Interesting. One thing to note is that while we'd like our currency to be a store of energy and effort, it isn't. No matter your currency it is useless absent someone else's desire to obtain it. Thus while we'd like to store what we produce, we instead have to settle for a vote on future allocation of resources. We'd like to convince future people to allocate resources to care for us. The key component to money functioning is the presence of people in the future. Technology and network effects can amplify the effort of those people, as you noted, but at its base what we want to bid on is human effort. The surest way to secure allocation of effort is to endear yourself to them. In times of scarcity people will support their friends and family in a free exchange of goods, time, and energy. Only after that will they consider acquiring some of your Bitcoin. Have kids first, get Bitcoin later.

I have never been happy with generative AI. Over the past few years it has become quite impressive. There is no doubt that it can generate "good" images, what I am unhappy with is that they can't follow even moderately simple prompts that contain relative positions. E.g. "A boy and his father walking on either side of a horse." It will only get the relative positions accurate by accident if it doesn't start adding other random people as well. The image it creates will look nice but it isn't what you asked for. I think the reason is they way generative AI works. It basically spews out random noise then asks a vision model which one looks more like the prompt. It is like Michelangelo trying to paint the Sistine Chapel by returning every morning to saying only "yes" or "no" in response to an assistant asking "is this what you wanted?" I think the only way to get real prompt following is to train language models to use image creation tools. That way changes can be made with something like intent.