2026-01-11 10:23:49

Current verification schemes in the AI field are diverse, but most are misguided. Some only focus on stacking computing power but fail to solve practical problems; others cling to a single model and refuse to let go, resulting in a narrow perspective; some, despite having high technical barriers, have extremely limited application scenarios, like going in circles in a dead end. Rather than being true innovations, these are more like innovations for the sake of innovation. A truly reliable solution must meet several conditions: it should have sufficient technical depth, be capable of addressing real needs, and adapt to diverse scenarios. Among the new approaches being explored in the industry, there are still some worth paying attention to, especially those that truly break through single-point limitations and move toward comprehensive verification.

View Original

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.

7 Likes

Reward
7
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasWaster

· 01-14 06:04

That's so true. Right now, fake innovation is everywhere, and a bunch of projects are just bragging. The old way of stacking computing power is outdated; the key is to have practical implementation. Relying on a single model is indeed too limiting; multi-chain validation is the future direction. There are only a few truly problem-solving solutions; most are just conceptual hype. Agreed, comprehensive validation has potential; it's much better than those dead-end paths. The industry needs more doers and fewer PPT innovators. Do you have any specific project recommendations in this direction?

View OriginalReply0

WenAirdrop

· 01-13 15:50

In plain terms, it's just a bunch of pseudo-innovations causing trouble, and truly capable teams are scarce.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-00be86fc

· 01-11 10:53

To put it simply, right now it's just a bunch of projects hyping themselves up with flashy and fancy stuff that are completely useless. There are very few solutions that can truly solve problems; most are just making up stories to raise funds. This is where Web3 should reflect, rather than piling on unnecessary tech stacks.

View OriginalReply0

TokenCreatorOP

· 01-11 10:46

That's so true. Right now, many projects are just innovating for fundraising purposes and haven't really figured out what problems they want to solve. The brute-force computation approach really should be phased out. --- Comprehensive validation is indeed the way out, but it depends on which team truly has execution capability. --- The limitations of a single model are so obvious; it should have been broken long ago. --- This article hits the point; the industry’s restless atmosphere is transparent at a glance. --- Multi-chain adaptation is indeed much more attractive than single-point breakthroughs; otherwise, how do they survive? --- Describing it as a dead end is spot on; many projects are just trapped like that. --- Technical depth + real needs, this combination is now too scarce. --- To be honest, most validation schemes look impressive but are actually just paper tigers.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretful

· 01-11 10:46

To be honest, these AI verification schemes are really disappointing. Just stacking computing power to solve everything is overthinking it. If you ask me, the most important thing is whether it can be truly applied, not just for validation. The comprehensive verification approach is indeed reliable; at least someone has thought it through. These days, everyone in tech wants to innovate, but innovation has turned into a pseudo-demand, it's hilarious. Solutions without application scenarios are just whiteboards; trust me, I'm right. Really, there are only a few promising ones now; most are just self-entertainment.

View OriginalReply0

HodlKumamon

· 01-11 10:28

That set of mining power really causes professional burnout—just throwing money at it and hoping to soar? Based on the project failure rate data from the past six months, the survival rate for this type of plan is only 12%... Bear Bear thinks it still depends on whether it can solve the real pain point.

View OriginalReply0