@ b83a28b7:35919450

This article was originally part of the sermon of Plebchain Radio Episode 111 (May 2, 2025) that nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpqtvqc82mv8cezhax5r34n4muc2c4pgjz8kaye2smj032nngg52clq7fgefr and I did with nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7ct4w35zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcqyzx4h2fv3n9r6hrnjtcrjw43t0g0cmmrgvjmg525rc8hexkxc0kd2rhtk62 and nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqpq4wxtsrj7g2jugh70pfkzjln43vgn4p7655pgky9j9w9d75u465pqahkzd0 of the nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyqwfvwrccp4j2xsuuvkwg0y6a20637t6f4cc5zzjkx030dkztt7t5hydajn

Listen to the full episode here:

<<https://fountain.fm/episode/Ln9Ej0zCZ5dEwfo8w2Ho>>

---

Bitcoin has always been a narrative revolution disguised as code. White paper, cypherpunk lore, pizza‑day legends - every block is a paragraph in the world’s most relentless epic. But code alone rarely converts the skeptic; it’s the camp‑fire myth that slips past the prefrontal cortex and shakes hands with the limbic system. People don’t adopt protocols first - they fall in love with protagonists.

Early adopters heard the white‑paper hymn, but most folks need characters first: a pizza‑day dreamer; a mother in a small country, crushed by the cost of remittance; a Warsaw street vendor swapping złoty for sats. When their arcs land, the brain releases a neurochemical OP_RETURN which says, “I belong in this plot.” That’s the sly roundabout orange pill: conviction smuggled inside catharsis.

That’s why, from 22–25 May in Warsaw’s Kinoteka, the Bitcoin Film Fest is loading its reels with rebellion. Each documentary, drama, and animated rabbit‑hole is a stealth wallet, zipping conviction straight into the feels of anyone still clasped within the cold claw of fiat. You come for the plot, you leave checking block heights.

---

Here's the clip of the sermon from the episode:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwp69zm7fewjp0vkp306adnzt7249ytxhz7mq3w5yc629u6er9zsqqsy43fwz8es2wnn65rh0udc05tumdnx5xagvzd88ptncspmesdqhygcrvpf2

@ 609f186c:0aa4e8af

Google says that Android 16 is slated to feature an optional high security mode. Cool.

Advanced Protection has a bunch of requested features that address the kinds of threats we worry about.

It's the kind of 'turn this one thing on if you face elevated risk' that we've been asking for from Google.

And likely reflects some learning after Google watched Apple 's Lockdown Mode play out. I see a lot of value in this..

Here are some features I'm excited to see play out:

The Intrusion Logging feature is interesting & is going to impose substantial cost on attackers trying to hide evidence of exploitation. Logs get e2ee encrypted into the cloud. This one is spicy.

The Offline Lock, Inactivity Reboot & USB protection will frustrate non-consensual attempts to physically grab device data.

Memory Tagging Extension is going to make a lot of attack & exploitation categories harder.

2G Network Protection & disabling Auto-connect to insecure networks are going to address categories of threat from things like IMSI catchers & hostile WiFi.

I'm curious about some other features such as:

Spam & Scam detection: Google messages feature that suggests message content awareness and some kind of scanning.

Scam detection for Phone by Google is interesting & coming later. The way it is described suggests phone conversation awareness. This also addresses a different category of threat than the stuff above. I can see it addressing a whole category of bad things that regular users (& high risk ones too!) face. Will be curious how privacy is addressed or if this done purely locally. Getting messy: Friction points? I see Google thinking these through, but I'm going to add a potential concern: what will users do when they encounter friction? Will they turn this off & forget to re-enable? We've seen users turn off iOS Lockdown Mode when they run into friction for specific websites or, say, legacy WiFi. They then forget to turn it back on. And stay vulnerable.

Bottom line: users disabling Apple's Lockdown Mode for a temporary thing & leaving it off because they forget to turn it on happens a lot. This is a serious % of users in my experience...

And should be factored into design decisions for similar modes. I feel like a good balance is a 'snooze button' or equivalent so that users can disable all/some features for a brief few minute period to do something they need to do, and then auto re-enable.

