Is it possible for the military to be too "strong"? Each warship, fighter jet, tank, and soldier costs time, money, and effort to produce and maintain.
That a military is necessary for ensuring the security and continuing stability of the US is of little importance when the real issue is based on a tradeoff, an equilibrium. What are we gaining and what are we losing?
The current situation of the military industrial complex is complicated, but it is nevertheless clear that is is extremely inefficient (and thats by design). I'm not sure if incorporating AI tech into the military is going to change this, when the fundamental incentives remain the same.
While the game-ability of prediction markets is a major concern, I believe that the potential of prediction markets to further exacerbate inequalities may be a greater threat. It is important to keep in mind that while markets optimize for total value, it doesn't guarantee that it will optimize for things we as individuals want.
Free markets tend to lead to a positive feedback loop. Someone who has a lot of money will be able to predict the market better than someone who has less. Their advantage generates more wealth which helps them to predict the market better. Wealth generates more wealth.
In theory, this is offset by the notion that the market is not a zero sum game. The person may be generating new, previously unavailable, wealth. But while stock performance is tied to the success of a company (which can generate new wealth), prediction markets are tied to transient questions (where intrinsic value diminishes the closer you get to expiry). In this sense, how "predictions" might generate "new value" is unclear.
Depends on what you consider winning. Consider that out of the 20% of internet users that have adblock today, only a fraction will be willing to turn to illicit means should Google get serious, especially if it requires anything more complicated than installing an extension.
Also keep in mind that pirate groups are able to crack L1 Widevine only because some companies let the keys slip in a breach. The keys are burned as soon as they are discovered, making it impractical to disseminate them for public use.
It's only because individual movies/tv shows have a high enough value (versus the cost of cracking it, the risk of your keys being burned) that pirate groups are able to thrive. This wouldn't work well with Youtube as it's value is primarily derived from having a large quantity of content.
I don't think many people would be willing to pay per Youtube video as they do for a movie.
What makes you think that Youtube will "lose"? From a technical perspective, they have been rather conservative in their efforts so far. It can get so much worse, they could bake ads directly into the video stream or automatically randomize their API.
Don't forget that Google also owns Chrome, which by its dominance over the market can be used to effectuate DRM (such as widevine, or web integrity). They also own the Chrome Web Store, and they can ban any extensions that bypass Youtube ads (they already ban extensions with the ability to download Youtube videos, strangely they allow downloaders for any other site).
Google has a lot of money, and a lot of fingers in critically important pies, to make their wishes a reality should they deem to do so.
I love the idea of humanity expanding out into the cosmos, it feels like space exploration is "the Future." But I can't see how SpaceX's Mars colonization plan makes economic sense in the current day. No matter what technical advances they come up with in getting people to Mars, it doesn't change the fact that it is an inhospitable planet. What unique resources are on Mars that makes it more profitable than say, colonizing the Sahara desert?
Fair enough, I guess it doesn't really matter if someone hacks a drawing/building game. But people love competitive games.
I guess you can prevent most overt hacks through server-side validation. But still, that doesn't stop more sophisticated users from creating and using subtler hacks (such as aimbots).
This is so cool! Though, how do you ensure that people are playing fair? When I dabbled in web-based games a year ago, I noticed that it's pretty difficult to have a good anti-cheat system for games that runs on browsers.
> this is luckily not a big enough of a dot on their radar for them to care.
Funnily enough, Google doesn't allow yt-downloader extensions on the Chrome web store. They will cite you rule #4, and send you a rejection letter for "Facilitating unauthorized access to or download of copyrighted content or media, specifically, YouTube." The irony of course is that they allow downloader extensions for other websites. That they specifically prohibit youtube downloaders while allowing downloaders for almost any other website smells suspiciously like anti-competitive behavior to me.
On the other hand, Firefox's addon store is free from these restrictions, so you can find tons of yt download extensions there.
When it comes to the question of when strong AI will come, I think our society's reaction to ChatGPT is more worrying than the technology itself. Namely, because of ChatGPT, we see major companies, governments, etc clamoring over AI today like never before. The magnitude of this hype and its resulting funding rush is unprecedented. Nobody could have predicted that this would have happened so quickly.
> They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it.
Inductive reasoning is in favor of their argument being possible. From observing nature, we know that a variety of intelligent species can emerge from physical phenomenon alone. Historically, the dominance of one intelligent species has contributed to the extinction of others. Given this, it can be said that AI might cause our extinction.
In other words, companies raise prices because they can. Businesses being profit-maximizers are hardly anything new. What is novel about "greed"flation is that it introduces the notion that companies are taking advantage of people's expectations that prices will rise, causing inflation. The question is, is this a short-term phenomena (as with most inefficiencies caused by information asymmetries), or will these abnormal increases last? it's hard to say, as it is dealing with behavioral economics.
I think it will be helpful if it discusses internal fragmentation, where the payload is smaller than the allocated block. I observed that this was important in understanding the purpose of various memory allocation algorithms when undertaking the malloc lab in college.
That is a great point. The laws of thermodynamics exist as a logical consequence to fundamental statistical principles. It is statistical mechanics that gives rise to entropy, not the other way around. (hence the beautifully elegant equation S = Kb*ln(Omega) where Omega is the number of microstates)
I realize that programmers are not always good scientists. Yet some claims are absurd in ways that I now believe this phenomenon necessitates rigorous study.
Indeed, the original claim treats mathematics as a modeling tool, not philosophy. Nevertheless, it is my belief that untestable hypotheses about True Reality (should it even exist) are not debatable without causing migraines of epic proportions. There's no physics without mathematics -- as physicists say, shut up and calculate.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-019-0501-0 [1] https://imagej.net/plugins/bigstitcher/