> VC backed millennial advocates for skilled laborers with finite lifespans to perform unmonetizable, highly specialized labor instead of using an LLM
deeply unserious
154 karma · joined July 20, 2017
deeply unserious
Then you can upload that to a private repo after each session.
Otherwise people make a program an agent can use to type and retype whole sections like a person
One can’t say they didn’t know or consent to their group chat info being used for training data if there’s no reason to assume your chat data is private
There are a number of projects working on evals that can check how 'smart' a model is, but the methodology is tricky.
One would want to run the exact same prompt, every day, at different times of the day, but if the eval prompt(s) are complex, the frontier lab could have a 'meta-cognitive' layer that looks for repetitive prompts, and either: a) feeds the model a pre-written output to give to the user b) dumbs down output for that specific prompt
Both cases defeat the purpose in different ways, and make a consistent gauge difficult. And it would make sense for them to do that since you're 'wasting' compute compared to the new prompts others are writing.
How would you say this is inspired by, and compares to, writing in literate programming languages like Inform 7?
Therefore, the push to ID everyone using the internet (even down to the hardware) is a way to prove that ads are being served to real humans in their target demographic.
That’s why a lot of global south countries with valuable materials (oil, data center building blocks, etc) are often chronically destabilized, but not so much so that it’s impossible to find someone to buy unrefined materials from.
And all of your sentences ought to have "I think that" at the beginning; while reading OPs message as a sign of victimhood instead of a statement of fact gives you the opportunity to sharpen your sense of self against it, it gives the appearance of signaling more than it gives actionable advice. otoh, if the former was your goal, I misread intent.
- AI is 'good enough' for a lot of industries, and will be continued to go to market when it's 'good enough' for a given industry.
- That said, AI in games as it stands is really buggy. A "Good Enough" relationship, dialogue tree, Social Graph LLM for a game might take so much time finetuning that it may always be better to just start with Twine or an excel sheet.
- Gamers (with a capital G) are different from gamers. Gamers are the gaming equivalent of armchair food critics. They hate AI, and will brigade anything with a whiff of it, and will demonize anyone or anything that pushes back on them, even if the Gamers are wrong (see the 'Baldurs Gate Xalavier' drama).
- The issue is that Gamers are the influencers that determine whether the long tail of games (games that aren't AAA mainstays, yearly sports games, or the top multiplayer games) get enough momentum and traction to pop up for less serious gamers.
- Gamers hate AI, and will do everything in their power to make every content creator 'acknowledge the controversy' (these 'cancel culture'-adjacent dynamics are all downstream from Gamergate). Comnsidering Gamers are often the enthusiasts most game studios need to swing digital game store algos in their favor, you don't want to build a game that becomes a 'stand-in for a controversial topic.'
- If the game is polished enough and is a AAA game that has a dedicated audience, it'll get bought in spite of that.
- If the game was AA or indie, the influencers who'd amplify the game in other instances will talk about it like the end of True Artistic Gaming.
- This leads to less MTX-like games getting funded, because the long tail of gamers are mobile, and most mobile games are miniaturized one-way casinos with WoW guild warfare grafted onto it.
- If there are more layoffs as the gaming industry's financiers go risk off for lower ROI games, then only the AAA, P2W, gacha, battle pass games get funded, which creates a feedback loop.
So yes, games as an industry will continue to rake in money because gacha games, battle passes, and MTX business models make the overwhelming majority of the industry's revenue. What's being missed is that what saved gaming from the ET gaming market crash and took it to $1 billion in sales for Counter Strike lootboxes was the passion and specialized labor of a lot of people. A lot of issues with game development preservation have accumulated (losing source code, laying off people who knew how to build critically acclaimed games before doing knowledge transfer, etc), and will compound as thousands of people get laid off, and people either dial in core parts of games, or outsource logic to an LLM.
The article acts as a lamentation, because the games that most people above the age of 20 grew up with are not going to be made as often anymore, unless there's some way to introduce a whale/guppy power dynamic with online play, or a battle pass, or gacha "Pay-to-Win" mechanic that pays for itself within a few weeks of launch.
Similar thing happened to Valve; people were trading gun skins, and regulators fined them for not having AML/KYC controls because the state argued "the business didn't do enough to stop money laundering."
This trickles out to porn companies (and the vendors that use them for identity verification), and implies that they need to store this data to prove that they didn't delete it to help terrorists.
So in the context of Lens they're probably pointing to cat photos on IPFS in whatever program they have on Polygon. People seem to be maintaining content on IPFS (I'm no expert but I think via pinning services?)
> If you try monetizing every social media transaction you'll have no users. No one is going to pay money to post a picture of their breakfast or to change their profile picture.
I don't think these frontends are trying to monetize everything, as their users would come to the same conclusion you did. Polygon seems to be a lot cheaper than ETH (coinbase says it's like 50 cents vs $1000 for ETH), you can do a lot more on it for less.
I wonder if people will redeploy Lens on cheaper chains if the price goes up 100x or more?
But complaining about something without taking the underlying behaviors in good faith and synthesizing alternatives doesn't really offer much for the people who are looking for the good things. That's why you won't get many good faith actors interacting with this, because it's better for them (and implicitly, the negation of your premise that it's all scams) for them to negate your arg by building more and more new things with crypto.
