maxbond

The mafia is also made of hard working people with families to feed. Sometimes industries deserve to die. Even if the people working in them don't deserve to lose their jobs. That's life in a free market.

I read about a canal built in Arizona, they decided the 3% (iirc) losses due to evaporation weren't worth pursuing. Pretty hot and dry climate. So, this may make the solar panels cheaper but doesn't justify maintaining an awning.

That's true but what they were saying is that people may be willing to pay for AI even if they believe it has terrible externalities, not that they are insincere in their beliefs.

You're taking a fairly strong stance, though it may not seem that way to you. "Same sex marriage was legalized in 1971" is a factual statement not in dispute. "Same sex marriage is a 21st century invention" may seem to you to be the same statement but it carries significant ideological baggage and is a way stronger statement way more in dispute. You go on to say things like "the real reason behind a lot of the LGBT acceptance rates going lower ... is that Muslim migrants have more kids and Islam is a very socially conservative religion." I hardly feel I need to explain why that is not a simple factual statement but really a statement of an ideological and political position.

So while I totally believe you may feel that way, you aren't simply being downvoted for indisputable facts, you've taken a position in a contentious ideological and political debate.

Same sex marriage has been allowed in a number of societies throughout history. There are a number of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

It's not a "21st century invention," not even because it has a longer history than that, but because it's just marriage. It isn't an innovation. Any more than women's suffrage was an innovation. In both cases it's extending enfranchisement to more people.

That's a very optimistic view of the US justice system's treatment of whistleblowers (surely they would contend that all of their programs were legal), but now his being granted asylum by Russia isn't evidence but a new incongruous fact we need to explain since the hypothesis is now apparently that he is a Chinese turncoat. So I don't see how this helps the case.

If we're going to judge Snowden by the standard that he could've rectified his situation through a radical act of self sacrifice, then every US president has had the opportunity to pardon him and has failed to do so. It's an equally sensible proposition. It's plain to see that no US president would entertain the notion. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect someone to return from exile without being offered some kind of clemency.

I had a lot of fun, the scan line effect looks really good and the obstacles are interesting and challenging. I'd have liked to use my game controller, there's a browser API for it. And to have changed my control settings. I thought both mobile and desktop controls were good though.

I've been working on a browser game too lately. It's a pretty great environment to work in. Three.js + WASM have cured my desire to learn Godot, at least for now.

If this hypothesis were true then a spy agency may want to rewrite responses. Every tool in an agent's harness becomes an remote procedure call you can make on that machine. Including a tool to execute a shell command, in many. A harness is completely isometric to a backdoor, it's the same code written with a different intention.

Ad-hoc hypothesizing ("escape hatches") are dangerous but not quite invalid. Eg, they failed to find gravitational waves until they did, and you could have viewed building yet another more sensitive detector as a similar exercise in refining a hypothesis that you keep receiving contrary evidence for. Sometimes you really did just underestimate how difficult your hypothesis was to demonstrate. Maybe Meta will be destroyed in 2027, or whatever.

The problem with conspiracy theories is more that they have a ratchet-like quality where counter evidence reaffirms the theory in your view and you can only ever get more confident. We should have been increasingly skeptical of gravitational waves to some degree as we failed to demonstrate them, even though we didn't abandon the hypothesis and it ultimately prevailed. But if you adopt a wrong idea, and people try to demonstrate that to you, and you take that effort they're putting forward as a sign that you are correct and they must be hiding something from you, it will be very difficult for you to realize your mistake.

So, as long as you are less certain than you were before, I don't think rolling your prediction over into the future is necessarily conspiratorial or a mistake.

Just at a sniff test level, don't you think that if the quantization resulted in anything like 2M% error in a pretty typical context length, it would be plain as day? You'd do an A/B test and one of them would look like standard generated text and one of them would veer into incoherence? If not - what on would 2M% error even mean then?

> Regardless the point is KLD and whatever they came up with is not meaningful.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this isn't a meaningful metric either, mostly because it is using a different type of error (divergence along a trajectory) than what was actually measured (divergence at a fixed point) and so can't be used for this purpose. It could establish an upper bound but going by your work that upper bound is so high it may as well be infinite. That's somewhat concerning but doesn't necessarily suggest it performs badly in a typical case (which is how I'd interpret an expectation of 2M% error).

It doesn't really matter to this argument, if they are self correcting at all, then we can't assume all errors will permanently injure the trajectory. It's not like dead reckoning or a similar process where there is never an opportunity to reassess. It's more like a long division problem; it is possible to correct errors using in band information, without the external reference dead reckoning would require. (The incidence of false positive self correction does matter to the question of whether the model is actually of comparable quality after the quantization, of course.)

I don't think you can extrapolate that measurement across multiple sequential draws like that. We presumably are comparing against a single trajectory rather than a tree of trajectories. So once we make the wrong choice and step off of the blessed path, we have no way to assign a ranking to the next token; it's error is undefined.

I've seen LLMs self correct in chains of thought ("because of foo and bar, I need to... Wait, bar is not true, so that won't work") so I have to imagine this is a massive overestimate, errors do not necessarily compound.

There's a setting called `showThinkingSummaries` which you can enable to see them (going forward).

