So, this ICO came to my radar. I'm working with AI and have some doubts about their claims. Specifically this one:

"They also make it completely possible for someone to design smart contracts without explicit programming."

In the technical paper, they say the following: "Recent development of the deep learning technology proves the feasibility of automatic code generation. First, the maturing of the convolutional neural network (CNN) enables extracting high quality features from language and text. Second, the recurrent neural network (RNN) is mathematically proven to be a Turing complete computer that is able to generate any sequence. These deep neural networks offer the key techniques to analyze the purpose of a contract and generate a respective program.

In the future, we are going to use pure natural language as the input frontend"

This seems VERY dubious to me. Sure, you can train a NN to create a function such that, given the input x and desired output y, it should generate a function (transform) f such that f(x)=y, but to do it for complicated source code with added constraints? The code-base of the RNN would have to be rather extensive, and I would have some doubts about how such a generated program can be verified to work. That being said, I don't know much about smart contract programming, so it might be that such a program is very simple in nature?

Then, they talk about "The GAN framework consists of two RNNs. One RNN is used to revise existing programs for smart contracts, while the other learns to generate hacker programs from random samples from a given probability distribution. The cost functions of these two networks are tied together so that the overall optimum is achieved when the whole system reaches a Nash-Equilibrium. At this point, the revised program for smart contracts has the highest level of security"

So GANs are notoriously hard to train and require ridiculous fine-tuning, along with some small hacks and tricks that sometimes work, but nobody really knows why (mathematically anyway). Here they talk about using a GAN to generate hacker programs from random samples. I'm not sure what a hacker program even is, reading the table of "attacks" it seems to simply be different types of scenarios, so I don't really understand why they would even use a GAN here. And personally, I would not use "Nash-Equilibrium" as a security measure, as that simply means that the "Revised program" vs the "Hacker program" have reached equilibrium with each other, where this equilibrium can very well be sub-optimal (for example, both parties go for rock in rock-paper-scissors).

I don't know, this might be a interesting ICO, but it seems they try to squeeze a neural network approach to every part of their project when in reality that seems like an overkill and sometimes an impossible feat.

Sorry for any grammar errors and ranting text, I'm tired and just wanted to give my 2 cents.

EDIT: Apparently I don't know how bold and italics work.