raven105x

That's an economic problem to be solved just like the printing press and the industrial revolution. Like I said, we've been in a BS economy for a while now.

This is not true. Google LLMs / multi-modals fully support attribution and as explainability goes up, so will attribution.

And it will be much more fair / accurate than the droves of human artists who intentionally omit attributions.

When a human artist composes a new song, they often have no idea where they got the compound basis for it either.

If anything, human attribution is vastly inferior to ML as-is, nevermind of what's to come.

To be fair, this is no different than what's done by a human artist. Virtually every song composed today is inspired by or based on, in some manner or other, a previous work of art.

This is exactly what machine learning does - a novel recombination of what has been previously observed (ie., "reusing the music" - building upon that which is)

Whether this process is done by a human or not is irrelevant. ML, for the most part, does exactly what humans do.

There are currently very few capabilities which ML performs that humans do not - namely, blatant plagiarism.

People whining about their exact job being done by a machine is as old as time. Farmers, industrial revolution, the printing press (scribes whined), etc.

Nothing new here. New jobs will be created to replace the lost ones. We've arguably been in a "BS economy" for quite some time now.

I believe it goes something like "sometimes you win, sometimes you learn". The ends are important, but they do not justify the means. In this case, if the means are you did your best at the time with what you knew at the time, you did good. It's all you can do. Don't worry about what you can't control. Criticism is free growth - no need to attach a price to it by taking things personally. As to how, just remember how you feel when you bring something up to your manager, or a senior executive, or another engineer - you mean well. So do they.

I'm honestly shocked most sensible EU countries don't simply DNS block Meta at this point.

I realize this is in jest, but to point out the obvious, ML (AI is such a bullshit term. ANI/AGI/ASI, etc) models are trained on human written text. With ANI or AGI, this rapidly devolves into a chicken or the egg scenario. You know what else does? The cold war & arms proliferation. By the time ASI is actualized, humans will no longer be writing at all and languages as we know them will be obsolete.

There is a lot of evidence that language drives cognition and there have already been instances of ANIs creating their own efficient languages. Imagine that the year is 2040 and euclidian encryption is augmented via transcoding into AI languages to safeguard against quantum computing or replaced with quantum-resistant algorithms altogether. A turing complete quantum processor was actualized a few years ago, or we just finally figured out that ML and the probabilistic nature of Quantum Computing are a perfect fit. People tend to vastly underestimate the rate of progress over 10+ years.

It is very rare for someone to have a sound argument from first principles as to why inequality is worse than equality for society as a whole. The majority don't get past "well, it's wrong because people kept saying so since I was young, duh!" to consider the pros and cons of inequality as opposed to equality (either as abstract ideals, or actualized realities) for society as whole.

RE: personally stored keys are less secure ...this is very subjective. You don't "hand" your wallet keys to an exchange: you don't even have them. Meaning "your" CC is a lot like "your" USD in a bank: subject to taxes, send restrictions, asset freezes, IRS audits, and a whole host of other unnecessary and inconvenient crap. Being taxed on CC gains relative to the USD is ultimate hypocrisy. It's like being taxed on swiss francs or yen you hold if the exchange rate changes... except instead of an unlimited write-off for losses like traditional forex, the cap is $3000 to form a one-way YoY tax valve.

Literally nothing about the government's stance on or (severe lack of) understanding of cryptocurrencies makes any sense other than it definitely reminds me of good ole' Reagan: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

RE: if something happens to you ...that is an excellent point. You wouldn't get this without an exchange, yeah. If subjecting yourself to all of the above to reap this benefit is worth it to you, that's a favorable tradeoff to make and one you definitely should.

If you have assets in any* exchange, get them out now. Using regulated exchanges defeats the whole point. Fiat transaction fees are lower / nonexistent compared to CC ones so if you want to gamble on the relative value of something just stick to the stock market, and if you want to send currency on something that is regulated by a government anyways, might as well use Fiat.

The only thing regulated exchanges do is profit by losing you value via fees and then some more via taxes while carrying risks of being rugged or having "your" assets frozen. Just... why?

Technically, Jerome Powell did. Currency valuation is complex because it is relative so the lens of perspective becomes everything. The primary nuance in your example is that currency devaluation through inflation is not the same as currency devaluation through a decrease of adoption (and therefore overall buying power): this is very clearly reinforced by the IMF's criteria for what a currency requires to become the global reserve. Any modicum of "objective" value can only be reached through multiple relative comparisons. For example:

- How many Dollars does a bitcoin buy?

- How many Bitcoins does a Dollar buy?

- When the exchange rate varies, what does that say about the relative value of each currency?

- How many Potatoes can a Dollar buy?

- How many Potatoes can a Bitcoin buy?

- How many Drugs can a Dollar buy?

- How many Drugs can a Bitcoin buy?

The above is extremely oversimplified but much like a global foreign exchange relies on shifting exchange rates, so does the value of all currency in terms of relative buying power. In terms of absolute buying power - my personal highly subjective bid is that a currency's "value" is a compound of its' exchange rate as well as the amount of people willing to exchange it, and the amount of it in circulation as well as the breadth of people willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services.

You're describing post-1971 USD. It's getting difficult to tell which currency is the bigger scam at this point.

While that may be the sentiment, very few countries have the scale required to afford the luxury of acting on such a perspective.

Famous last words in a global economy, alongside "tax businesses and the elite". All three are a very delicate balancing act on the global scope of things, between letting the private sector run rampant or rapidly becoming a third world s#%t-hole by nuking your economy. More importantly, this isn't about privacy. This is about protecting information from foreign entities. If Facebook and Google were based in the EU and subject to their governments' control as well as order, I have serious doubts as to whether the GDPR would've ever come to exist. China and Baidu, for example.

In the financial world, centralized decisions followed by decentralized responsibility is extremely common. If you are international and operate between 3-5 countries that don't necessarily like each other at all times a great tool, something about some kind of coin, that lets you actually control a store of value, and get around what banks as well as governments think, came out in early 2009.

Cefi is great. It's fast, it's secure, you are protected from loss up to a certain degree, it's often cheaper than blockchain transaction fees, etc. But it's just a tool with tradeoffs, much like Defi.