thisgoesnowhere

> But regulation can be a prison where you can pay to be free.

As opposed to no regulation where you can't? I don't understand this sentiment at all.

I guess you are the former?

What incentive is there to own a negative income asset unless you are lying and you actually are net positive. Unless of course you are the latter and you are claiming that someone should bail you out?

"I'm completely underwater on this asset but if I sell I lose money" yeah that's how that works it's called an investment you can win or lose.

Then sell?

I don't cry about the money I lost investing in startups I just keep investing. Why are you crying about the money you are losing like you are supposed to be absolutely guaranteed to make money?

The reason you aren't selling is because you are lying or you believe the government should bail you out of your bad decisions.

Same reason as in real life over time everyone will be a renter.

We subsidize landlords and as a result they have effectively unlimited capital to throw at additional properties meaning the price perpetually goes up and they have more assets to loan against to buy more properties.

Then we allow them to take a depreciation value off their taxes on a asset that is appreciating in value.

It's truly insane.

Restaurants solve the problem of lack of time not absence of food.

Most people drink most people aren't horrible parents. You are working at the extremes.

And yeah some extremes are bad.

I wasn't referring to this article.

I mean there is absolutely no reason to think that AI (broadly) and blockchain are going to follow similar trajectories.

I agree that every company becoming an "AI company" is not in the cards. However, I think there is going to be a slow ramp where every startup just throws a few annoying problems at a LLM instead of hiring ML people.

And kinda like the internet it's just a tool that you use when appropriate, but the things where it's appropriate will continue to expand.

He's not just out of touch he's actively pushing pretty horrific shit like the abolition of the state. He also agrees with Balaji about everything and therefore should not be trusted.

Crony capitalism is such an intellectual cop-out.

The people who say this garbage would never let any other ideology weasel its way out of the effects of their system in practice, but for some bizarre reason, the giga brains at Reason are allowed to get a pass and say that this is not true capitalism.

The type of capture by regulation outlined in the article is the direct result of a political landscape that prioritizes corporate power over government power. There is nothing "crony" about it; it's just capitalism.

P.S. This is not pro or anti-capitalist; it's anti-shitty argument.

This is engagement farming.

You write a bot that is able to look for similar content from the past and copy paste the top comments and replies. THis has been happening since the beginning of time. I remember seeing this on college humor.

This is a super easy non expensive way to get an account with a ton of karma.

This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.

Yeah also the non compete stuff is absolutely fantastic even if it only affects those with middle class income.

Shits happening again and I'm here for it. Constant gridlock in passing laws is terrible.

The team I work on processes 5B+ tokens a month (and growing) and I'm the EM overseeing that.

Here are my take aways

1. There are way too many premature abstractions. Langchain, as one of may examples, might be useful in the future but at the end of the day prompts are just a API call and it's easier to write standard code that treats LLM calls as a flaky API call rather than as a special thing.

2. Hallucinations are definitely a big problem. Summarizing is pretty rock solid in my testing, but reasoning is really hard. Action models, where you ask the llm to take in a user input and try to get the llm to decide what to do next, is just really hard, specifically it's hard to get the llm to understand the context and get it to say when it's not sure.

That said, it's still a gamechanger that I can do it at all.

3. I am a bit more hyped than the author that this is a game changer, but like them, I don't think it's going to be the end of the world. There are some jobs that are going to be heavily impacted and I think we are going to have a rough few years of bots astroturfing platforms. But all in all I think it's more of a force multiplier rather than a breakthrough like the internet.

IMHO it's similar to what happened to DevOps in the 2000s, you just don't need a big special team to help you deploy anymore, you hire a few specialists and mostly buy off the shelf solutions. Similarly, certain ML tasks are now easy to implement even for dumb dumb web devs like me.

My ideas are fleshed out just fine, you are being needlessly pedantic. Noone needs to enumerate every contingency to agree with a law passing or being enforced.

You live in a fantasy world.

I did answer the question, your questions are stupid and don't deserve an answer.

It must be really hard to navigate the world when you think there should be never changing rules for every possible situation.

I feel really sorry for you and anyone who things that laws are IFTTT style rules.

Hope you find happiness at some point

I'm not answering your questions because they are stupid and you are just trying to cause inaction by being overly verbose.

> But first, no one was talking about Apple and Netflix teaming up.

I said Apple instead of Facebook to show how needlessly pedantic you are. There is absolutely no difference between Apple and Facebook here the point is the scale of the company (as I have said)

I wish you to have a needlessly pedantic life and I hope we never cross paths again.

> Your citation gets trotted out all of the time in these arguments like anyone in 2024 can’t put a video on a website and distribute it anywhere in the world.

It's about scale, if you didn't read my first message then that's fine but just so you can ignore it again.

Me spilling 1 oz oil in my front yard is different that BP spilling millions of gallons.

Similarly Apple and Netflix teaming up is different than me and my local theater teaming up. If you don't like anti trust that's fine but don't act like it's impossible to understand.

The law can be written in a way that leaves it up for interpretation. It's not a simple IFTTT statement, what's why judges exist and why they make rulings that get cited in other cases. It's a feature of our system that I don't need to answer all your needlessly pedantic questions and just leave it up to interpretation.

Because otherwise bureaucrates like you would cause everything to stall while looking into every contingency.

I also don't think you have to "pass a law" we already have laws on the book that can do this and, this might shock you, we have already used them to do almost exactly what you are saying here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....

This slippery slope/where do you draw the line argument is very weak.

It's like saying me accidentally spilling a bit while doing a oil change in my garage is the same as BP spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude.

Scale matters. And "where you draw the line" can be defined loosely to be left up to interpretation at the time.

Direct RSS from the source does this as well. What's the difference?

You can't invest in M-Pesa tho so it's obviously very bad /s

Interesting how different people's minds are.

I find the exact opposite problem, I go with old faithful over new.

It's for this reason that when I put my clothes away I simply take the stack of clothes in my dresser out, put all the fresh stuff on the bottom, then put the clothes that were in the drawer stuff on top.

I always grab the top sweater, t-shirt socks etc and I don't think about it at all.

Im not conspiracy minded but if you go to the /r/Canada subreddit it is so ridiculously pro Pierre Poilievre that I think something is up.

Not a single one of the 3 parties in Canada have a likeable head, it's shocking to see the people on there go nuts for this random goon.

What? Uber bought their way into the market it's the exact problem that the person you are replying to is trying to address?

Finally someone who has thought through the problem and come out with the right solution. Great stuff

Would you apply the same logic to how the market for real estate unfairly rewards previous entrants?

My parents have seen a 4x increase in the value of their house in 20 years, is that unfair?

It's probably a good idea to get input from the people on the ground doing things. Lobbyists are not exactly that as currently formulatd, but they are supposed to be the way for companies to express their opinions.

They have become pay to play by years and years of corruption and bribery.

Well either that or what they were doing is just obviously illegal and they should be at fault for it.