whimsicalism

I find the frequent comments like this honestly bizarre, they act like the entire civil service turns over every 4 years.

Causal evidence indicates that uber entrance raises wages and reduces unemployment among the poorest, even who are not working for uber. Riders also get value.

How the hell is that leaving everyone worse off?

linear regression on commodity hardware is generally not going to be truly deterministic delta implementation details

Harm reduction is a double edged sword and should be assessed on the actual merits of the evidence - I am skeptical that legal heroin would be net mortality reducing.

There's already causal inference evidence out there indicating that needle exchange programs reduce rates of HIV and other bloodborne infections, but increase the risk of fatal overdose. If simply making fresh needles more accessible increases overdose rates, I suspect legalizing heroin would have a much larger effect.

Model size, definitely. Not so sure about the discriminative vs. generative distinction (technically 'generative' models are discriminators as well) - I suspect the data is extractable if you have access to the weights, although easier to extract from inferencing in a decoder model.

My guess is that the pairing of all of these things is due to the fact that Google has likely consolidated everything under the same style of decoder model.

thank you for the reply, it is a good grounding distinction and i will think more on this perspective.

Insurance, prediction market, futures market, gambling - imo a lot of these are semantic distinctions.

I support banning sports gambling/insurance/futures because it is a big onramp for foolish people to maneuver themselves into disastrous financial decisions.

My point is that I don't believe in some fantastical natural law against intervening in voluntary interactions, not that we should presumptively do it if there is no reason to do so.

I don't think it is on face impermissible to intervene in voluntary transactions. I'm not saying government should intervene just for the fun of it.

I don't think that's true of polymarket and it is definitely not true of when I first started using these markets.

Evil at my very core for favoring sports gambling regulation? Christ, the libertarians on this site are histrionic.

I find value, for instance I speculate heavily on future AI capability advance as a way of hedging my own career. I don't find value in sports gambling.

I'm perfectly fine being nosy and intervening in voluntary transactions between consenting adults - same reason I support taxation.

BERT is an LLM. I don't see why Google needs to cater to increasingly fine parsing of politically acceptable vs. not ML workflows, because that is really what this is about.

That is because you live somewhere that is poorly governed and defaults to protecting incumbents, probably Europe.

very very easily

I'm saying you would in California.

Not to go prescriptivist, but yes I think your "line" for regulated is just semantically incorrect, a non-compliant organization can still be regulated.

Because they are subject to a regulator and hold a license from a regulator.

GR expertise is essentially only in-house at major social media companies or people hired from these companies. Closest thing to a tutorial for LRM is the Kuaishou onerec papers.

Describing an organization with a license from the CFTC as an "unregulated futures market" is just flat wrong, I'm not really sure why you're motte-baileying here.

you must be from an alternate timeline

and Kalshi is regulated on the CFTC as it is not an securities market that the SEC regulates.

You're posting this all over the site but Kalshi is very clearly a licensed futures market regulated by the CFTC

You get organized crime fillin.

this is an answerable question and these markets are generally well calibrated (including on election outcomes), they have a good brier score.

i would not premise an anti-prediction market argument on their accuracy being bad, you are building on shaky foundations. the better argument is the paternalist protecting stupid people from themselves imo.

not really

Not sure - to the extent to which Kalshi is a nationwide futures market, it is hard to imagine a more clear "interstate commerce" example. Congress should probably just pass a law delegating regulation of "sports futures" to the states to remove any legal ambiguity. Sports gambling is obviously pretty net bad for young men.

? But Kalshi is regulated by the CFTC

I think sometimes people need a visceral demonstration of what bad laws are actually preventing. Uber was a pareto improvement in my view: we are in a better world both for consumers & for low-income wages having ridesharing as a backstop.

On the other hand, I've come around to the view that sports betting is a net unqualified bad -- and I didn't necessarily feel that way before the Kalshi/PM explosion.