bmau5

Can anyone provide an argument for tokenized stocks, beyond just meme-coins for companies?

Open to learning. How could RL yield novel discoveries? What I mean to describe are things reliant on empirical or real-world testing of human reception. How would that be synthetically derived?

We're seeing the cost of code drop dramatically and are facing the same problem in building new companies across most disciplines of, "what's a problem painful enough that someone will pay us to solve it?".

I suppose if we get to a massive enough scale we can effectively model every atom's interaction and human on earth's reaction to any stimulus but I think we're still some time off from that :)

Same! I do think a vast majority of tasks are essentially next token prediction, but that's why I'm thinking that long, creative thinking periods will be what's actually valuable/rare.

From my understanding of how LLMs work, I'd argue thinking will become the most valuable attribute of humans (as it has been for some time). LLMs will inevitably surpass humans at functions that we know how to do, and likely through cross-domain knowledge and connecting disparate concepts will surpass us at many functions. But LLMs haven't shown they are capable of truly novel thinking, because it's next token prediction, which is inherently based on existing sources.

I think we'll see a shift towards arts, creativity, research, etc. where true novel creation and an understanding of the human experience exists at a premium.

Probably this angle: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-super-int...

As a non-technical and oft confused reader, this is very helpful! Also a very happy Scrimba user :)

I do the same thing with my subscriptions. Haven't checked the math lately but it seemed more cost effective in the past.

Could "superintelligence" arrive as basically applying this overhang to all other domains?

Would seem odd if Reuters didn't provide them access. They didn't seem to indicate or address it at all in the article

“Fool me three times—there's twice as much shame on me. I cannot believe I allowed you to fool me again.”

Src: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udSMZG_L-S0

I think the difference is people being comfortable with giving away their own data for convenience, vs. someone recording them without their permission (who they can immediately confront, unlike Flock and the like).

This is a weird article. There's no evidence or proof, just the author claiming he did it.

Edit: Saw there's a pay to read more option.

Wouldn't it track that AI creative work would plummet ticket costs rather than increase them?

Would love to see someone vibecode an explorer for seeing how their jurisdiction spent their taxes. Denver has a decent explorer here: https://www.denvergov.org/transparency/checkbook#/home?year=...

If Flock can put them up, can I/my city just decide to put signs or lasers in front of the cameras?

It's more fun to whataboutism instead

PMF implies profitability. I could give away dollars for $0.80 and have unlimited demand but it doesn't mean I've found PMF.

You'll get a piece regardless if you're in index funds, as they're being strong-armed into buying at this awful price

Yep. I got a 16,000 word doc asking for 24 pictures for our ads

Valuations are always more of an art than a science but in what world is SpaceX worth more than Meta today? Maybe the $1.75T is to find that world.

It's easily abused by both sides of the debate because there's no strict widely accepted definition. I find it tiring because it's a largely inconsequential benchmark anyways (outside of Microsoft-OpenAI contract disputes).

The debate around "AGI" is the thing that gets me. People just moving goalposts and arbitrarily applying their own standards makes for a lot of wheel spinning

It's also valuable verifiable data for advertisers, in that it verifies real people are being served your ads, and it's going to the desired age range/appropriate audience