You can see bathtub rings on the underside as it's lifted up. The rings are caused by it's melting faster under the water than in the air, so there's a discontinuity at the waterline.

> If the agent itself concatenates a new URL together - with leaked data after a ? - you should block that from being fetched.

You're correct of course, I just want to note that the exfiltrated data could be in any part of the URL, so the absence of a query string doesn't indicate that no payload has been encoded into the URL. Arbitrary example, you can include credentials in a URL, so you could encode the exfiltrated data into a password.

To a degree that feels intentional.

Well, I do agree that all measurements contain error, but the point wasn't that the error rate would be greater than 0% but that a single headline summary of error can't always distinguish between good and bad tests.

If 1 in 10,000 people have a disease, then a "test" which always reports the patient doesn't have the disease will be correct 99.99% of the time. "99.99% accuracy" should be "looked at with skepticism" in that it doesn't tell you what you need to know to understand the quality of a a test for a rare disease (a classifier under conditions of severe class imbalance); at a minimum, you would want to understand it's false positive and false negative rate, not (just) it's overall error rate.

See example "A": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Claude Code is quite buggy but doesn't generally crash, which is what you would expect if it shipped an immature backend for a month. Maybe the rewrite is full of bugs and they happened to result in the UI glitches or trashed settings files or whatever other application-level bugs that Claude Code has routinely rather than crashes but that would be pretty surprising.

I don't think we have the same understanding of "insider". There are dozens to several hundred insiders at any one time. There aren't enough for them to reliably trade against ones another. To day nothing of how this system would fail when a company decided to raise capital. Like, is the CTO going to trade with the CEO because they have different views on the company? When they need to raise capital, are they going to get it from an accountant at E&Y who's auditing their books?

And who will they be trading with?

You won't incorporate information from outsiders if they think they're going to get ripped off by insiders.

I said similar, not identical. The primary role of a futures market is for consumers and producers of commodities to hedge out their risk so that they don't go bankrupt if there's volatility in the market. Speculators (by which I do not mean gamblers) make money in futures markets by acting like insurance companies and absorbing that risk. Hedgers take "losing" trades that are equivalent to paying an insurance premium.

Prediction markets could be interesting to hedge a bunch of weird little things. Alas, not how things have gone so far really.

Lots of Unix stuff uses hooks. cron, init, bash has multiple different hook-shaped files (eg .bashrc). The Unix philosophy isn't a sacred cow, purity over pragmatism was the Multics philosophy.

NPM has at least had the good sense to use namespaces so that it isn't entirely a free for all and is less of a high stakes game of Mavis Beacon. (You could typosquat a namespace too, of course.) Unlike AUR but also pip, cargo, etc.

"Better" depends on the application but more precisely it would be "real time" and may include things that are measured but rarely if ever published. A prediction market doing poorly might be a negative result, "this is a martingale and our ability to forecast is limited." That would be my suspicion for a sports event but it could also mean that the participants are gamblers and so not making useful predictions, entirely possible.

The other value proposition would be that you could hedge your risk against all sorts of things that would otherwise be very difficult, like someone who sells funnel cakes hedging the risk of poor at the state fair due to rain. I think that's potentially interesting but was always far fetched and is definitely not as common as gambling.

Entirely possible but let's give it some time to see if they try to make it GA and if the DoD sends them a letter.

Insider trading by, say, having direct access to the particular wind vane that grounds the market and being able to manipulate it is a problem. Being better at trading because you have better models or better computers isn't per se a problem. Any more than it's a problem if someone is a better poker player.

In a broader context this may contribute to income inequality and regulatory capture, it can have negative externalities. But it isn't on it's face a problem. And the alleged positive externalities (realtime forecasts and a liquid market for hedging) are driven by such skilled traders.

Not all prediction markets are equally easy to manipulate. The bar was supposed to be (according to my hazy recollection) that a market had to be run in collaboration with an outside authority who, along with delivering a verdict that was already part of their normal duties, would help you exclude insiders from the market. That's a defensible position (not morally, tactically).

But "will so and so tweet about such and such" is a total joke. That's indefensible. That I do think that should never have been allowed or should be regulated as gambling. If there's no conceivable natural hedger, it isn't a real financial market and doesn't have a function (or the function is gambling, whichever).

Don't get me wrong, I think this turned into an end run around gambling regulations (that's certainly what happened with PredictIt), but I don't think that was always inevitable or will necessarily always be the case. That's a strong attractor for sure but it was pushed that way by the COVID era meme stock frenzy, the deregulation of online gambling, and ultimately competitive pressure from the sketchier markets. Once those forces were aligned it was inevitable, but it's possible that in 10 years there will have been a crackdown and tightening down of regulation and things will be very different. I'm not that optimistic, but it's a real possibility.

As far as I know it is "P2P", a continuous double sided auction like any proper exchange. If there's something fishy going on with the order book I do not personally know about it. (I don't think there is but I'm also not going to stick my neck out for them.)

https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/prices-orderbook

https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/13823828-the-orderbook

Tl;Dr there's an order book with prices set by supply and demand. So you're at the whims of the market rather than the whims of someone who is your broker, exchange, clearinghouse, and taking the other side of your trade. I don't know much about Polymarket but iirc Kalshi is only your broker and exchange, so dealing with them is materially less risky in my mind.