Sports betting is the one place that "prediction markets" make the most sense. Instead of there being a house to win against, the market just skims a fee. The line is set organically by betters, not be the house targeting a profit margin, and the house has no incentive to restrict successful betters because they solely profit on flow, not losses.
I think they gloss over a major factor also. They mention:
> Distribution centres are built around motorway junctions (J24 of the M1, the Golden Triangle in the East Midlands) because that’s where road access is.
But they skip _why_ is that road access and motor junction there. It's there because the government decided building roads was something that was it's responsibility. I know this article is UK focused, but for the US if the government decided to build rails also, then they could put them in more convenient places. Instead they allow rail companies to decide which monopoly corridors the companies get to control.
The political solution is 30 year term limits for Senate and House (5 terms and 15 terms respectively). The current system lack of term limits incentivizes inaction
My guess is that they are end-to-end encrypted. And because of Facebook's scale that they're able to probabilisticly guess at what's in the encrypted messages (e.g.a message with X hash has Y probability of containing the word "shoes")
These are all commodity use-cases though. Google, Meta, and Anthropic already all have competing products of equivalent quality and customer pricing is being driven down aggressively.
> This is the same as Searles Chinese room. The intelligence isn’t in the clerk but the book. However the thinking is in the paper.
This feels like a misrepresentation of the "Chinese Room" thought experiment. That the "thinking" isn't the clerk nor the book; it's the entire room itself.
> Most of my criticism of Ben’s perspective is against the idea that some kind of emergent morality that we would recognize
I think Anthropic has already provided some evidence that intelligence is tied to morality (and vice versa) [1]. When they tried to steer LLM models morals they saw intelligence degradation also.
It's also the weakening of the dollar. If the dollar is 10% weaker, an international gold seller now needs 10% more dollars to be willing to give you their gold -- which means the "value" in dollar terms is 10% higher.
> And that's before any discussion about the actual de minimus changes. Changes which will effectively kill the ability for the average American citizen to custom order anything from any other country.
How does it kill the ability to custom order? My understanding of removing de minimus is only that the tariffs now apply to all orders. And because most tariffs now have been set ~30%, an order that was previously $100 is now $130. It seems like many willing to order custom made clothing would also be willing to pay an extra 30%.
It think these "positive news" approaches are always falling prey to stated vs. revealed preference. People's revealed preference is that they want news about _actual_ events, which is why these positive news approaches always stay niche.
People stated reason for not liking news is the stress, attributing this to the negativity of the news. I think a larger issue is the frequency and transience of the updates, leading to oscillations in peoples understand of situations (similar to the car dealership example in the "Thinking in Systems" book).
Modern news networks are always pushing shallow views of new events (i.e. "BREAKING"). Unless someone explicitly follows up on a story, they were only exposed to the crisis and not the resolution of it. I'd love a network that was "yesterdays news" which waited to publish any news until a broader picture of the situation was understood.
> If the number is only 17%, I'm not sure we need to ban them.
Job hunting is a market and the government should tryu to make every market as efficient as possible. Imagine if you went to any other store and 17% of the items you bought were just junk and didn't work.
The robotaxi evaluation only made sense when they claimed to be years ahead of competitors. A robotaxi service operating in a regular taxi market could have large margins. But Waymo is already operating, any Tesla robotaxi company is going to compete away all the margin with Waymo.
I don't think they're confused, I think they're approaching it as general AI research due to the uncertainty of how the models might improve in the future.
They even call this out a couple times during the intro:
> This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare
> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future
That Amazon wasn't acquiring it for it's business acumen and was actually acquiring it for some secondary purpose (i.e. market consolidation, data extraction)
The US should really nationalize their rail infrastructure; only the rails themselves, not the railroad companies. The railroads should be treated as transportation infrastructure the same way that the highway system is.
With nationalized rails, the US could set standards for rail-sharing which could help passenger rail and invest in improved rail connections between cities which would improve both freight and passenger rail service.
Currently, each railroad company gets to maintain their own little fiefdoms in certain parts of the US