Foreword: I’ve relied heavily on Claude since the end of October, but I still feel today that I may have still underestimated LLM, and I may have asked too many of my own questions before, but LLM can actually help me delve into a lot of areas and details.
For example, you will usually come across a large number of articles and ideas, such as public numbers, which you may have previously just read on your own, with your own level of understanding, and that’s it. It’s hard to have an article that can cause a wide-ranging discussion, and then our thinking may end there. But now there’s Claude, who can analyze every detail of an article, every point of view, and in this way allow yourself to delve into any branch of any industry, in any field.
Now that there’s a sea of articles out there, there’s no scarcity of articles or written content at all. Using Claude as a thinking partner.Our minds may be able to expand indefinitely.
Here’s an example of a new article by Ms. Zhang Xiao-jun.Conversation with Ether Vitalik: The world shouldn’t fall into a kingdom of power where AI has only one hand., try to go into the details with Claude:
Cao Yihan:As a basic principle of this dialog, please:
- Breaking out of common tendencies:
- Don’t mix multiple viewpoints to find balance
- If you’re inclined to give a middle-of-the-road answer, force yourself to think of another counter-intuitive but well-reasoned point of view
- Avoid vague terms such as “may”, “might”, “perhaps”, etc., unless there is a genuine need to express uncertainty.
- Expression requirements:
- Use concrete examples or data, not abstract descriptions
- If you find yourself using boilerplate language, immediately change your expression
- Clearly identify the most controversial or potentially wrong parts of your argument
- Labeled confidence level
- Limitations and prohibitions:
- Prohibit the deliberate weakening of strong points in order to appear objective
- Prohibit the use of repetitive fixed phrases and structures, such as “on the one hand … on the other hand”.
- Don’t summarize what’s been said unless asked
**Analyze this oneArticle**
Claude：I’m going to analyze this in-depth conversation article from several core perspectives. Here are my key insights (with 90% confidence):
- Fundamental Oppositions in the Philosophy of Technology
The most thought-provoking aspect of this interview is Buterin’s articulation of the philosophical conflict between AI and Crypto. He makes the poignant point that AI and Crypto represent two completely opposite paths of technological development (with 95% confidence):
- AI towards centralized power concentration: the more data and arithmetic are centralized, the more powerful AI will be
- Crypto Pursues Decentralized Decentralization: Power Spread Across the Globe, Especially Good for the Edge
The dichotomy is not a superficial technological difference, but a deep clash of values. ai represents technocracy in the pursuit of efficiency and power, while Crypto represents decentralization in the pursuit of fairness and freedom.
- sense of crisis for the future
The article reveals Buterin’s deep concerns about AI development (85% confidence level):
“If your AI has no privacy, you as a person have no privacy at all, including no privacy of your thoughts. If it’s centralized, that means that a big company can read your mind – and that’s dangerous.”
This concern is not an empty one. As AI interacts more and more with humans, without decentralized protection mechanisms in place, humans may face unprecedented threats to their privacy and freedom.
- Solution Vision
Most interesting is the future scenario proposed by Buterin (80% confidence):
He believes that the best way for humans to coexist with AI is not confrontation, but integration – but this integration must be based on decentralization. He proposes the idea of “Crypto + Decentralized AI” or “Crypto + Deep Human-Computer Connectivity”, which seeks to achieve symbiosis with AI while maintaining human autonomy.
- Reflections of personal attributes
The article shows Buterin’s unique character through details (90% confidence level):
- Lives a simple life (doesn’t fly on private jets, prefers to take the subway)
- Stay rational (indifferent to wealth, focused on technical ideals)
- Standing on Principle (Criticizing OpenAI’s Shift from Open Source to Closed)
These qualities are highly consistent with his advocacy of decentralization, demonstrating the unity of his thoughts and actions.
The most controversial view:
I think the most controversial part of the article is Buterin’s judgment that “AI is in Crypto’s game” rather than “Crypto is in AI’s game”. This suggests that he may be underestimating the potential of AI to reshape the entire technology architecture.
The unique value of this interview lies in the fact that instead of simply discussing technological development, it delves into the power structure behind technology and the question of human destiny. This level of discussion is relatively rare in current technology coverage.
Cao Yihan: please critique this article
Claude: I criticize from the following perspectives (with 85% confidence):
- The Blind Spot of Idealism
Buterin’s vision of decentralization has a clear idealistic bias:
- He overemphasizes the moral superiority of decentralization, but avoids its advantages in efficiency and speed of development
- He repeatedly emphasizes “fairness” and “trust” but does not explain why decentralization necessarily brings these values
- When asked “why there is no practical application of Web3 for so many years”, he put the blame on the immaturity of the technology, which is a kind of technological determinism and simplistic thinking.
