587Joined Jun 2019


I don't think it's obvious that Google alone is the engine of competition here, it's hard to expect any company to simply do nothing if their core revenue generator is threatened (I'm not justifying them here), they're likely to try to compete rather than give up immediately and work on other ways to monetiz. It's interesting to note that it just happened to be the case that Google's core revenue generator (search) is a possible application area of one of the LLMs, the fastest progressing/most promising area of AI research right now. I don't think OpenAI pursued LLMs for this reason (to compete with Google), and instead pursued them because they're promising, but  interesting to note that search and LLMs are both bets on language being the thing to bet on.

Maybe posts themselves should have separate agree/disagree vote.

I am imagining a hoverable [i] for info button, not putting it in the terms, as people often don't bother to even open them as they know they'll be long and legalistic.

There could be a little information summary next to the terms of use which is more accessible that explains the implications eg as you have here.

I would also be interested in knowing who/which org was "owning" the relationship with FTX...

Not to assign blame, but to figure out what the right institutional responsibility/oversight should have been, and what needs to be put in place should a similar situation emerge in future. 

Are people downvoting because they believe this not relevant enough to the FTX scandal? I understand it is only tangentially relevant (ie. FTX abused its customers money, they did not start a ponzi scheme). Or maybe because it is insensitive or wrong to share critical pieces of the wider area at a time like this in case people's emotions about the event get overgeneralised to related wider debates? If people disagreed with my view that the video has good arguments or is educational, they would have disagree-voted instead. My intention in sharing it was that, as someone who doesn't know much about crypto, watching this video helped me to understand some things about some of the wider claims that I had heard made. I thought that if there were people in a similar position of not knowing much, it could be helpful. Additionally, I thought that at a time of reflection and reckoning, a healthy dose of reviewing the more skeptical material is worthwhile, and this came to mind. It feels silly to be justifying simply sharing a video - but I actually just happened to be reading this thread  which made me feel like it was worth asking  downvoters to double check if they'd be willing to explain their reason for downvoting (I don't feel too personally upset about it, but do feel a bit of concern about community voting norms).

Some people are saying this is no surprise, as all of crypto was a Ponzi scheme from the start.

Earlier this year when it went semi-viral I watched 'The Line Goes Up', which I found pretty educational (as an outsider). Despite the title, it's about more than NFTs, and covers crypto/blockchain/DLT/so-called 'web3' stuff. It is a critical/skeptical take on the whole space with lots of good arguments (in my view).

Was going to ask if you had integrity failure or failure by capture, but I think what I had in mind in these overlaps already to a large extent with what you have under rigor failure.

It seems to me Jack believes that they are impactful and is wondering why they are therefore absent from EA literature. I could be wrong here, he could instead be unsure how impactful it is and assuming that if EA hasn't indexed it it's not impactful (fwiw I think this general inference pattern is pretty wrong). Seems to additionally be wondering whether he should work there, and taking into account views people from this community might have when making his decision. 

Load More