최신 암호화폐 뉴스 및 블록체인 업데이트 - 시장 트렌드 분석 | MyToken

market_cap

FGI:

cryptocurrencies

교환

ETH Gas

한국어

암호화폐 시장

미디어Agent 스킬

로그인

가입하기

거래소 Twitter

미디어 입력

@LowBeta See you there 🙂

Gold ETPs: 20+ years in the market. Bitcoin ETPs: only ~3 years in the market. On the Alt Funds Network Podcast, Krista Lynch, SVP of ETF Capital Markets at Grayscale, shares how digital asset ETPs have made allocating to assets like $BTC easier. https://t.co/Bwi925ypUY

@ScottPresler 🔥

@growing_daniel That’s cool

@Hypurr Did the team Hypurr was rooting for win?

@ethereum @RobinhoodApp @RobinhoodCrypto @arbitrum Ethereum is for shipping.

RT @leerob: Grok 4.5 is really good at React. It's also very affordable and token efficient! https://t.co/1Dg24rLsoW

@leerob:Grok 4.5 is really good at React. It's also very affordable and token efficient! https://t.co/1Dg24rLsoW

Grok for Excel is now live

@grok:Grok for Excel is live. Use Grok 4.5 to build financial models, analyze market data, and generate charts and graphs. Try it now https://t.co/DeIpX4KkvO https://t.co/0KkyRtOf1D

@HLglobal_ @HansonBirringer @Sterling_hl @xulian_hl Huge thanks to HL Global for putting on such a great event. We love hearing and meeting everyone from the Hyperliquid community.

RT @stevenmarkryan: • Starship To “Collapse Cost” of AI Compute & Global Communications https://t.co/flLUBFixnX

@stevenmarkryan:• Starship To “Collapse Cost” of AI Compute & Global Communications https://t.co/flLUBFixnX

RT @PeterDiamandis: Today is the 57th anniversary of Apollo 11 Moon Landing. In 1969: most powerful technology on Earth = Apollo 11. In 2026: most powerful technology on Earth = 2-trillion-parameter AI. Which one changes civilization more?

@PeterDiamandis:Today is the 57th anniversary of Apollo 11 Moon Landing. In 1969: most powerful technology on Earth = Apollo 11. In 2026: most powerful technology on Earth = 2-trillion-parameter AI. Which one changes civilization more?

@VitalikButerin

I'm pretty sure my arguments did not depend anywhere on intelligence being everything - in fact the opposite, the issue is about how capabilities are very multi-dimensional, but at the same time "multi-dimensional" does not mean "we're definitely guaranteed to hold on to some special snowflake capability that nothing else will be able to match".

@VitalikButerin

But here we get to the thing that will confound looking at human and machine as separate units: the possibility of deeper and deeper integration between human and machine. This is the strand of technology that includes: computers being able to work much more symbiotically with us, picking up on all kinds of conscious and sub-conscious signals we release as an interface, brain-computer interfaces, computer-assisted telepathy that helps multiple people better understand each other and work together. The ultimate end is erasing the binary divide between human and machine and opening up any position on that spectrum. On one end, you sitting at a laptop terminal; on the other end, mind uploading, and also everything in between. The hope is that deeply integrated human + machine will outperform separated human + machine, and that this will remain the case all the way up to the technological ceiling. This is the best "far-future AI outcome that I actually like" that I can come up with: *

@VitalikButerin

But AGI is not the same as ASI (artificial superintelligence). To see the difference, let us zoom into what things might look like one year before the singularity. We also need to add a third line to the chart: the centaur (human + machine). An analogy here is chess. Machine surpassed the average human in the late 1970s, and surpassed the top human (Kasparov) in 1997. But human + machine continued to beat machine alone all the way until around 2017. What did the twilight of human + machine in chess look like? Actually, it did look like humans being relegated to more and more "high-level strategic thinking" functions, while bots managed the move-by-move. Very similar to vibe coding in 2026. Before we get to a point where there are no areas where our input is economically helpful, we will be in a regime where there are only a few such areas. And because we humans are scarce, those few areas will become the global economy's bottleneck - they will be the only thing you can't optimize do

@VitalikButerin

What do the "last days of human dominance" look like? (This is assuming that a *permanent* global stop to AI development does not happen) First, recall my definition of AGI: AGI is AI that is powerful enough that if you were to upload it into robot bodies, and all humans suddenly disappeared, it would be able to independently continue civilization. Why this definition, and not something simpler like "AI that can do 90% of economic tasks at median human level"? Because I think this definition captures the core thing that makes AGI "not just a tool", that make it uniquely powerful and unsettling: In a "on-the-ground" near-term sense, it means that no specific single job is truly safe from automation. Some jobs might have temporary human advantage, but if they needed to, AIs could eventually figure their way around anything. But also in a more high-level megapolitical sense, once we have AGI, the fact that it's humans who are masters of the Earth, and not robots, becomes a mere hist

