ThrustVectoring

It depends on the price elasticity of demand. When it's 1 - that is, when a 1% change in price results in a -1% change in demand - then any change in supply reduces the total amount of money spent on the good. If demand is more inelastic, then increasing price will increase total spending. Oil is a particularly inelastic good.

Note that the amounts of money involved here are not equal, companies respond to price movements and expected price volatility with less efficient behavior, so the volatility itself causes economic losses.

Like, there's a trade you can do where you load up an actual tanker with oil, park it, and sell an option to buy that oil. The cost of using this tanker and holding this oil a pure waste compared to just having a market-clearing quantity available at a consistent price at all times, but if the market is scared enough it makes money.

Roko's Basilisk was never intended as a serious concern. It's a hypothetical used to verify that a decision-making algorithm does what you want it to - if it suggests that you should get blackmailed by it, you messed something up and need to go back to the drawing board.

You can safely ignore anyone concerned with Roko's Basilisk on topics related to decision theory as someone who is deeply confused about things.

Antarctica has zero permanent inhabitants

They're hamstrung by property tax increases being massively politically unpopular. Prop 13 only bans taxes on the value of land, there's nothing stopping politicians from approximating LVT by an "urban acreage tax" based off plot size in cities other than the fact that it'd get them all voted out.

Electing a censor doesn't make them any less of a censor.

Companies like arbitration because unlike in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot compel discovery. Paying for an arbitrator is cheaper than going through discovery, especially if the discovery unearths facts materially damaging to the business.

Solar panels don't have good enough power to weight ratios and aren't likely to contribute effectively.

As far as sails go, you need a second medium to act as a keel, otherwise it's impossible to get a net push in any direction other than downwind.

AIUI the problem is the economics are pretty unfavorable for smaller-scale prototypes due to square-cube issues (drag and thus fuel costs is proportional to cross-sectional area, lift and thus cargo capacity is proportional to volume). You'd need a very big airship to get a competitive economic niche between sea and traditional air freight, where you're faster and more flexible than sea transport and cheaper than traditional air freight.

The intent to communicate particular ideas is actually important to the writing. If you have a lot of well put together words with relatively low intentionality behind it, what you have is something that is very effective at wasting your time. If I want to waste my time I'd rather be playing videogames.

Unironically, for a small enough business, 10% of revenue is cheaper than figuring out what the rules are and following them. If I'm doing $30 worth of sales to Malta, it's cheaper to pay them $3, basically regardless of what Malta-specific regulations there are.

The line is between processes you can stop by hauling someone into court and coercing them into stopping things, and ones you can't. Think of a classical computer virus that infects machines and uses the compute and communications to infect other machines - no matter who you haul into court, you have to go and remove it from every involved machine in order to make it stop doing things.

This category of "rogue AIs" are essentially just computer viruses that infect machines by paying to rent them and uses their compute and communications to do various economic and/or criminal activities to get more money to pay to rent machines.

That's because they are extraordinarily suitable as covert torture devices. When government officials use them to inflict pain, they do not leave physical evidence and the only video evidence from filming the interaction is how long hands were on the detainee.

Intent to access a computer would have to be proven for that section of the CFAA to be relevant. The shakedown would be covered under subsection 7, governing communicating threats of computer damage or unauthorized access with the intent to extort.

That actually is how the law works. You can read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 and double check, but these felonies all require knowingly or intentionally accessing a computer etc. These aren't strict liability statutes - the government must prove mens rea to a jury in order to get a conviction at trial.

The issue is not a localized part of any particular piece of prose, so being hard to articulate is unsurprising. Even the most egregious of LLMisms are little more than known-likely crutches that the statistics spit out in a sweet spot that gets noticed without being so frequent as to get RLHFed out of the model.

When you speed read, you can grab the words off the page faster than you can understand and fully process the information conveyed by the text. How much time you have or want to spend re-reading or thinking about what you've read is quite obvious. There's a stark experiential difference between reading an informationally-dense passage and one that spends a lot of time rephrasing things, using LLMisms to restate concepts, adding in extra connecting phrases, etc.

If your reading speed is limited by how quickly you can subvocalize the words to yourself, this is significantly less obvious. Unless the passage is dense enough to require multiple read-throughs at conversational reading pace or vapid enough to be boring, you're going to feel done with the text at roughly the same time. Speed readers do a lot more re-reading and varying of reading speed, and that is going to correlate pretty hard with information density.

Google pays third-party websites to host advertisements, and shady website owners will put ads on such a website and bot clicks on it.