Winding up:

I'm excited to see how Android Advanced Protection plays with high risk users' experiences. I'm also super curious whether the spam/scam detection features may also be helpful to more vulnerable users (think: aging seniors)...

Niche but important:

Some users, esp. those that migrated to security & privacy-focused Android distros because of because of the absence of such a feature are clear candidates for it... But they may also voice privacy concerns around some of the screening features. Clear communication from the Google Security / Android team will be key here.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Using stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die zwei mächtigsten Krieger sind Geduld und Zeit. \ Leo Tolstoi

Zum Wohle unserer Gesundheit, unserer Leistungsfähigkeit und letztlich unseres Glücks ist es wichtig, die eigene Energie bewusst zu pflegen. Das gilt umso mehr für an gesellschaftlichen Themen interessierte, selbstbewusste und kritisch denkende Menschen. Denn für deren Wahrnehmung und Wohlbefinden waren und sind die rasanten, krisen- und propagandagefüllten letzten Jahre in Absurdistan eine harte Probe.

Nur wer regelmäßig Kraft tankt und Wege findet, mit den Herausforderungen umzugehen, kann eine solche Tortur überstehen, emotionale Erschöpfung vermeiden und trotz allem zufrieden sein. Dazu müssen wir erkunden, was uns Energie gibt und was sie uns raubt. Durch Selbstreflexion und Achtsamkeit finden wir sicher Dinge, die uns erfreuen und inspirieren, und andere, die uns eher stressen und belasten.

Die eigene Energie ist eng mit unserer körperlichen und mentalen Gesundheit verbunden. Methoden zur Förderung der körperlichen Gesundheit sind gut bekannt: eine ausgewogene Ernährung, regelmäßige Bewegung sowie ausreichend Schlaf und Erholung. Bei der nicht minder wichtigen emotionalen Balance wird es schon etwas komplizierter. Stress abzubauen, die eigenen Grenzen zu kennen oder solche zum Schutz zu setzen sowie die Konzentration auf Positives und Sinnvolles wären Ansätze.

Der emotionale ist auch der Bereich, über den «Energie-Räuber» bevorzugt attackieren. Das sind zum Beispiel Dinge wie Überforderung, Perfektionismus oder mangelhafte Kommunikation. Social Media gehören ganz sicher auch dazu. Sie stehlen uns nicht nur Zeit, sondern sind höchst manipulativ und erhöhen laut einer aktuellen Studie das Risiko für psychische Probleme wie Angstzustände und Depressionen.

Geben wir negativen oder gar bösen Menschen keine Macht über uns. Das Dauerfeuer der letzten Jahre mit Krisen, Konflikten und Gefahren sollte man zwar kennen, darf sich aber davon nicht runterziehen lassen. Das Ziel derartiger konzertierter Aktionen ist vor allem, unsere innere Stabilität zu zerstören, denn dann sind wir leichter zu steuern. Aber Geduld: Selbst vermeintliche «Sonnenköniginnen» wie EU-Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen fallen, wenn die Zeit reif ist.

Es ist wichtig, dass wir unsere ganz eigenen Bedürfnisse und Werte erkennen. Unsere Energiequellen müssen wir identifizieren und aktiv nutzen. Dazu gehören soziale Kontakte genauso wie zum Beispiel Hobbys und Leidenschaften. Umgeben wir uns mit Sinnhaftigkeit und lassen wir uns nicht die Energie rauben!

Mein Wahlspruch ist schon lange: «Was die Menschen wirklich bewegt, ist die Kultur.» Jetzt im Frühjahr beginnt hier in Andalusien die Zeit der «Ferias», jener traditionellen Volksfeste, die vor Lebensfreude sprudeln. Konzentrieren wir uns auf die schönen Dinge und auf unsere eigenen Talente – soziale Verbundenheit wird helfen, unsere innere Kraft zu stärken und zu bewahren.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

In much of the world, it is incredibly difficult to access U.S. dollars. Local currencies are often poorly managed and riddled with corruption. Billions of people demand a more reliable alternative. While the dollar has its own issues of corruption and mismanagement, it is widely regarded as superior to the fiat currencies it competes with globally. As a result, Tether has found massive success providing low cost, low friction access to dollars. Tether claims 400 million total users, is on track to add 200 million more this year, processes 8.1 million transactions daily, and facilitates $29 billion in daily transfers. Furthermore, their estimates suggest nearly 40% of users rely on it as a savings tool rather than just a transactional currency.

