arder

This is only a partial solution to a problem though. If x ai fails to build a good model they rent to Google. But that means all these companies are incentivised to build as much compute as possible. If they win their margins look great, if they lose they still make money. BUT at some point aggregate supply will outstrip aggregate demand and the bottom will fall out of the market.

This was covered in some of the coverage much earlier about the bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially it's within the court's power to not only pay the creditors but to pay them interest on their losses if that's possible. That's obviously balanced against the rights of the equity holders to get back any value if there is any equity left. In this specific case the people with equity were: the fraudsters who ran the scam, venture capitalists. No one wants to pay off the fraudsters and the VCs would rather pretend this whole thing didn't happen (because it makes them look like drunken coked up degenerate gamblers on a weekend at Vegas) so everyone agreed the court should be generous with how they calculate the return to customers. Government entitires also have a claim for any fines or taxation or whatever, but they're relatively happy for the retail customers to be protected first too - but they care less about the equity getting wiped out.

My guess would be anything above what the customers get may well go out to government fines rather than returning to the equity holders.

While that's true, if you have a good understanding of bankruptcy law, and a reasonable understanding of what assets FTX owned you could make a reasonable guess of how much money the eventual bankruptcy would pay out. Since the administrators publicly published what assets there were quite early on I think it's fair to say $270k always looked like a good deal.

In our libertarian utopia every employee at every company would receive a complex set of financial derivatives to incentivize them to manipulate the stock in exactly the way we want. Will Bob from Accounts push out recognising some revenue from this Quarter so that we miss projections and he can profit off some short dated Puts? No, because we had our HR team string together a series of quarterly short strangles to incentivize him to stabilize our share price.

The difference between a betting company the stock market is that in the stock market you have regulation to separate the exchange from the market maker. So in the stock market you go to the exchange, you buy or sell at the market price (or place an offer in the book) the exchange takes a commission but you're trading with a 3rd party. In the gambling world that generally doesn't happen, the exchange and the market maker generally are the same person - and there's good reason for that, if you can do it it's a better business model.

But either way, the same effect occurs. The sharks in the stock market profit from making good trades and in order to account for that the market makers have to quote a wider spread in the book, which effectively means the retail trader pays a larger spread. The net effect is money transfer from the retail trader to the smart trader. Would it be better for the market maker to just refuse to trade with the smart trader and then give the retail investor a better spread? Welcome to payment for order flow. Could a smart investor pretend to be a retail trader and get some good trades through Robinhood? Maybe, that's pretty analagous to what these guys are doing.

These are different mechanisms for the same thing but I'm not certain one is clearly morally superior.

The problem is the other way around.

A: Can you hear me? B: Yes B: What time is it? A: ...

At the point that B has replied Yes, B knows that it can hear A and that it can send to A but it doesn't know that A can hear B. As long as A makes the first move in the rest of the conversation that's fine - the next message from A confirms that B's "Yes" was received, but if A has nothing to say then B has to send it's next query and hope that A received the Yes successfully. If it didn't then B thinks the connection is established but it actually hasn't been.

Well this just goes to the core of your view on the role of luck in life. Are there 1,000 startups coming out of YC every year and 5 of them are run by geniuses who single handedly disrupt loads of markets. Or are there 1,000 startups coming out of YC every year full of roughly equally good people 5 of which get extremely lucky and make boatloads of money.

Airbnb just forked hotels, Stripe just forked Visa.

I think the most acheivable way of having some verification of AI images is simply for the AI generators to store finger prints of every image they generate. That way if you ever want to know you can go back to Meta or whoever and say "Hey, here's this image, do you think it came from you". There's already technology for that sort of thing in the world (content ID from youtube, CSAM detection etc.).

It's obviously not perfect, but could help and doesn't have the enormous side effects of trying to lock down all image generation.

Well for a start to run an even passable market making operation and to get into the jobs Sam did you have to be atleast fairly good at the mathematics behind probability. He's definitely more able to reason about probabilities than the average person. But sure, "I'm gonna go steal all these guys deposits to go gambling" wasn't an aggressive but understandable bet, it was the act of a degenerate gambler.

Nate Silver interviewed as SBF as part of research for his book and I think the big take away from it was basically that Sam's attitude to risk was pathological - he was willing to take any sized bet that he thought was positive expected value. The obvious problem with that is that you if you continually take higher and higher risk bets it's certain that you'll eventually lose one of them.

It's difficult to see when the 80% will ever pay off. They're a year in and he's got 94% health - but with that limit in place that's an effective battery capacity of 73% (0.94*0.8). At the rate that the others' batteries are degrading it's going to be close to 2 years before they even hit 80% capacity let alone the 60-70% that would make the 80% limited battery have better total real battery time. And at that point what are we saying? You're trading a good chunk of your battery in the first two years of its life for a few percent more several years into owning the phone?

It seems difficult from these numbers to see when, if ever, this choice is going to pay off for the people who opt in.

Hold up, they didn't do nothing. They tried and failed. There were several attempts at packaging an FPGA with a CPU and none of them worked.

It's really sad to see how far Intel has sunk, back in the good old days they'd lay off 10,000 at the drop of a hat. These days they're so rubbish it's taking them months to deliver those juicy juicy firings. Nice to see they're still doing well with their arbitrary movement of thousands of employees between TLAs though. Man that CCG is looking juicy right now.

Mr Beast videos do single digit millions in revenue per video, and he operates on razor thin margins re-investing everything. Youtube does $8.5Bn a quarter in revenue. For startups the target is the Youtube exit, not the Mr Beast exit. In fact, whilst Mr Beast is obviously doing a great job and making tonnes of money it's not clear if he even ever could exit. What Mr Beast is doing is incredibly successful, but it's not the silicon valley start up model.