1,023 karma · joined July 1, 2020
It's a pleasure reading your posts.
The staying power it's had is unbelievable. Right place, right time, I guess!
Yes, we're not there yet, and that's why I prefaced with "True", but I think this kind of splitting hairs is part of the problem. EVs are vastly better for the environment and have no emissions of their own. Yes emissions do come from somewhere in the current state, but path to a cleaner environment is not radically far away and the thesis that "emissions come from somewhere so that's not a reason to buy an EV" is ludicrous at best and disingenuous at worst.
Not to mention that even in the current state of affairs in the US, the emissions are far lower on average. Even in states where production is 60% coal: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2023/ph240/stafford1/
Prediction markets are a way of effectively placing a "bounty" on something you would like to happen. Or capitalizing on one of these existing bounties because you're able to affect the result. It's a way to commodify power (and information of course, which is what these platforms bill themselves for), converting it into money, which can you can build further power with.
Extinction is much less interesting to discuss because it's so binary. Global catastrophe is much more interesting to discuss because the topic then becomes about failure modes, cascading failures, and the impact of those failures.
It depresses them. Significantly. White collar jobs constitute the bulk of global purchasing power. What happens to the economy when aggregate purchasing power drops? The naive response is "prices fall until equilibrium is reached again"
But what if the needle continues moving so quickly that equilibrium is never reached?
This is the K-shaped-economy concern. The ultra wealthy and those who own the "AI means of production" will become unfathomably wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Why should this not be a concern? Historically, this trend has always precipitated bloody conflict.
The intent and framing matters a lot here. Refusal to remove safety features is a LOT different than deliberately building mechanisms to sabotage would-be operations.
Does Neki solve for this, and if so how? My understanding of CAP theorem is that this basically requires some compromises around availability, but I'm curious as to what that looks like in practice here.
We haven't even been able to coordinate around the global, existential threat of Climate Change, despite overwhelming data from the last 30 years indicating, clearly, that the consequences will be severe. We still haven't moved, 30 years later, after some of these consequences began coming to fruition.
Do you think we will get our acts together in time to coordinate sufficiently to protect against autonomous, self-preserving, self-replicating AI systems? Or will we watch the money lines go up and up, until someone realizes we aren't actually running the show anymore?
The sad part is that I can't even say that's definitively the less desirable outcome. The machines seem to have demonstrated that they coordinate very efficiently.
Jealous of the folks with 5090s running ninfer and getting >100tok/s. At those speeds it's a true frontier replacement IMO.
We live in an information-driven world. Our economy is driven by information. Geopolitics is driven by information. War is driven by information.
An historically adversarial competitor country that is able to slowly amass lengthy dossiers on our public figures private lives will have an asymmetrical advantage in any geopolitical engagement. This doesn't even require scandal, the traditional leverage. Just the ability to see a few of someone's cards makes knowing what move they will make next, and what bluffs to call, significantly easier.
For the record, I don't think our own government, or any other, should have this information either. As was demonstrated back in 2015 by CA, this type of information can be used to effectively manipulate and influence people's decisions.
— Sam Altman
Please see HN rule #1, this is not the community for that kind of discourse.
The longer they're in it, the larger the estimate, and they've hypothesized that it will approach the size of the universe itself.
How is this not illegal? What prevents any nonprofit from doing this to sidestep its filing status and extract profit?