now in some sense.
I mean, you always have to focus on that,
but now it's even more pronounced, I feel like.
Yeah.
You know, the perfect sentence for this is,
a great power comes with a great responsibility.
Yeah.
Exactly.
It's quite a man.
Right.
The Uncle Ben.
The legendary one.
Uncle Ben.
Yeah, it's still totally true.
Like, oh, absolutely.
Like, and now you have these
so powerful tools that they're crazy, man.
Like, we were talking about the instant communication,
that is something that I answered.
But now we have this technology that is
fucking crazy, what you can do.
Instant Russian development team in your pocket.
Yeah.
That's, it's fucking in the imaginary world.
But now what?
Now what?
Now you have to answer this question of what?
What are you going to vibe code today?
Yeah.
Right.
That's right.
And wing.
All right.
Let's maybe stay at this side.
There's like a chainsaw on the other side.
So let's not.
All right.
Let's not.
Let's maybe stay away from the chainsaw.
The rest of the whole.
I was like, oh, let's walk the parks.
It's going to be nice and quiet and so on.
The one park you got rolled over by a truck
gave the second park there's a chainsaw.
Oh, well.
City sounds.
That's how it goes.
But I think that we touched some interesting points
and very important points.
Because we are going to have to answer all of this
in the next years.
Oh, absolutely.
And start to think about that.
To make us more prepared for all of that.
Because it's not something like a weekend avoid.
We can't avoid it.
No, you can't run away from this.
No, it's going to it's going to touch your life in one way or another.
And you're going to have to put yourself into the light and answer that.
Even though we like ostriches,
putting your head into the sand is not going to be the best strategy going forward.
That can work for 50 years or something like that, but not forever.
And now we are reaching the point of that is critical, you know.
And I think that there is, we,
like right now the penetration of this technology is not
the total penetration that we are going to see of this technology.
And like big companies are going to be about the neck.
And what I mean with this is that when everyone,
like this technology gets really democratized.
And every company and every business or as little as they are.
They are going to need this technology to to operate.
You know, they're not going to be a node offered,
enough offer to to supply the demand.
Because because these big providers are going to be a bottleneck.
I mean, now everything is like, you know, heavily VC funded.
Oh yeah, VC subsidized.
You see this clearly if you like the difference between the difference in cost
and use the cost between using cursor and using root code is massive.
So yeah, no, I agree.
I mean, I think it will also get cheaper with technological progress and so on.
But I think that the technical part is not just the only bottleneck.
Oh, absolutely.
The regulatory parts is also a big bottleneck.
Like a, what define an Iranian guy that runs to access.
We saw it already with Google, right?
Like it's a bottleneck for search.
Like again, Google defines what the truth is from the point of view of Google.
What are you allowed to find?
What are you allowed to search for?
All those kinds of things.
And if the political climate gets weird enough,
then it's just like stuff will just fucking not show up and disappear.
And all those kinds of things.
And it was a very simple thing in terms of,
basically, I mean, Google is not a simple thing anymore.
But when compared to LLMs, basically like plain text search in some sense.
Yeah.
And LLMs, it's like, you know, what are the LLMs allowed to think in some sense?
Yeah.
That's going to be the question.
Yeah.
So I agree.
It is like every central four spy definition is a bottleneck.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Every central thing is a bottleneck by definition.
So that's true.
That's true.
And I learned anything that the role of us, like people that develops over open standards
and try to understand and realize what is this new technology
and how that can be applied to our lives and how they can be deployed
in a way that makes sense, it's so important.
And it's going to be so important in the future.
Because when you have the 80% of businesses wanting to use this technology
to operate and to create their business plans
or their marketing plans or campaigns or anything,
or they want to outsource part of the workload into this business thing,
okay, it's going to be a lot of a big bottleneck because this, you know,
because not everyone is going to be able to access the infrastructure
because they are not enough infrastructure or because they're regularly part.
And the Aurora is going to be crucial.
They got the role of open source and people that's...
The open models, open systems, all those things are going to be very important.
I think that's one thing that the 2027 article got right.
Like they are predicting an almost like an ideological arms race in some sense,
I would say.
I mean, they phrase it as like a technological political one,
but it's like basically whoever controls the models controls the future kind of scenario.
