You're right. Bitcoin Core always use MIT license, even back when it's initially created by Satoshi. In addition, Bitcoin Core isn't the only full node software out there which is further proof that other people can understand Bitcoin protocol.

AI use is welcomed as long as it does not try to violate the fair rules that govern the Bitcoin system or evade scrutiny. It has to follow the rules, and other nodes will monitor it to make sure rules are followed. This is basically part of what makes a system/network decentralized. Power and control are in the hands of everyone (who can join the network and leave at will, with little to no restrictions) rather than one or few privileged people who could just do whatever they want and no one will dare question or stop them.
So, the activities of nodes runners, miners and DAO would need to be under constant review by the network, everyone or community members, like the Bitcoin nodes do, to prevent any form of lawlessness and possible take over by entities like AI. But I think the humans will be smart enough to develop system that are capable of reviewing and catching any rogue AI since it's transparent and community-driven system that anyone can contribute to

And it's important to note that no such thing as mining centralization in Bitcoin really exists  If one person (or entity) could take over Bitcoin mining he won't be allowed to do whatever he wants by the rest of the Bitcoin Network. .

Honestly,I don't wish to see AI integration having any connections with Bitcoin affairs.
It'll be really outrageous to see Bitcoin transactions and mining process to be completely dominated whereby leading Bitcoin to an extinct decentralization era.It should be clear to us that AI emergence in partnership with Bitcoin can compromise the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.

How so? As far as I know, AI isn't self-aware yet. It relies on commands (prompts) inputted by a user. Worse-case scenario, AI finds a way to mine Bitcoin on its own and manages to control a sizeable portion of the network's hashrate (raising the risk of a 51% attack). But this is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Bitcoin is an open source cryptocurrency, so it'll be easy to tweak it against AI threats. With a community-approved hard fork (or soft fork), Bitcoin will remain as secure and reliable as usual. Not even Quantum computers stand a chance against Bitcoin.

The real threat to Bitcoin's decentralization is not AI, but Wall Street. You can see institutional investment companies (eg: BlackRock, Strategy) amassing large amounts of the circulating supply. How isn't this concerning to anyone? Considering that most people don't give a damn about Bitcoin's decentralization, we should expect things to get worse in the long run. We'll see what happens in the future.

A glorified search engine would never threaten decentralization. If outside of that there's actually something it provides, then rather than a thread I'd see it as something helpful since, well, it'd only help in developing stuff no? Right now I certainly don't think letting it handle anything related to security is a wise move. That's just a gold mine waiting for others to mine lol. And yes, it's 100% a tool, 100% we'll adopt. Heck, that's what most AI companies are moving forward to right now, increasing accuracy and effectivity, but only limited as a tool.

AI can design chains of its own. But will they last long enough? If there's lack of interest/demand among people, AI-generated chains won't survive. Even if they do, how would they pose a direct threat against Bitcoin? It doesn't make any sense.

What AI can do is manipulate the market in an attempt to crash Bitcoin's price all the way to $0. It would practically "kill it", since most people are only in it to make money. But the core Blockchain network will remain alive and running as usual. Decentralization-wise, only governments and "Wall Street" will pose a direct threat against it. People still hold most of the circulating supply (as well as run most of the nodes and miners), so I wouldn't worry about this in the time-being. Just my two sats.

Well thankfully for us, AI doesn’t exist and it doesn’t look like it’s going to exist anytime soon. It’s more likely that we will need to get to quantum computing before we are able to actually get to AI or as it’s properly called AGI. So no is not something that worries me at all at the current moment and I think when the time comes will be prepared for it.

And artificial intelligence has been in existence and it was there to exist to help people I don't see a way that AI can be a threat to Bitcoin because people don't want to even think about the initiative of AI threatening the market and the only thing I see that can happen is when you look at the whole situation you can not just depend on the whole thing fully because there people that make use of AI for trading and there comments that it is working for them.

But since it is a program and it can only operate with the command of a man don't think I have full assurance that you have a point that people become lazy because they will want to leave everything in the hands of AI, and you will still have to give a command to the AI, and the world that we are now people are trying to make things easy for them, they will not look at the disadvantage of using it to trade and I will prefer you the knowledge then make the trading your self.

I generally agree, but there is some research on autonomous agents which interact with LLMs and could become more relevant for blockchains. For example, there's a capability called Autonomous Replication and Adaptation (ARA). It consists in the ability of an AI to launch other instances to perform sub-tasks to reach a goal. Current models like GPT-4 and its direct successors are far away from that capability, but this may change in 5-10 years. At first of course, the ARA-capable system would have to be instructed by a human.

How could this become relevant for Bitcoin and blockchains? I can imagine some scenarios -- none of them are catastrophic for Bitcoin. I have already mentioned some in my previous post.

One idea: Someone could create an ARA-capable system to influence the short term sentiment in social networks, e.g. creating new user accounts and publishing bullish or bearish information. This ARA could evaluate continuously if their actions were successful or not, and even learn from its mistakes. As mentioned before I don't think in the next 20 years such an artificial "sentiment manipulation system" would stay undetected for more than a couple of hours, but in this time it could eventually generate the information needed for the goal of the person who created the agent, i.e. a bullish or bearish price movement.

An even more "dystopic" idea is the possibility to try to break proof of stake systems. As an ARA with a LLM would have a lot of literature about consensus and the Byzantine Generals Problem at its disposition, it could systematically look for weaknesses, create simulations exploiting these weaknesses, test the attack on testnets, and finally crating a model to break a PoS blockchain.

Bitcoin's PoW is not affected because mining is based on simple hashing, it thus works fundamentally different than PoS validation which includes "weak subjectivity". Such an anti-PoS attack could include a social attack with identity theft, for example.

I think all possible blockchains are in some way variations of existing models. Even DAGs take elements of blockchains. And thus I think AIs indeed could design blockchains, as they have access to a lot of literature about consensus.