epicureanideal

> The open challenge is how to prove it!

It could be proven by Anthropic backed credit cards with terms that protect users if it’s leaked or an agent misuses it.

Could call this “reserving” perhaps rather than purchasing, or maybe the purchase would be auto confirmed if under a certain dollar amount or combination of amount and waiting period.

Vendors could provide terms by API, MCP, or just in writing on the page where agents could read it, how quickly a confirmation is needed or what the terms of the reservation or purchase are.

Perhaps services could permit buying things with special AI credit card numbers that link to a special account that the user needs to manually approve by some period of time or else the order is canceled? Works differently though than normal payments where they can just ship the product or deliver the service based on receiving the credit card number.

At some point though, won't someone be able to extrapolate the demand growth curve, and invest some colossal amount of money into making and selling more RAM chips?

I wonder if we work backward from this smell, from the chemical that causes the smell, would we find some fundamental cause of aging that we could try to develop medicines for?

They shouldn’t be able to redefine common terms when closer terms like lease or license are available. It’s misleading.

If there is a severe shortage of labor, that'll happen. I think I remember reading about teachers being paid big bucks in Switzerland?

> Lack of children is about to bite us very, very hard.

Could it have an effect like the Black Plague, where labor becomes more expensive?

Would be great if they'd add:

Reverse human aging.

(Maybe a sub-topic under "Engineer Better Medicines".)

I’m kidding but.. it’ll be great if in 10 years we look back on this and your joke has become a prophecy.

If it happens, that’ll be proof enough for me that LLM assisted science is giving economic returns!

Based on my experience, even the models we have now are a huge benefit when properly used. And we probably have a decade or two of significant gains we can make just with harnesses, skills, heuristics, etc. even if no further progress were made on models.

Only the front matter of the 50 skills would be loaded, right? 40 MCP tools would be a much larger use of context, right?

The good news is if there are multiple frontier AI models from multiple countries with non overlapping sets of restricted answers, we can just use a couple of them to get open answers.

One way to make legal services more affordable and accessible would be to put the burden of ensuring the AI legal services are accurate on a private-public partnership with the government.

If a person using the service is given inaccurate legal advice and acts on that advice, the person can't be charged with a crime, can't be given any civil penalties, etc., as long as the law in question is non-obvious.

Obviously if by some exploit, some fundamentally obvious crime (murder, theft, obvious fraud, etc.) is said to be legal, that wouldn't apply, but of course the service should try to prevent those kinds of exploits anyway.

Could limit this to something like business regulations to begin with, or even specifically for small businesses, or contracts within some time limit and dollar amount that would otherwise be coverable by small claims court, etc.