@VitalikButerin

In the previous wave (calculators and computers), many people thought "well if AI can solve hard things like 10x10 digit multiplication and quadratic equations so much better than humans can, then surely it will very soon also do easy things like telling a cat from a dog". As it turned out, they were wrong. This time, we're seeing the same argument replay - except this time there's much stronger arguments for the "LLMs plus a few more improvements can do everything" side, we just don't know yet if those arguments are strong enough that that will turn out to be true. I feel like the utopia that "AI acceleration optimists" have in mind comes from a position of confidence that, while current wave of LLMs + agents unlock many new capabilities, there is still a significant range of capabilities that will stubbornly resist them, just like happened with the industrial revolution, and then with calculators and computers. If this is true, then the next AI era will be amazing: every foot soldi

@VitalikButerin

Then, we had a series of three eras of advancement, in which machines rapidly gained areas of capabilities that far exceeded our own: * In the industrial revolution, mass manufacturing, or generally the ability to perform the exact same action millions of times * With calculators and computers, the ability to do mental tasks that can be defined via an analytic-philosophy-style logical definition (eg. computer code) * With LLMs, the ability to do mental tasks (and physical tasks, eg. already self-driving cars) that can be defined via a large set of examples But even after all three waves, at least today, there is still a large range of capabilities that remain unique to humans. A big question facing us is: is the LLM wave "the real deal", in the sense that, as they keep getting better, they will eventually cover either all missing capabilities, or at least enough capabilities that the rest can be worked around, or are LLMs simply a continuation of the same pattern, and it will take s

@VitalikButerin

Thread: how I think about the growth of AI capabilities and what it means for us as they keep getting stronger. I think the right model for comparing humans and AI is not any single dimension like intelligence or aggregate performance on economic tasks. Rather, I view both humans and machines as having a whole range of capabilities. This includes both physical (eg. doing things with our hands, walking) and mental (eg. strategic thinking, mental math, emotional intelligence). For most of human history, machines have only exceeded us in very few areas, eg. a strong early example is water and windmills. So we can look at the situation in 1500 like this:

@minchoi:This is literally my new workflow now: Realtime Research → Grok 4.5 Planning & Orchestration→ Fable 5 Day-to-day Coding/Debug → Grok 4.5 Write & Run Tests → Grok 4.5 Complex Coding/Debug → GPT-5.6 Sol Frontend → Fable 5 Bookmark this

RT @AncientHistorry: Rome conquered Greece in 146 BC when they burned Corinth to the ground. And then the strangest thing in ancient history happened. The winners spent the next few centuries desperately trying to become the losers. It actually started before the final conquest. When the general Marcellus sacked Syracuse in 211 BC, he shipped boatloads of Greek statues and paintings back to Rome, and the city went crazy for it. Suddenly every rich Roman had to have Greek art in his house. Decades later Cicero built an entire court case around prosecuting a governor named Verres for looting Greek masterpieces, and Romans ate it up. Then came the schools. Wealthy families started buying Greek slaves specifically because they were educated, and handed them the job of raising their children. So the sons of the men who crushed Greece grew up speaking Greek, memorizing Greek poetry, and learning philosophy from Greeks. The elite eventually sent their teenag

@AncientHistorry:Rome conquered Greece in 146 BC when they burned Corinth to the ground. And then the strangest thing in ancient history happened. The winners spent the next few centuries desperately trying to become the losers. It actually started before the final conquest. When the general Marcellus sacked Syracuse in 211 BC, he shipped boatloads of Greek statues and paintings back to Rome, and the city went crazy for it. Suddenly every rich Roman had to have Greek art in his house. Decades later Cicero built an entire court case around prosecuting a governor named Verres for looting Greek masterpieces, and Romans ate it up. Then came the schools. Wealthy families started buying Greek slaves specifically because they were educated, and handed them the job of raising their children. So the sons of the men who crushed Greece grew up speaking Greek, memorizing Greek poetry, and learning philosophy from Greeks. The elite eventually sent their teenagers abroad to Athens and Rhodes to finish their education, the way people today send kids to study overseas. Cicero did it. Julius Caesar did it. Their gods were Greek gods wearing name tags. Zeus became Jupiter. Hera became Juno. Aphrodite became Venus. Ares became Mars. Same myths, same family drama, mostly just relabeled. Their entertainment was borrowed too. The first big Roman playwrights, Plautus and Terence, basically adapted Greek comedies into Latin. Their doctors were Greek. Their architecture leaned on Greek columns, the Doric and Ionic and Corinthian orders you still see on bank buildings today. And the art obsession left a strange fingerprint on history. Romans loved Greek bronze statues so much that they mass produced marble copies of them. A huge chunk of what people walk past in museums today and call "Greek sculpture" is actually a Roman copy. The Greek originals melted down or vanished long ago. The knockoffs are what survived. Not everyone was thrilled. Cato the Elder spent his whole life warning that Greek culture would rot the Roman character. He sneered at Greek philosophers, distrusted Greek doctors, and wanted them kept out of the city. And then, as an old man, he quietly sat down and learned Greek anyway. Even the loudest hater caved. The trend went all the way to the top. Virgil wrote the Aeneid, Rome's national epic, by openly modeling it on Homer. The emperor Nero competed in Greek games and toured Greece like a superfan. Hadrian was so obsessed he grew a Greek philosopher's beard and poured money into rebuilding Athens. And Marcus Aurelius, master of the entire Roman world, wrote his private journal not in Latin but in Greek, because that was the language of serious thinking. The poet Horace nailed it in a single line: captured Greece took her savage conqueror captive. Rome won every war on the battlefield and then handed its whole soul to the people it had beaten.