the88doctor

Incentivizing quality over quantity always leads to more fraud. It happens in academia, and it happens in sales (e.g. Bank of America scandal). If I need more of X to get promoted or to get my bonus, then it's easiest to just create fake X.

I've moved 22 times in my life. I've never moved from an area due to a single neighbor, but some areas you just feel different than everyone living around you. That causes you (or at least me) to think about moving.

I definitely need to move out of Florida before having kids.

Not sure what data you're looking at, but that's completely off. Trailing 12 month food inflation is over 4%. Transportation inflation is over 10%. Services excluding energy are up 5.9%.

3% construction loans would majorly undermine the Fed's effort to fight inflation

"I wouldn't underestimate how... having one company as both your registrar and cloud service provider can impact the choice of which otherwise commodity service to use." THIS. Even if I'm just spinning up a simple blog, unless I'm buying a premium domain name, I'm gonna buy it on Bluehost instead of a cheaper registrar like Namecheap just to avoid the few minutes of work and few hours of wait time to link that domain with another hosting service.

True, but I think a human graphic artist would have known what I was asking for

The generator isn't very accurate. I prompted "a sad bald construction worker" and I got a smiling construction worker wearing a hard hat. Only 1 out of 3 adjectives was implemented.

I started my PhD doing algebraic topology and tried using TDA for a couple industry projects before eventually switching to work on quantum computing algorithms because I decided TDA wasn't that useful. It's definitely a solution in search of a problem, and while there do seem to be a couple interesting use cases (such as genetic data analysis), I completely agree with you that there are better alternatives in most situations.

Chess is one sport where I didn't expect transwomen controversy to even be relevant -- physical abilities don't even come into play.

A lot of the toasters shown from 1910-1940s only toast one side of the bread at a time and have a flipping mechanism to then toast the other side. The flipping mechanisms seem like they would be nearly as expensive as just adding a second heating element. So is the reason for the one-sided toasting a constraint on how much electrical power was commonly available to homes 100 years ago?

Does this mean no one will be trying to reach me about my car's extended warranty?

The Market Wizard series has several good interviews with traders with verified records that significantly outperformed for decades. The ones who used TA invariably say that it used to work but became less and less effective as computers became more prevelant.

I wonder if the crossover strategy would still outperform (on a Sharpe Ratio basis) starting in 2005 instead of 1998.

I also wonder if the crossover strategy would fail to outperform (on a Sharpe Ratio basis) once transaction fees were considered.

Sadly, not only is it legal, but it is incentivized. Financial service providers have enormous civil and criminal liability by tech company standards, and some regulations require them to use "risk-based" approaches to decline service to clients. The legal consequences of shutting out innocent small businesses are essentially nothing compared to the consequences of allowing a single criminal or terrorist to use their service.

I hope you sold your Nvidia and locked in those profits.

Do you mean for video content specifically?

That's exactly what I was wondering. Why send the entire dataset when you can just send the schema and ask the AI to generate queries and then translate query results back into natural language?

Traditional economists model traditional economic incentives. Behavioral economists try to understand all the gaps in traditional economic models such as why people don't steal as much as they can when there is 0% chance of getting caught or why people who choose In-and-Out when given an option between McDonalds and In-and-Out suddenly choose McDonalds when just asked to pick a restaurant for lunch.

Humans are motivated by emotional incentives at least as much as economic incentives, and humans also have cognitive and memory constraints that aren't considered by traditional economists.

All of which is to say that while there may not be an economic incentive for government regulators to de-regulate, that conclusion fails to consider that many government regulators actually have an emotional desire to feel like they are doing good in the world and that emotional incentive can sometimes be stronger than the traditional economic incentive to keep regulations in place.

"Helped shape" != "Dictated". It makes perfect sense to have industry members be a part of discussions about regulations and problems related to their industry. Industry members shouldn't be able to dictate the outcomes of those discussions, but they should certainly be able to participate in them.

The claim that EARN IT would make "prosecution of child sexual abuse crimes more difficult" is inaccurate.

