Prediction markets allow us to quantify risk. (Un)expectedly we learned that the existence of a prediction market for an event increases its risk as long as someone capable of triggering the event stands to gain financially from its outcome.
So what is the rational reason someone who isn't a subject matter expert (assuming that's what you mean by SME) to bet in prediction markets? The platforms appear to be marketed to the general public to be used casually as a way to make quick money.
Someone who is a "subject matter expert" (and given how specific many of these predictions are, being an expert usually means you are an insider with non-public information) can indeed make money as long as a bunch of idiots with worse information place bets thinking they know the outcome. This is considered to be a crime when done with other securities.
They do it because they get a dopamine hit from doing it, have superstitious beliefs, or have delusions that they can predict events they have no information on.
Interested if you believe insider trading of stocks should be legal - aren't insiders just providing the market with more information about that stock?
Disagree. I don’t need to be a subject matter expert on the environment or fire risks to profit from a wildfire prediction market. I need enough money to buy a pack of cigarettes.
EDIT: I suppose I also need to be able to purchase the “shares” in the “market”
That is pretty good pricing. I’m surprised. I wonder if this is just introductory pricing. It seems like there’s not much throughput for something like this. I can’t see how this could handle a constant stream of people wanting to park their cars.
> It seems like there’s not much throughput for something like this. I can’t see how this could handle a constant stream of people wanting to park their cars.
Assume your car park is a grid of cars, 20 cars wide and 20 cars long, i.e. 400 parking spaces.
You make the entire first row drop-off/pick up points. With 20 pick up/drop off points you can have a lot of people dropping off or picking up at the same time. And you know pretty well when people will be picking up their cars, as you know their flight arrival details.
Assume your average airport parking customer parks for 5 days, that's 80 arrivals and 80 departures per day. Each of your 20 pick-up/drop-off points only needs to handle 4 pick-ups and 4 drop-offs per day. To me that sounds feasible.
> there may be periods where lots of people come to park at the same time.
At least in my country, airports under-provision infrastructure and ask travellers to arrive 2-3 hours before their flights to make up for it. If a person has to queue for 10 minutes for a drop-off bay to become available, that's just the normal airport experience.
> Most airport parking lots have thousands of spots so you’d need a lot
My point is: If you've got space for a lot of parked cars, you've got space for a lot of drop-off bays. If you've got space to build a car park with thousands of spaces, you've got space to give it hundreds of pick-up spots.
Hopefully we'll have the opportunity to purge the evil from our country soon and the working class can forge a better, productive international community member.
It's this kind of dynamic that makes me pull back on my otherwise pretty AI-forward stance. There's an entire community of people who passionately believe it's obvious and undeniable that Elon Musk has solved problems that he has not solved and his companies deliver things they don't deliver. Tesla is absolutely unambiguous in their marketing material (https://www.tesla.com/fsd) that they do not have autonomous driving, but you're far from the first person I've encountered who's been tricked into believing otherwise.
I don't think that's my relationship with AI, I'm hardly an uncritical booster. But would I know if it was?
You definitely would not know if you were, no one does. I think the healthy position is to assume you are wrong and trying to find evidence of why you are wrong
For instance,I'm very skeptical of AI and, from experience, do not think that the current models are worth the cost, but I'm always in HN trying to find arguments/people that use AI successfully to prove that I'm wrong
I know multiple developers paying thousands of months on AI tooling.
I don't need to convince you it's worth it for you, but it's easy to see that other people have found a way to make it worth it for themselves. I would definitely not spend as much as I personally do if it wasn't worth it to me.
I feel the same way, but I’m not a traditional software engineer. Just an old-school Webmaster who’s been trying to keep up with things, but I’ve had to hire developers all along.
I’m an idea’s guy, and in the past month or so my eyes have also fully opened to what’s coming.
But there’s a big caveat. While the actual grunt work and development is going away, there’s no telling when the software engineering part is going to go away as well. Even the ideas guy part. What happens when a simple prompt from someone who doesn’t even know what they’re doing results in an app that you couldn’t have done as well with whatever software engineering skills you have?
The Elon hate is really creating a blind spot for many people here.
You can’t just compare Tesla to a meme stock when the founder’s side gig is launching and landing orbital rockets - a feat that even the most technologically advanced nation states have failed to accomplish.
Come on people, use a little critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking might ask how the valuation of company A has any relationship to the activity of a completely separate company B (planning for its own IPO)
But I will concede the founder's other side gigs would appear to have significantly affected its sales
1. SpaceX was an exceptionally well-executed good idea, and continues to be a leader in innovation.
2. Tesla brought EVs to the mass consumer market and proved the profitability of EVs.
3. Elon Musk was essential to the success of SpaceX and Tesla.
4. Tesla now has fierce competition in the category it defined: EVs.
5. Tesla has undergone revenue and profit reduction.
6. While it experiences promise in alternate product lines, Tesla is not a market leader in robotics (Unitree, Boston Dynamics) or self-driving cars (Baidu, Waymo). Tesla reported profit growth in residential solar and residential power storage, but the revenues from these verticals are dwarfed by other segments.