Which is all to say that these are information asymmetry problems, and everything frontier "isn't a durable investment" until it is. It's silly to dodge taxes on-chain when it's free and easy to pull a list of addresses that have the biggest on-chain value, look at how they're tagged on a block explorer, and figure out if they have a US entity that should have reporeted taxes on the transactional history
Also the term Monopoly has tricky denotations and connotations; if you read Thiel's work you'll be inclined to have a strict definition of Monopoly (Ex: an online retailer isn't a monopoly because people still buy most things Elsewhere), whereas some have a looser definition (where Online Retailer is defined as likely monopoly because it is online retailer for everything that it can be, while also tracking sales data and using a white label brand to undercut other brands' SKUs)
this is a self-evident conclusion being hawked as a premise, and the rest of the comment doesn't do much to mold this premise into an argument
> If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it.
There's an unfalsifiability in this rhetoric, because someone leaving for race-related reasons in an industry that either: a) has "subtle racists" b) is funded by "subtle racists" c) functionally aids and/or abets "subtle racists" through inaction
would be incentivized to not specify these things, as these industries (finance and crypto) optimize for relationships almost as much (if not ==) to the amount they optimize for merit. And that's not even getting into clauses baked into employment termination contracts. So you have a scenario where you can't actually "prove" race was a primary motivator for quitting because: a) if it were a "subtle racist" co-worker, they're probably using euphemism a2) if they're a "not subtle racist" co-worker, it would embarrass the employer for keeping that person on the book swhen the reputational cost exceeds the cost of sourcing and hiring someone who's not a not subtle racist" b) If the person wants to work in tech again, relationships will likely be burned as a direct or indirect result of airing out a company's dirty laundry c) Could be sued for violating non-disparagement clauses (prices out anyone who doesn't have the security to burn the bridge between them and a growth industry)
If the point of your comment was to use a number of premises that aren't empirical, and border on dogmatic, then I misunderstood, and apologize for trying to search for rhetoric where it was not intended to be found.
If the purpose of the statements above where to be rhetorical or logical, then we're getting into a place where we're asking for evidence that would be difficult for someone with said evidence to do without them, say, being financially and occupationally secure enough to burn the bridges between them and: - Coinbase - Coinbase's Investors - Coinbase's Investors' LPs - Coinbase's Investors' companies - Every other company that either doesn't question whether they are less meritocratic than they believe, or doesn't question whether or not they can replace the problematic superstar employees
1) FB only turned back on ads so that they could get better data on how people market crypto projects (for their own blockchain team) 2) Added revenue 3) The article is very, very speculative; one could argue it's about as speculative as one of these vaporware token sales claiming they have a partnership with some major brand, and 20%+ of the copy is dedicated to building the hypothetical value of such a partnership.
Maybe someone made up the rumor as some last-ditch effort to make the price not go down
Crypto companies could default to push payments and/or micro-deposits for verifying ownership of a fiat instrument, but people want their coins now and that causes friction, which shrinks user activation funnels.
Anyone using a fiat on-ramp to accept payments (including exchanges) has agreements with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/their bank to keep their charge back ratios under 1%, or else Visa/MC/the bank processing their fiat transactions will fire them (good luck running a business accepting fiat without access to the card networks or a bank).
Bank fraud analysts probably have their own bank-side metrics/reasoning to give customers the benefit of the doubt.
For example, if the fraud analyst sides with a merchant and denies filing a friendly fraud (maliciously filed) dispute, maybe the customer complains to their manager, and takes whatever sympathy-inducing narrative to social media, which would get an analyst fired and make a bank look even less sympathetic.
Through that, it's too easy for someone to maliciously load up on 2+ months of purchases, walk to their bank, state "I've never heard of Bitcoin someone hacked me and bought $6k in crypto I need that back", and win. It's not worth the headache until/unless banks and exchanges bridge the gap and determine a means of:
1. Confirming the exchange isn't providing liquidity to money launderers 2. Confirming with the bank that the KYC info requested sufficiently fulfills #1 3. Confirming with the bank that the KYC and payment instrument info (if fiat) requested sufficiently provides evidence that the owner of the instrument authorized the payment.
Crypto companies could default to push payments and/or micro-deposits for verifying ownership of a fiat instrument, but people want their coinz now and that causes friction that shrinks user activation funnels.
Merchants have to keep their CB ratios under 1%, or else Visa/MC/the bank processing their fiat will fire them. Bank fraud analysts probably have their own bank-side incentives to give customers the benefit of the doubt, and it's too easy for someone to maliciously load up on 2+ months of purchases, walk to their bank, state "I've never heard of Bitcoin someone hacked me and bought $6k in crypto I need that back", and win.
Your post tried to chastise him for calling out a vulnerability, and then tried to shame him for not quietly emailing their security team. Chances are if someone were a bad actor they would have: A) seen that themselves outside of his message, or B) Found out through sheer luck and brute force
If anything, the poster mentioning it invites the team to fix it before someone exploits it. It's worse to blunder on a hole someone told you was 1.5km down the road, so hopefully they either address it or fix it
There could be something else there, though.
Cryptocurrencies that dodge regulations do not; their value is backed by the greater fool theory and the fact that this new retail wave aren't too familiar with AML/KYC/counterparty risk
To address your last point, a non-gubmint backed stablecoin would address that, but then again, perpetual motion devices would probably stop energy issues.