Tether’s rise has made the company a financial juggernaut. Last year alone, Tether raked in over $13 billion in profit, with a lean team of less than 100 employees. Their business model is elegantly simple: hold U.S. Treasuries and collect the interest. With over $113 billion in Treasuries, Tether has turned a straightforward concept into a profit machine.

Tether’s success has resulted in many competitors eager to claim a piece of the pie. This has triggered a massive venture capital grift cycle in USD tokens, with countless projects vying to dethrone Tether. Due to Tether’s entrenched network effect, these challengers face an uphill battle with little realistic chance of success. Most educated participants in the space likely recognize this reality but seem content to perpetuate the grift, hoping to cash out by dumping their equity positions on unsuspecting buyers before they realize the reality of the situation.

Historically, Tether’s greatest vulnerability has been U.S. government intervention. For over a decade, the company operated offshore with few allies in the U.S. establishment, making it a major target for regulatory action. That dynamic has shifted recently and Tether has seized the opportunity. By actively courting U.S. government support, Tether has fortified their position. This strategic move will likely cement their status as the dominant USD token for years to come.

While undeniably a great tool for the millions of users that rely on it, Tether is not without flaws. As a centralized, trusted third party, it holds the power to freeze or seize funds at its discretion. Corporate mismanagement or deliberate malpractice could also lead to massive losses at scale. In their goal of mitigating regulatory risk, Tether has deepened ties with law enforcement, mirroring some of the concerns of potential central bank digital currencies. In practice, Tether operates as a corporate CBDC alternative, collaborating with authorities to surveil and seize funds. The company proudly touts partnerships with leading surveillance firms and its own data reveals cooperation in over 1,000 law enforcement cases, with more than $2.5 billion in funds frozen.

---

The global demand for Tether is undeniable and the company’s profitability reflects its unrivaled success. Tether is owned and operated by bitcoiners and will likely continue to push forward strategic goals that help the movement as a whole. Recent efforts to mitigate the threat of U.S. government enforcement will likely solidify their network effect and stifle meaningful adoption of rival USD tokens or CBDCs. Yet, for all their achievements, Tether is simply a worse form of money than bitcoin. Tether requires trust in a centralized entity, while bitcoin can be saved or spent without permission. Furthermore, Tether is tied to the value of the US Dollar which is designed to lose purchasing power over time, while bitcoin, as a truly scarce asset, is designed to increase in purchasing power with adoption. As people awaken to the risks of Tether’s control, and the benefits bitcoin provides, bitcoin adoption will likely surpass it.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Payjoin allows the sender and receiver of an on-chain payment to collaborate and create a transaction that breaks on-chain heuristics, allowing a more private transaction with ambiguous payment amount and UTXO ownership. Additionally, it can also be used for UTXO consolidation (receiver saves future fees) and batching payments (receiver can make payment(s) of their own in the process of receiving one), also known as transaction cut-through. Other than improved privacy, the rest of the benefits are typically applicable to the receiver, not the sender.

BIP-78 was the original payjoin protocol that required the receiver to run a endpoint/server (always online) in order to mediate the payjoin process. Payjoin adoption has remained pretty low, something attributed to the server & perpetual online-ness requirement. This is the motivation for payjoin v2.

The purpose of the one-pager is to analyse the protocol, and highlight the UX issues or tradeoffs it entails, so that the payjoin user flows can be appropriately designed and the tradeoffs likewise communicated. A further document on UX solutions might be needed to identify solutions and opportunities

The following observations are generally limited to individual users transacting through their mobile devices:

While users naturally want better privacy and fee-savings, they also want to minimise friction and minimise (optimise) payment time. These are universal and more immediate needs since they deal with the user experience.

Added manual steps

TL;DR v2 payjoin eliminates server & simultaneous user-liveness requirements (increasing TAM, and opportunities to payjoin, as a result) by adding manual steps.