And it's like US versus China, you know.
And it's already clear now that, you know, like US models have...
I mean, that's a gross over generalization,
but let's say US models have Western values imbued,
and Chinese models have the values of the Communist Party.
Embedded.
And it's basically if you want to, you know, move the needle in terms of
the ideological stance of the world, it's like,
if your model is the default model, then you can really move the needle.
Oh, yeah.
And they predicted that this is going to play out over the next couple of years.
And I do agree with that.
Like I think this is already happening and this is going to happen.
To your case, you know, like if you have an idea for a new business or what have you
and you prompt the LLM to help you set it up and all those kind of things.
Like if it's the CCP model, then it's going to be a slightly different business
than if it's another model and so on.
So I think all of that is already happening.
So it's just like, I think that, yeah, I don't,
I'm not sure what to make of all of it.
You know, I'm very close to just moving to, I don't know,
to a mountain hut or to a cave or something, just touching grass forever.
Yeah, not touching a keyboard anymore.
I mean, that's why I like, I move away from keyboards now and just speak into microphones.
That's a step forward.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's a one step away from technology.
But in all seriousness, like what me,
what was most fascinating to me the last couple of weeks,
like really exploring all that,
or yeah, the last two, three months now or so,
is how, how dialogical everything with LLM is.
Like you really enter into a dialogue with the technology itself.
Like you, the natural language interface is just like a constant back and forth
prompting and reading and correcting.
And you are actually in the dialogue,
like if you're, like, it doesn't matter if you're using cursor or a rule or what have you,
you're in a constant dialogue with your IDE, for example.
Yeah.
And that is very strange and it is very new in some sense.
It is very, very different.
And that's also what I liked about, you know,
like kind of us exploring all that together,
because it was kind of the constant dialogue about all those things
and all the topics you touched on as well.
And kind of, I think that's the only thing we have to navigate anything.
It's like constant dialogue and different constant exploration.
Yeah.
And I think that also works to spur the overlap between, you know,
the natural language that we use right now to communicate.
And the natural language that we use to prompt.
There is a big overlap between these two topics.
And I think we were talking about that the other day,
but I noticed that by prompting LLMs,
I'm being very clear and consistent.
I'm thinking something.
Yeah, yeah.
And to put my ideas in order in the way that makes sense for a standard system,
that is kind of neutral.
It kind of helped me to formulate things in order to express it to other people and so on.
And there is something very interesting to spur,
like the overlap between the natural language interface.
Definitely, we are into something here because
the natural language interface is something that's going to prevail in the time.
Oh, yeah.
It's going to be like the same that from toes keyboards to, sorry,
to physical keyboards, to toes screens, you know.
It's going to be the same.
You had at the beginning one interface with physical keys that you have to,
I prefer that to be honest, but then we have the toes screens that are more intuitive than you can.
No, it's a massive, massive evolution in terms of interfaces.
It's also, I like what I don't remember now who said it.
Maybe it was hazard, kind of the next evolutionary step in terms of how we went from,
you know, like, assembly to higher level languages.
And now we're going, like, higher level languages, like C.
And now we're going from high level languages to natural language,
which is natural language and natural concepts, basically,
which is, of course, a layer above and then it gets translated to, you know,
like, TypeScript, most likely.
Some form of JavaScript.
Like, if you don't define the language, it will just default to JavaScript.
It's really funny.
It's just like, okay, everything I read, like, 90% of the code I read is JavaScript.
So I'm just going to use JavaScript.
Humans really like JavaScript.
That's basically what they are thinking.
Oh my God, I hate JavaScript.
The JavaScript was make for humans.
Anyway, now that I don't have to write or read it anymore, I can just vibe it.
I like JavaScript now.
It's okay.
I mean, we should change our natural language and use speaking HTML, CSS,
and JavaScript.
Yeah, exactly.
It would be a much better structure than me.
Yeah, that would work perfectly well.
Marka, let's see.
What do you say?
Choose?
Yes.
I'm pretty cooked.
Yeah.
All right.
Any final words?
Last words.
Any last words before Skynet takes over?
And we're all going to make it?
We're all going to make it?
That's fantastic.
Those are great final words.
Let's see if we're still recording.
Oh, yeah, we're lucky.
Nice.