7. The trend over the past decades is Elon Musk being successful at innovating in underserved parts of the market.
8. Elon Musk is not currently pursuing any underserved parts of the market.
Can you provide a link with evidence of that? I haven't seen that reported.
I'd also note in advance there is a big difference in someone figuring out how to jailbreak Gemini or OpenAI, and then the companies responding swiftly to fix that, than what has been reported with Grok where it was basically wide open to create those images.
Grok has never been "wide open" to undress people. Anyone reporting that is being extremely duplicitous. Any image-to-image on Grok has stringent NSFW filters for exactly this scenario. People have worked out jailbreaks and those get dealt with.
Gemini and ChatGPT conversations are private, not public. A big part of the controversy over Grok is that it's happening in public on Twitter, often as direct replies to the user who's picture is being manipulated.
This is such a weird issue for me, who is blind. Did Grok undress people, or did Grok show extrapolated images of what people might look like undressed? The "undressed people" framing makes it sound like people physically had their clothes removed. Obviously this did not happen.
But, like.
If I have like ... a mole somewhere under my clothes, Grok cannot know about that right? People will know what they themselves look like naked?
Someone looking at Grok's output learns literally nothing about what the actual person looks like naked, right?
Kinda sounds like somebody should just make something that creates this for every picture ever? Then everybody has a defense -- "fake nudes!"
and the pictures are meaningless?
This is the sort of thing that is technically correct, but misses the emotional aspect that people want to be able to control their public perception. Of course people could (and did) do this with older tools or by hand. It doesn't matter to them. And since Elon/X are the villain du jour, it's a good lever to punish them.
> This is such a weird issue for me, who is blind.
I'm not sure what your mental model is for someone's visual likeness.
I'd propose a blind-inclusive analogy of what is happening on Twitter is anyone can create a realistic sexdoll with the same face and body proportions as any user online.
Doesn't that feel gross, even if the sexdoll's genitalia wouldn't match the real person's?
I interpreted your last sentence as asserting it was no big deal (ie not gross) because it was all fake, but fair enough if you didn't mean it that way.
But to your main point: if you agree it's gross, do you not agree it is a violation of _something_? What is that thing if not privacy?
You may disagree, but 95% of people in the real world understand what "undressed" means in this context and see it as a gross invasion of privacy.
I knew when this issue hit the fan that you'd get hordes of overly-literal engineer types arguing that the person wasn't actually violated, or that "how is this any different from someone drawing a hyper-realistic picture of someone naked?" I can actually even (well, somewhat anyway) sort of understand this viewpoint. But if you want to die on this hill, you will, most people in the real world would condemn and ostracize you for this viewpoint.
Use the mole example as referring to any physical characteristic hidden by clothing that people want to remain hidden. It's an example to demonstrate that the AI is not "undressing" anybody. It is filling in an extrapolation of pixels which have no clear relationship to the underlying reality. If you have a hidden tattoo, that tattoo is still not visible.
This gets fuzzy because literally everything is correlated -- it may be possible to infer that you are the type of person who might have a tattoo there? But grok doesn't have access to anything that hasn't already been shared. Grok is not undressing anybody, the people using it to generate these images aren't undressing anybody, they are generating fake nudes which have no more relationship to reality than someone taking your public blog posts and then attempting to write a post in your voice.
sure, but if I make a fake picture of someone having sex with a horse and someone else confirms "my gosh, that's really them! I recognize that mole" then I suppose it is the same damage.
At any rate where some of this stuff is concerned, fake CSAM for example, it doesn't matter that it is "fake" as fakes of the material is also against the law in some places at least.
if the problem is just the use of the word "undressing" I suppose the usage of the word is completely analogical, as nobody expects that Grok is actually going out and undressing anyone as the robots are not ready for that task yet.
It is reductio ad absurdum applied correctly. I made a completely absurd proposal, because the response is obvious - any consideration of "fake porn being fake" will stop mattering super fast once actual faces are put in the picture.
Invoking the image of someone's loved ones and then imposing a vicious scene on top of it is a way of inflicting pain on that person. That kind of violation is certainly a personal attack. It's actually a harsher kind of personal attack than attacking the individual in the narrow sense.
You can't do that here and we ban such accounts, so please refrain.
p.s. it's also a text-based way of doing the very thing you're inveighing against, so it's not in your interest to argue that way.
Yeah the reason Google and OpenAI etc are silent is because their services do the same but they "aren't the bad guys" so if they shut up the crisis will pass.
This of course implies that the crisis itself and persecution of Musk/Grok is politically motivated, or just based on stupidity.
The same capabilities might be present in many available models, but I do think that the public/social aspect in usage is quite different— people can’t come into my Google account and save nudified versions of my family photos directly to my Google drive, but X generated a lot of attention because the users are directly replying or quoting other users and @ing them with the modified photos.
