polygamous_bat

You gotta wait until GGML and the likes repackage the model; early releases are almost always targeted at ML folks with dedicated GPUs.

Maybe if we tolerate the scams and fraud for 10 more years, it will be useful?

Or maybe that's fundamentally an unrealistic viewpoint [0]

[0] https://blog.dshr.org/2022/03/vitalik-buterin-vs-reality.htm...

> Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though?

I believe the person you are replying to is emphasizing the "~" in your comment. Yes, it's not like half the kids will commit self harm because they are bullied, but a very small percent will. How do we, as a society, weigh their suffering against those who are being surveiled without ever having done anything to trigger it?

Thinking about the freedoms of the chimney sweeping children in the free markets of historical England almost brought a tear to my eyes, thank you.

> there's not any angry investor left to call them and beg them to calm down.

I wonder where they went. Are they busy crying about being scammed by the child prodigy/most popular effective altruist in the world, or do they not care because they had a finger in the pie?

Or perhaps they moved on to shill AI and its glorious wonders?

> Executives build the company that the investors want them to build.

Assuming they're mindless drones of the faceless "investors" with no free will or intent of their own.

> But the investors don't want to bet on the value of physical planes, nor do they want to bet on the price of oil. If they wanted to place those bets, they'd just invest in Boeing or Exxon.

You're putting the cart before the horse since that's a choice by the exec. If they wanted to derisk themselves they could as well hedge by buying puts on Boeing or calls on Exxon.

Overall, who decides what a good business is? Unfortunately, that's come down to a gang of Wall Street suits who would much rather punish good businesses for not catering to their attention span deficient trading/gambling habits. We would much rather have some jack of all trades making business decisions based on their next year's bonus/chalet/yacht rather than people who depend on those businesses (customers and employees), so of course we get to this state.

It makes perfect sense if you realize that the airline execs are maximizing their bonuses for the next quarter or four, and not optimizing for the health of the company for the next 10 years. Being stuck with a company and losing a job if the company goes bankrupt is for losers like us, not for those who will leap off with the golden parachute and land another cushy job somewhere with their "years of experience driving growth and providing value to the shareholder".

... because a billionaire will look at the £2M price tag for the British PM and throw up their hands and say "shucks"?

As long as extreme wealth inequality exists, politicians will keep being bought and sold by the minority for their own interest at the expense of the majority.

Putting on a white coat doesn't make you a doctor, the years you spend studying and practicing does.

Similarly, printing a billion tokens and trading one for a dollar doesn't give you a billion dollar market cap, even though "all the stocks do it!" Those stocks also back productive systems, have financial statements, forecasts, and a million other things that make them a billion dollar (or larger) market capped company.

> It is quite bizarre to imply that pre-colonial India was a haven for human rights but that Britain, the country with the most advanced legal system and which had recognised the notion of human rights nearly 900 years earlier, did not.

Pop quiz: How long did it take the United States to recognize the human rights of those born into slavery?

People are selectively blind about who the human rights apply to all the time, it's nothing new whatsoever.

> Border cops are the worst.

They are just a symptom of what happens when you give people power and no accountability.

> The correct solution is to send illegal migrants right back to Africa. However, only the far right parties dare say that - hence, the increasing support they are getting, despite their other positions.

In case you're unaware, the reason Europe has its current asylum standards largely because of what happened between 1933-1945. So would your proposed solution be:

1. Deny asylum to anyone and everyone, even those fleeing genocide ("Sorry that happened to you, we don't have room here!"), or

2. Implement a color chart a la Family Guy [1], so only the "right people" can come in?

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/family-guy-skin-color-chart

> Sometimes when I hear discussions like this, I can't help but think back to several places I've lived or stayed where using a car was not possible.

Example?

Us in New York are going by fine taking the train or biking, and if we really need a car we call a cab or an Uber, and that we have to pay extra makes us really think if we need that car or is that just us being lazy.

I won't ever understand the joy of punting that bill of your joyrides to the next generation, I guess.

> Clicking radio button on a website is not at all comparable to learning self defense.

However, stealing money is still stealing money.

> Also, front running is already illegal.

Great! Which means there are sometimes legitimate reasons to clamp down on "hyper-efficient" but socially negative actors.

It's problematic because all proofs of the alleged "sins" come from a known bad actor.

Or is being circumspect about the claims of those holding absolute power not part of the hacker ethos anymore?

Do you also preach everyone to learn self-defense when they propose making mugging illegal?

No, in the best world we do both.

Random thought, but perhaps trying to enshrine "customer or consumer rights" and "employee rights" as seriously as "shareholder rights" would be a good step.

Front-running is an easy example.

Why? We already have regulations such as circuit breakers in our markets because unlike what you are claiming, absolute liquidity is not the god you think it is. There can absolutely be such a thing as over-optimization.

> Taxing this decision discourages making it—even if only marginally—and makes capital markets dumber and less efficient.

Or it encourages making longer term investment decisions rather than trading like a jittery cocaine addict (which by no small amount of irony a nonnegligible number of traders are already.)

> The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run

Do you have any source for this speculation? In my experience image models are always much smaller than language and even the largest llama will fit in a smaller GPU machine than that.

I would bargain, however, that scamming people over SWIFT would swiftly put you into jail.

I would love to come across a free box of gold, or a private key holding a large sum in bitcoin, or anything similar. HOWEVER, that is not because I would like to keep holding onto it -- just to convert it to cash and then convert that cash proportionally to cash/short term/long term investments.

> This is a super privileged opinion and wildly out of touch with the less fortunate classes of society.

That's clear bait. What you're advocating for is a mental tax on the "less fortunate class" as you put it.

Make price transparency legally required and see how the game changes.

> If property prices fall then it is no longer an investment.

So people who want to park their money in a house rather than living in it are discouraged to buy up the available housing.

Yup, good. Seems like it should be going exactly as expected.

> I’ll just rent until the price bottoms out

Rent what inventory? If everyone wants to rent the monthly rent goes up until the market reaches equilibrium. Once again, look at cars. Do you see a majority of the people renting cars because "prices will be lower for the same model next year"?

> Wouldn’t this dissuade private individuals from purchasing homes

People who need a place to live? Why? Do you think all housing in Tokyo is built by the government?

People who were buying homes because they can? Yup, absolutely. That's the whole freaking point.

Exactly, compare this with New York, for example.

> But even if it's true, and they recorded the largest profits, the catalyst still is the monetary policy. If businesses could just price gauge their clients, they would have already done it before.

You can't think of any major global event that happened since 2020 that may work as a "distraction" and a cover while businesses engage in monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior?

What next, we'll legislate away selling drugs to kids? I mean, kids have rights to the most addictive stuff known to mankind, too.