Author: Sevclub, Seven Research

Recently, Bitcoin has fallen below 60,000, let's give everyone a massage.

I increasingly feel that AI and Bitcoin may be two sides of the same coin.

The first time I had this feeling was recently. Now, when I read any article, watch any video, or even see a friend's post, a thought immediately pops into my head: Is this made by AI?

I didn't used to think this way. I used to assume it was real. Now, I start with doubt. And this doubt is becoming harder and harder to shake off.

Ironically, I use AI every day to write things, make videos, and generate images, so I understand one thing better than many: the cost of faking things with today's AI has become absurdly low.

An article, a few seconds. An image, a minute. A video, getting closer and closer to being lifelike.

They are getting cheaper and more realistic.

So I started to realize one thing: what AI truly changes is not just productivity. It also changes something more fundamental, that is, authenticity.

In the internet era, what was truly reduced is the cost of information dissemination; in the AI era, what is truly reduced is the cost of information production.

When production costs approach zero, information begins to flood, and the deadly part is that true and false are mixed together, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish.

At this point, the situation is reversed: easily accessible content becomes increasingly worthless, what truly becomes precious is whether you can still confirm "is this true," that is, "verifiability."

Thinking of this, I suddenly re-understood the criticism that Bitcoin "wastes electricity," which has been one of the most criticized points over the years.

AI consumes electricity, which we can all understand; it produces stronger models, higher efficiency, and lower costs. But what about Bitcoin? It consumes so much energy every year, and it seems to only maintain a ledger, which looks like a waste.

To be honest, I never quite accepted this criticism before.

Until recently, I started to see it from a different angle. Both consume computational power. AI produces "capability." Bitcoin produces another thing, which is "verifiability."

Many people misunderstand Bitcoin. It never relies on others' belief in it. On the contrary, its existence means you don't have to believe anyone.

No need to believe in banks. No need to believe in platforms. No need to believe in developers. Not even need to believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

You only need to verify.

Where every Bitcoin comes from and where it goes, whether each transaction occurred, and whether the entire ledger has been altered—none of these rely on trust. They rely on mathematics, on cryptography, and on countless nodes around the world maintaining them together.

AI can generate a fake image, can generate a fake video, even can forge a person's voice. But it cannot conjure up an entire Bitcoin network to acknowledge a non-existent transaction.

This has nothing to do with how smart AI is. Here, the contention is not over the same capability; one is about generation, the other is about verification.

The electricity that is burned seems not so wasted anymore.

Suddenly, I feel that the electricity consumed by Bitcoin also doesn't seem so wasted.

It burns electricity not to increase computational speed or to run models; what it burns is the cost of altering history. The more it burns, the more expensive it becomes to change this ledger.

In other words, it consumes energy and returns a set of ledgers that anyone can independently verify. Interestingly, this reminds me of five hundred years ago, the topic of the Renaissance; I had previously written a piece on that, and it connects well today.

What truly changed the world back then was not only Gutenberg's printing press but also double-entry bookkeeping: one reduced the cost of copying knowledge to a very low level and the other lowered the cost of trust in the commercial world. One is responsible for creation, the other for verification, and the commercial civilization of the following centuries was built on these two things.

Today, AI is very much like a new printing press, once again bringing the production cost of content close to zero.

So, what will be the "double-entry bookkeeping" of this era? I do not know the answer.

But blockchain is at least the closest attempt so far.

It is not responsible for telling you which news is true, nor for proving which images are not generated by AI. It is responsible for a more fundamental thing: allowing the ownership of assets and historical records in the digital world to be independently verified without relying on any centralized institution.

One is responsible for creation, one is responsible for proof.

Perhaps this is why I always feel that AI and blockchain are not in competition.

AI continually lowers the cost of generation. Blockchain continually lowers the cost of verification. One is responsible for creation, one is responsible for proof.

As for whether Bitcoin will succeed? I do not know.

It could still be a bubble. Quantum computing, regulations, technological evolution could all change its fate.

But at least today, I no longer understand it as a "machine for producing Bitcoin." I prefer to see it as a "machine for producing verifiability."

And in an era where AI can generate everything, what is truly scarce may no longer be "more content," but "more independently verifiable facts."

As for whether the market will reprice it because of this, that is another matter.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。