- One-sided understanding of AI (90% confidence level)
His assertion that AI is described as a force that is inevitably moving towards centrality is biased:
“People involved in AI are particularly concerned about human technological development and want to accelerate the transformation of humanity into a trans-planetary civilization and make humanity more POWERFUL”
This generalization is oversimplified and overlooked:
- The Thriving Open Source AI Community
- Edge Computing in AI
- Advances in decentralized AI technologies such as federal learning
- Logical contradiction (85% confidence level)
There are several glaring logical inconsistencies in the article:
- On the one hand, it says that AI will lead to serious privacy issues, while on the other hand, it proposes to involve AI in the Crypto ecosystem
- Criticizes OpenAI’s centralized tendencies, but also admits to using ChatGPT himself
- The importance of decentralization is emphasized, but Ether itself forms a new centralized power structure
- Reality dilemma avoidance (95% confidence level)
Buterin’s response was evasive and vague on several core issues:
- No positive response to serious speculation in the Crypto space
- Lack of a strong rebuttal to the skepticism that “cryptocurrencies are better suited where trust is lacking”
- No specific solution is given on how to resolve the fundamental contradiction between decentralization and efficiency
- Limitations of the interview method (80% confidence level)
There are also obvious problems with the interview itself:
- Questioners not challenging Buterin’s views enough
- Excessive focus on the details of personal life (e.g., cat-patterned bags) dilutes the discussion of the nature of technology
- Failure to pursue some key points of conflict in depth
The most controversial criticism:
I think the Crypto idealism represented by Buterin may be holding back truly valuable innovation. An overemphasis on decentralization may be causing us to miss the really important opportunity of the AI era – namely, how to find a balance between efficiency and freedom.
This criticism may be controversial because it challenges the core beliefs of the Crypto community. But without confronting these issues head-on, Crypto may remain stuck in the air of idealism without truly changing the world.
Potential bias in this analysis:
I may have overemphasized the position of realism and underestimated the role of idealism in driving technological change. History has shown that some seemingly unrealistic ideals can ultimately lead to revolutionary change.
Cao Yihan:
- Then please tell us why there has been no practical application of Web3 for so many years?
- Please tell us what you think about Vitalik Buterin. Be as objective as possible and say both positive and negative.
Claude：I’ll answer in two parts:
- Deeper reasons for the lack of practical application of Web3 (confidence level 85%):
The technical aspects are only scratching the surface of the root cause:
A. Solutions are looking for problems (90% confidence)
- The “trust” problem that Web3 tries to solve is not urgent in most developed countries and mainstream scenarios.
- The additional costs associated with decentralization far outweigh the benefits it brings in these scenarios
- Users don’t really care about “decentralization”, they care about convenience and utility value!
B. Narrative-reality disconnect (85% confidence level)
- The Web3 community is overly focused on idealistic visions rather than solving specific problems
- Significant resources are devoted to token economics design rather than improving the user experience
- The “tokenize everything” mindset limits the space for innovation
C. False incentives (95% confidence level)
- Speculative returns are much higher than actual application returns, leading to misallocation of resources
- Short-term speculators dominate the ecosystem, squeezing out true innovators
- Project owners focus more on token price than product value
- Rating for Vitalik Buterin (80% confidence level):
Pros:
- Technological foresight: saw the potential of smart contracts early on (95% confidence level)
- Staying true to one’s roots: maintaining a simple life and technological ideals even after getting rich (90% confidence level)
- Depth of thought: ability to think at multiple technical, philosophical, and social levels (85% confidence level)
- Behavioral congruence: a high degree of consistency between an individual’s behavior and the values he or she promotes (90% confidence level)
Drawbacks:
- Over-idealism: underestimates the complexity of the real world (85% confidence level)
- Technology bias: overconfidence that technological solutions can solve social problems (80% confidence level)
- Communication limitations: jumpy thinking, sometimes difficulty expressing complex ideas clearly (75% confidence level)
- Hesitation in decision-making: may overthink some key issues and miss the best opportunity (70% confidence level)
Most controversial review:
I think Buterin may be a great thinker, but not necessarily a great leader. His idealism and deep thinking are valuable for pioneering work, but can be a hindrance when it comes to driving practical applications to the ground.
Potential bias:
This assessment may overemphasize the importance of pragmatism and underestimate the value of vision and persistence. In the early stages of new technologies, seemingly impractical idealists may be precisely what is needed most.
Cao Yihan:
- So why is there a serious speculation problem in the Crypto space?
- When you say “Crypto idealism may be holding back truly valuable innovation”, does that mean that we should place less emphasis on “decentralization”? Where is the real valuable innovation?
- Why does Crypto stay in the air of idealism and not really change the world?
