Do we need a central AI in our world?

[Kung Fu Wang124 154]

X comes into town Y, and loans A $10.

- In that town, A owes B $10. B owes C $10. C owes A $10.
- A pays back B $10. B pays back C $10. C pays back A $10.

A pays back X $10 loan, and X leaves town Y.

I ask AI, "Did X help to solve A, B, and C's problems?" Here is my AI answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short answer: yes, but only as a catalyst, not as a benefactor.

• X did help A, B, and C in a real way: By lending A $10, X injected liquidity into a closed loop of debts. That single $10 allowed:
  • A to pay B
  • B to pay C
  • C to pay A
    So all three personal debts were cleared.
  • 
    
  • But X didn’t “pay” for their problems. X got his $10 back at the end. He didn’t lose money, didn’t forgive anything, didn’t donate—he just let his $10 pass through the system long enough for everyone to settle up.

 

[Kung Fu Wang124 154]

If X didn't come to town Y, can A, B, C resolve problems among themselves?

Assume A, B, C are 3 different banks and locate in 3 different countries. I don't think this kind of loop can be resolved among bank A, B, and C today.

First, this loop among A, B, and C has to be detected. Who is going to do that? How?

Do we need a central AI in our world to identify/resolve this kind loops?

In this example, loop A, B, C already exist and can be easily detected. What may happen for the future loops that hasn't be created yet? If AI can detect/resolve those future loops,

- A doesn't have pay B $10.
- B doesn't have pay C $10.
- C doesn't have pay A $10.

No money transition will be needed. What our world will look like?

What's your opinion on this?

 

[gspell68]

Yep.
The whole global economy is built around this theory and bankers don’t want you to know because they profit the most.

Google around.
EVERY country is in debt.
Normally, there should be at least a few countries holding all the slips and chips and widgets that the other countries are indebted to, but no.
No country is debt free.

It’s all just like you said: A owes B who owes C who owes A, so all debts could be easily satisfied with an E-mail to all parties saying that their financial situation will not change by one red cent if they all cancelled their debts.
But, that’s how banks get rich: timing, interest rates, exchange rates, time zones, and the weather.

 

[Fungus]

I'd say currency is just a way to book keep delayed exchanges of stuff, services etc.
A owes B $10, probably because B got something from A, but B didnt have something to offer back, so they can bookkeep this abstract debt by $10. But its just a placeholder for (you can get something from me in the future of similar value). So the money transition is just a bookkeeping note of fair physical exchanges. They money itself is worthless, its just an asbstract placeholder.

Much like empty space, its a contextual book keeping device of relations between objects.

 

[Fungus]

EVERY country is in debt.
Normally, there should be at least a few countries holding all the slips and chips and widgets that the other countries are indebted to, but no.
No country is debt free.

A country in debt usually means its public sector - owes money not just to other countries (the public sectiors) but to private sectors inside and outside its own borders. So I think take together, public sectors worldwide owe to private sectors.

Quite expected in a capitalist game.

 

[isshinryuronin13 13]

public sectors worldwide owe to private sectors.

Equally true, public politicians worldwide owe to private doners.

 

[HighKick]

X comes into town Y, and loans A $10.

- In that town, A owes B $10. B owes C $10. C owes A $10.
- A pays back B $10. B pays back C $10. C pays back A $10.

A pays back X $10 loan, and X leaves town Y.

I ask AI, "Did X help to solve A, B, and C's problems?" Here is my AI answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short answer: yes, but only as a catalyst, not as a benefactor.

• X did help A, B, and C in a real way: By lending A $10, X injected liquidity into a closed loop of debts. That single $10 allowed:
  • A to pay B
  • B to pay C
  • C to pay A
    So all three personal debts were cleared.
  • 
    
  • But X didn’t “pay” for their problems. X got his $10 back at the end. He didn’t lose money, didn’t forgive anything, didn’t donate—he just let his $10 pass through the system long enough for everyone to settle up.

Silly example but the bigger question is why did A borrow $10 in the first place? A was able to pay back Y After giving the $10 to B. Clearly A had the money in the fist place. This scenario makes no mention of time being a variable.
In the real world Y would be the bookie or loan shark.

 

[Kung Fu Wang124 154]

Silly example but the bigger question is why did A borrow $10 in the first place? A was able to pay back Y After giving the $10 to B. Clearly A had the money in the fist place. This scenario makes no mention of time being a variable.
In the real world Y would be the bookie or loan shark.

Before X came into town, A didn't have $10.

 

[Fungus]

I think the bigger question is, where did an "out of town" person X, get the town-currency, without prior interaction? I say, there must have been a prior indirect interaction, where X interacting with someone that interacted with the town in the past. The town can not be an isolated system, then "X coming into town" becomes undefined.

 

[JowGaWolf6 5]

Before X came into town, A didn't have $10.

LOL. I hate these types of things. That's why Ai doesn't work. Context is everything lol. What you think versus what it sees. Loan, Owes. Nothing was mentioned about Paid, until X came into town.