It sounds tempting. Your blockchain is already operational, you have people using it, you are getting money, so why not simply put AI on top of that and label it as innovation? On the one hand, it is reasonable. However, when you have a closer look, you can see the cracks begin to appear.
This is the truth: AI does not prefer dwelling in a rented apartment.
The AI systems must have extensive roots- long-term memory, continued context and explicit action logic. These are not some features that you can casually add in the future. They must be included in the very foundation of the architecture. In the absence of it, all of that becomes minor solutions and hasty repairs.
It functions today, crashes tomorrow and the next update silently informs that it is temporarily out of operation. Sound familiar?
The problem is retrofitting. The system has been designed to do one thing but when AI is required later, then the architecture will push back. There is no optimization of data flows, lack of context, and vague decision paths. Each AI feature is transformed into a workaround rather than a real feature.
Imagine it is a case of attempting to fit modern plumbing in a 100-year-old house. Walls that are thick, blueprints lost, incessant drilling, and interminable mess. You may have running water one day but it is all unsatisfactory, costly and never quite satisfactory.
That is why it is more rational to use AI-first approach.
Infrastructure was developed at the ground level at the @Vanarchain considering the AI. It translates to the fact that AI has an actual location to save context, evident courses of reasoning and trustworthy means of accomplishing something, without hacks or promises of fixing it later.
And $VANRY is not associated with hype or pitch-deck stories. Its worth relates to actual application of this AI-ready base layer.
Does that imply that all legacy projects are lost causes? No. Retrofitting AI is, however, typically slow, expensive, and uncovered with unwanted surprises.
