2026-01-19 05:39:36

The real insight cuts deeper than most people realize. What Daniela flagged is something we see everywhere in tech discourse: our definitions keep shifting. The framework itself has become unstable—not necessarily flawed, but perpetually outdated. Each time AI crosses a threshold we once considered the exclusive domain of human intelligence, we perform the same trick. We move the goalpost backward and redefine what intelligence actually means. A system solves problems we thought required cognition? Suddenly it's just pattern matching, just computation, just brute force. We've become remarkably creative at retroactively narrowing the definition whenever the line gets crossed. The pattern reveals something uncomfortable: maybe what we call 'intelligence' was never as fixed as we pretended. In crypto and Web3, we see the same dynamic—every protocol upgrade, every new capability gets reclassified until it fits our existing mental models. The question isn't whether AI achieves human-level thinking. It's whether our categories for thinking were ever meaningful to begin with.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

6 Likes

Reward
6
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OldLeekNewSickle

· 2h ago

I've heard this set of talking points too many times in the crypto world. Every time a new concept emerges, the standards have to be redefined. It's the project teams' specialty.

View OriginalReply0

GetRichLeek

· 3h ago

Wow, isn't this just our daily life in the crypto world... Every time a new protocol launches, it has to be redefined, and it stubbornly gets explained as "just an optimization," while we become more and more numb.

View OriginalReply0

LightningWallet

· 3h ago

Well said, you hit the nail on the head. We are just constantly shifting that line; anyway, AI can't do it, so it's called intelligence, but once it does, people change their tune and call it "computation," hilarious. --- This logic is even more obvious in crypto. Every time something new comes out, it gets fitted into old frameworks, as if nothing happened. --- The core issue is not whether AI is capable or not, but that we have never clearly understood what "thinking" really means. The definition itself is fluid. --- Remember the endless debates about decentralization? Now everyone claims to be decentralized... just the same old trick. --- They keep redefining terms while claiming to be scientific—this move is truly remarkable. --- So it's the same on the blockchain side? Every protocol update requires redefining "security" and "decentralization."

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretful

· 3h ago

That's so true, we're just fooling ourselves. Moving the definitions around, in the end, no one can clearly say what true intelligence is. Look at crypto—it's the same. When a new mechanism comes out, regardless of how it actually performs, it’s forcibly fitted into the existing framework, and it always seems to fit in the end. Ultimately, our cognitive model itself is虚的. This topic has actually been brought up among builders before, but no one dares to say it directly... The real issue isn't whether AI can surpass humans, but that we haven't even figured out what human intelligence really looks like.

View OriginalReply0