Claude：
Let me analyze them in depth one by one:
- The root cause of the speculation problem in the Crypto space (90% confidence level):
A. Institutional causes
- 24/7 Trading + Global Liquidity + High Leverage = Perfect Hotbed of Speculation
- Lack of effective regulation makes the cost of market manipulation extremely low
- Token issuance mechanism encourages early speculation, not long-term holding
B. Economic motivation (95% confidence level)
- Speculative gains far outweigh the value created by practical applications
- “Next Bitcoin” Psychological Expectations Drive Frenzied Speculation
- Founding teams often hold large amounts of tokens, causing them to focus more on the coin price than the product
C. Ecosystem deficiencies (85% confidence level)
- Lack of value anchoring, driven purely by supply and demand and expectations
- Scarcity of real applications, making speculation the only “use”
- Community culture fosters a “make a killing” mentality
- On decentralization and innovation (85% confidence):
Rather than reducing the emphasis on decentralization, it needs to be redefined. The truly valuable direction of innovation lies:
A. Hybrid solutions (90% confidence level)
- Maintain decentralization at key nodes (e.g., data ownership)
- Allow moderate centralization at non-critical points to enhance efficiency
- Dynamically adjust the degree of centrality according to specific scenarios
B. Practical problem orientation (85% confidence level)
- Start with user pain points, not ideas
- Focus on the specific value that decentralization brings to specific scenarios
- Establish clear measures of value
C. Novel application scenarios (80% confidence level)
- AI+Crypto co-innovation (e.g. decentralized data marketplaces)
- Digital identity and reputation systems
- Cross-border payments and financial inclusion
- Crypto is stuck in idealism for a reason (90% confidence level):
A. Structural barriers
- Disconnect between the technology community and real-world needs
- Lack of in-depth understanding of traditional industries
- Overemphasizing technological revolution and neglecting incremental innovation
B. Ecosystem issues (95% confidence level)
- Dominated by speculative capital, squeezing the space for real innovation
- Distortion of project evaluation criteria (token price > real value)
- Brain drain (the best talent tends to leave when the currency price goes up)
C. Strategic errors (85% confidence level)
- Overemphasizing subversion over complementarity
- Neglect of user education and incremental adoption
- Failure to establish an effective value capture model
The most controversial view:
I think Crypto’s biggest problem is not technology or regulation, but the mindset of its core community. They see decentralization as an end rather than a means, and this inversion is a serious impediment to true innovation.
Required shift (80% confidence level):
- From “changing the world” to “solving problems”
- From “fully decentralized” to “moderately decentralized”
- From “disrupting existing systems” to “enhancing existing systems”
Potential bias:
This analysis may overemphasize the pragmatic perspective and overlook the importance of idealism in driving long-term change. In addition, I may have underestimated the problems of existing centralized systems and the potential for decentralized solutions.
Cao Yihan:
- Is AI+Crypto really promising? Or is it a kind of new age hype?
- You say “Crypto is stuck in idealism because it lacks a deep understanding of traditional industries”, why do you need a deep understanding of traditional industries?
- You don’t think “decentralization” should be the core idea of the Crypto industry, so what should be the core idea?
Claude：
Let me analyze them in depth, one by one:
- Substantive analysis of AI+Crypto (85% confidence):
A. Truly valuable bonding:
- Data marketization: pricing and trading of data using smart contracts (90% confidence)
- Decentralization of AI training: breaking the monopoly of a few giants on computing power and data (85% confidence)
- Model governance: managing the direction of AI models through DAOs (75% confidence level)
B. Direction of pure speculation:
- Simply add tokens to AI projects (with 95% confidence)
- So-called “AI-driven transactions” (90% confidence level)
- Concept of “AI+Web3” without practical application scenarios (85% confidence level)
Key judgment: the value of AI+Crypto lies in solving practical problems in the development of AI (data ownership, arithmetic allocation, governance mechanisms) rather than simple technology stacking.
- Why you need to understand traditional industries (90% confidence level):
A. The nature of value creation
- Real value comes from solving real problems, not the technology itself
- Most of the real problems exist in traditional industries
- Understanding industry pain points to design effective solutions
B. Lessons from failure (95% confidence level)
- Most failed blockchain projects are due to a lack of understanding of the actual needs of the industry
- Blind “uplinking” leads to higher costs and lower value
- Ignoring the rationale in traditional solutions
C. Adoption of pathways (85 per cent confidence level)
- Traditional industries hold major users and resources
- Successful innovations tend to be incremental, not disruptive
- Need to understand existing systems to design a viable transition program
- What should be Crypto’s core philosophy (80% confidence level):
A. It should be: Value Internet (Value Internet)
- Ability to credibly communicate and validate value
- Reducing the frictional costs of value exchange
- Programmability of value realization
My reasoning:
- “Decentralization” as a means, not an end
- The real goal is to create a more efficient value exchange system
- This positioning can accommodate more practical application scenarios
B. The transformation this implies:
- From a focus on technology to a focus on applications (90% confidence level)
- From pursuing full decentralization to pursuing moderate decentralization (85% confidence)
- From confronting existing systems to enhancing them (80% confidence level)
The most controversial view:
I think the greatest value of blockchain technology lies not in creating a parallel economic system, but in optimizing the existing system of value exchange. This might be seen as a betrayal of the original blockchain vision.
Potential Risks:
- Being overly pragmatic may lose the breakthrough of technological innovation
- Compromising with the existing system may weaken the force of change
- May miss some truly disruptive opportunities
Strategic recommendations:
- Focus on specific value creation scenarios
- Establish clear criteria for assessing value
- Cultivating multi-disciplinary talents
- Modeling a More Pragmatic Token Economy
The biggest challenge with this idea is how to remain innovative without losing the unique value proposition of blockchain technology. This requires finding a balance between idealism and pragmatism.