so I'm trying to relate this to Steemit and has always been my contention that members should try as stakeholders to manage their behavior to cater to a group of about 20. If you do it right you can scale because those you manage will in turn become stakeholders in a similar way. While I like to learn from other members and read their posts I don't concern myself with steemit as a hole because I now I can be in control of my success or failures here.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
20 doesn't really scale though. You can't go from 20, to 200, to 2000, because every new person you add, is completely different. Imagine this were chess, and every once in a while a completely new piece is added to the board? Can you know the best moves when new pieces keep being added?
Only if it's those same pieces over and over do you get the opportunity to form patterns, find the really good or really bad positions, etc. Now there are some primary principles of chess such as controlling the board (positional chess) but in terms of pure computational (number crunching), this doesn't scale. A human can only see a certain amount of moves ahead and a human can only handle a limited scale.
A computer on the other hand with AI can see many many more moves ahead and will always beat the human. At the same time if you keep adding pieces and growing the board then even the computer will not be able to scale to keep up.
yeah I get that part but I think a small group is manageable for something like personal success on steemit. Reaching beyond that dilutes the message and spreads oneself too thin.