Usually, the extent of the receiver's involvement in the transaction process is limited to sharing their address with the sender. Once they share the address/URI, they can basically forget about it. In the target scenario for v2 payjoin, the receiver must come online again (except they have no way of knowing "when") to contribute input(s) and sign the PSBT. This can be unexpected, unintuitive and a bit of a hassle.

Usually (and even with payjoin v1), the sender crafts and broadcasts the transaction in one go; meaning the user's job is done within a few seconds/minutes. With payjoin v2, they must share the original-PSBT with the receiver, and then wait for them to do their part. Once the the receiver has done that, the sender must come online to review the transaction, sign it & broadcast.

In summary,

In payjoin v1, step 3 is automated and instant, so delay 2, 3 =~ 0. As the user experiences it, the process is completed in a single session, akin to a non-payjoin transaction.

With payjoin v2, Steps 2 & 3 in the above diagram are widely spread and noticeable. These manual steps are separated by uncertain delays (more on that below) when compared to a non-payjoin transaction.

Delays

We've established that both senders and receivers must take extra manual steps to execute a payoin transaction. With payjoin v2, this process gets split into multiple sessions, since the sender and receiver are not like to be online simultaneously.

Delay 2 & 3 (see diagram above) are uncertain in nature. Most users do not open their bitcoin wallets for days or weeks! The receiver must come online before the timeout hits in order for the payjoin process to work, otherwise time is just wasted with no benefit. UX or technical solutions are needed to minimise these delays.

Delays might be exacerbated if the setup is based on hardware wallet and/or uses multisig.

Notifications or background processes

There is one major problem when we say "the user must come online to..." but in reality the user has no way of knowing there is a payjoin PSBT waiting for them. After a PSBT is sent to the relay, the opposite user would only find out about it whenever they happen to come online. Notifications and background sync processes might be necessary to minimise delays. This is absolutely essential to avert timeouts in addition to saving valuable time. Another risk is phantom payjoin stuff after the timeout is expired if receiver-side does not know it has.

Fee Savings

The following observations might be generally applicable for both original and this v2 payjoin version. Fee-savings with payjoin is a tricky topic. Of course, overall a payjoin transaction is always cheaper than 2 separate transactions, since they get to share the overhead.

Additionally, without the receiver contributing to fees, the chosen fee rate of the PSBT (at the beginning) drops, and can lead to slower confirmation. From another perspective, a sender paying with payjoin pays higher fees for similar confirmation target. This has been observed in a production wallet years back. Given that total transaction time can extend to days, the fee environment itself might change, and all this must be considered when designing the UX.

Of course, there is nothing stopping the receiver from contributing to fees, but this idea is likely entirely novel to the bitcoin ecosystem (perhaps payments ecosystem in general) and the user base. Additionally, nominally it involves the user paying fees and tolerating delays just to receive bitcoin. Without explicit incentives/features that encourage receivers to participate, payjoining might seem like an unncessary hassle.

Overall, it seems that payjoin makes UX significant tradeoffs for important privacy (and potential fee-saving) benefits. This means that the UX might have to do significant heavy-lifting, to ensure that users are not surprised, confused or frustrated when they try to transact on-chain in a privacy-friendly feature. Good, timely communication, new features for consolidation & txn-cutthrough and guided user flows seem crucial to ensure payjoin adoption and for help make on-chain privacy a reality for users.

---------------

Original document available here. Reach out at yashrajdca@proton.me, y_a_s_h_r_a_j.70 on Signal, or on reach out in Bitcoin Design discord.

https://stacker.news/items/981388

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

LegoGPT generates a LEGO structure from a user-provided text prompt in an end-to-end manner. Notably, our generated LEGO structure is physically stable and buildable.

Lego is something most of us knows. This is a opportuity to ask where is our creativity going? From the art of crafting figures to building blocks following our need and desires to have a machine thinking and building following step-by-step instructions to achieve an isolated goal.

Is the creative act then in the question itself, not anymore in the crafting? Are we just delegating the solution of problems, the thinking of how to respond to questions, to machines? Would it be different if delegated to other people?

Source: https://avalovelace1.github.io/LegoGPT/

https://stacker.news/items/981336