Worker pessimism over technological unemployment risk is enough to explain profit growth via wage suppression with no need to invoke productivity gains, and AIUI these sorts of indicators have been leading on AI capabilities and adoption.

All public cameras are a cost to privacy for the benefit of the operator, its just that the identity of the operators and the extensiveness and data centralization change the magnitude of the cost and the proper response.

If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Similarly, if Target has in-store surveillance cameras, I can just not shop there. If driving anywhere has me logged multiple times in Flock's network, I can't just stop driving, and even if I did they track pedestrians and bluetooth signals too.

In short my opposition is to all of it, but some scenarios are clearly far worse for privacy than others. Doing something unusual that has your neighbors privately chuckling at their surveillance footage is less bad than doing something unusual that has Target's loss protection following you and making you feel uncomfortable, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a police officer decide to "randomly" stop your car and attempt to search it, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a SWAT team kicking down your door and arresting you.

I'm not sure why you're ignoring the central point I'm making about scale. One guy having a camera pointing out of his doorbell is different from Amazon being able to do whatever they want with the footage from something like one in five US homes. Systems are more than the sum of their isolated parts.

It's nefarious and privacy-violating when the database exists, government involvement just exacerbates things because private companies aren't allowed to send armed goons to your house and break down your door.

The privacy violation is that the database exists, full stop. I don't think a warrant requirement would be a meaningful barrier, since the data is already part of the camera network operators' database and all sorts of informal or backdoor agreements would easily happen.

Like, all a warrant requirement does is make it so that the police have to talk to a judge before making the searched data part of the evidence against you. It would do nothing to stop the police from fabricating some other pretext to lawfully stop and investigate you - say, parking a police cruiser at the border into the state and whenever the ALPR in that car hits a list of vehicles, stop them for going 0.1 MPH over the limit and the officer says they smell weed.

It's the database query, not the physical cameras. In the pre-digital age where privacy was considered in constitutional law, tracking people's and vehicle's movements was horrendously expensive - you'd need multiple detectives doing things by hand per person of interest. This meant that it was reserved for when the government already had pretty strong reason to believe in some sort of wrongdoing. Even with a personal, non-internet-connected doorbell camera, the police would need to identify what cameras exist for a location and contact the owners in order for the footage to do anything.

With automated license plate readers, they can simply collect everything with a reasonably affordable network of cameras, then query the database when they want to find a particular pattern of activity. The police have already detained people for frequent border-crossing between marijuana-legal and illegal states. This gets exacerbated by granularity and extensiveness - imagine an anti-choice state pointing cameras at every maternity care parking lot in the state and tracking who visits them for cross-referencing with visits to pro-choice states.

And with the existence of parallel construction, there's no reasonable way short of dismantling the ALPR system to avoid abuse against the citizenry.

The economic calculus is ambivalent between a clinical trial with a 10% chance of a drug discovery worth a billion dollars, a 100% chance of a drug discovery worth a hundred million dollars, and a 1% chance of a drug discovery worth ten billion dollars. I'm not sure the economically marginal project is less likely to fail as much as it would simply target more niche markets.

In perfectly efficient markets, arbitrage gets paid exactly as much as it costs to discover and execute the arbitrage. Entrepreneurs would still exist, they would just be ambivalent between finding new arbitrage opportunities and seeking market-rate employment for their skills in finding arbitrage.

Even if you were to extend rights to non-human entities, there's still a practical matter in that the legal system does not know how to compel testimony from an LLM (or a monkey for that matter, for a past attempt at copyrighting a photograph taken by a non-human primate)

OP wasn't explicit about taking the work = force * distance approach to dissipating energy. Two cars with the same mass and braking force (and thus deceleration) will put the same amount of work into the vehicle per unit distance, so will dissipate the same amount of energy in the braking maneuver.

You are right that the faster car is converting kinetic energy into heat faster per unit time. It also has less time to do so. The work formulation of the problem makes it obvious that these have to cancel out exactly.

AI driven contributions aren't the same thing as AI agent submitted PRs. If a new human contributor attempts to submit low-quality submissions (regardless of AI usage), you can teach them to improve or convince them to change their methodology. If a commercially available AI agent thinks its a good idea to submit PRs to you, you're stuck dealing with default-settings AI agents sending the same kind of stream of PRs to your project indefinitely.

Profit and loss tracks changes to the fair price of purchasing the business, not operational cash flow. The $30b didn't go anywhere since it's not cash flow, it's acknowledging that someone who purchases OpenAI today would be on the hook for $30b more of future ownership dilution than before 2025.