The bill only creates a voluntary set of guidelines for companies, not a mandatory set of guidelines.

Companies would be motivated to adopt the voluntary guidelines in order to avoid a heap of legal liability, but this would only be a heap of liability by tech company standards and not by the standards of any other industry not protected by Section 230.

In other words, the fourth amendment argument doesn't really hold water. The data collection practices would still only be private actions, not state actions.

I'm not advocating for EARN IT. I still think the bill is terrible because it disincentivizes end-to-end encryption (or more specifically, it incentivizes bypassing it with client-side scanning). But the specific argument that it would make prosecuting child abuse more difficult doesn't hold water.

That's a scarily good comparison. Children need to be protected, but it feels like there is a steady erosion of basic rights to privacy, free speech, free expression, and free choice that are being justified with "whatever it takes to save a child".

I think it's a combination of risk aversion and the cost of acquiring information.

Most people don't do extensive (or any) research before voting. They choose a candidate based on party affiliation or the information on TV. So for that majority of people, they will vote for a candidate whether or not the candidate is of sound mind. They assume other people have done the due diligence.

On the other hand, you have the parties themselves. The Democratic Party would rather have a senile Democrat than a non-senile Republican. And the Democratic Party is itself strongly influenced by other Democrat politicians who may even appreciate a senile coworker since that coworker can be more easily manipulated. So they have no incentive to risk losing that by suggesting or supporting a different Democratic candidate.

That in turn means new Democrat candidates will struggle to get the amount of support or funding which is necessary to publicize oneself enough that the complacent members of the public mentioned earlier could vote for them.

This case just confirmed what we already knew before: DAOs are just groups of people working together, and they don't get any special treatment just because they coordinate their activities via blockchain instead of email.

Enforcement will be the interesting part. If a DAO has anonymous members and no LLC or corporate structure associated with it, then a court can rule that the members are liable, but it could be very difficult to enforce that liability.

Prompt: "Taxes"

Output: "Create a tax preparation service that utilizes blockchain technology to securely and efficiently process W-2 forms for households with multiple earners. Implement a user-friendly interface that allows users to easily upload and manage their W-2 forms, and automate the tax preparation process to save users time and money. Market the service to the hundreds of millions of households with multiple earners who need to file multiple W-2 forms each year."

Pretty much a meaningless word salad, but I like the idea of generating business ideas from HN comments if the generated ideas could be made more precise.

The thread author said Firefly was only trained on properly licensed photos which definitely supports the hypothesis that it sucks because it is doing things legally. Unfortunately that seems to make it suck even when the prompt does not reference any protected IP (e.g. the woman in red in a crowd example).

> Control of legal entities will contribute to the threat algorithms pose by providing them with identities. Those identities will enable them to conceal their algorithmic natures while they participate in commerce, accumulate wealth, and carry out anti-social activities.

Starting on January 1, 2024, it will be harder to conceal the identities of people behind LLCs: https://www.daypitney.com/insights/publications/2022/11/fog5...

Are you selecting articles manually or with GPT-4?

I would definitely just say "two thousand eight"

The economy serves humans as the end users of goods and services. Even if an AI can learn to design a house that is more earthquake-proof than any human design of the same cost, the AI can't decorate the interior without understanding human psychology both at the general level of the average human and the specific level of the human who will be using the house.

I didn't realize how much happier I was when I worked next to windows (as opposed to working in the interior of a room) until I was in my mid twenties. How would an AI know to tell me to design my home office with a big window when I didn't even know that was necessary myself?

The AI couldn't have learned from me (since I didn't consciously know that), and the AI couldn't have learned that sitting next to windows generated happiness for itself either. That means some other human being would be necessary to input that as a design constraint into the AI's architecture program.

The inability of AI to experience human feelings for itself means it will have to rely on humans to help it provide economic goods and services that are maximally useful. That means there will be a role for humans in the economy for quite a long time (possibly forever).

This is cool but seems likely to be quite expensive if you need to scrape 100,000 pages.