rschneid

Yeah that's what a primary source is: words from a principal architect of the deal, not a vague description using emotionally-charged terms. The interviewer is a professional eBay seller, so I think lots of what's mentioned in the interview is relevant to much of the discussion in this thread.

If you were interested in learning more about the nuance of the situation you might appreciate the information therein, but you're also free to reply to anyone who provides alternate perspectives or additional information with silly labels like 'true believer' instead of addressing the content of their messages!

It's a proof that something is possible to show one example.

In this case the claim was ASIC-resistant PoW is possible, and the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX. Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

Sounds like a good opportunity for a big indexing company to add some value by using thei-

Wait...

I think their point is that, in general, social-scale healthcare is an under-solved problem in practice and LLMs have potential to improve a significant portion these challenges by increasing accessibility to treatment. The availability of these tools will inevitably lead to more instances of reports like this (from the report the article is based on):

> This case also highlights how the use of artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially contribute to the development of preventable adverse health outcomes. Based on the timeline of this case, it appears that the patient either consulted ChatGPT 3.5 or 4.0 when considering how he might remove chloride from this diet. Unfortunately, we do not have access to his ChatGPT conversation log and we will never be able to know with certainty what exactly the output he received was, since individual responses are unique and build from previous inputs.

However I don't see this single negative instance of a vast social-scale issue as much more than fear/emotion-mongering without at least MENTIONING that LLM also have positive effects. Certainly, it doesn't seem like science to me. Unless these models are subtly leading otherwise healthy and well-adjusted users to unhealthy behavior, I don't see how this interaction with artificial intelligence is any different than the billions of confirmation-bias pitfalls that already occur daily using google and natural stupidity. From the article:

> The case also raises broader concerns about the growing role of generative AI in personal health decisions. Chatbots like ChatGPT are trained to provide fluent, human-like responses. But they do not understand context, cannot assess user intent, and are not equipped to evaluate medical risk. In this case, the bot may have listed bromide as a chemical analogue to chloride without realizing that a user might interpret that information as a dietary recommendation.

It just seems they've got an axe to grind and no technical understanding of the tool they're criticizing.

To be fair, I feel there's much to study and discuss about pernicious effects of LLMs on mental health. I just don't think this article frames these topics constructively.

To maybe help you alleviate a small bit of your presumably nearly overwhelming confusion I will repeat my reply to your SEC question[1], if that is indeed the 'first' one you ambiguously refer to.

> When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations

I'm not sure what about that you think is evasive but I'd like to end the conversation here regardless.

[1][Whats] one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.

The financial markets are more than the SEC but the SEC is part of the financial markets. Evidence of the SEC's imperfect lawlessness implies the greater financial markets are also, in part, lawless.

But my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not, that's your sweeping strawman. I was just saying that in Finance of ALL industries, the line between lawful and illegal has been, and continues to be literally, morally and philosophically blurry...

Laws and their enforcement will always have some nonzero amount of selectivity by the localized nature of the universe but good legislation confronts these challenges proactively and tries to make prosecutorial discretion closer to the question: What should the Punishment be? Rather than: Is this behavior Punishable?

>> an implicit status quo that could be changed any time

> So is a history of enforcement!

Are you really saying that history can be changed at any time?

While there will always be jurisprudence that attempts to advance precedent, a history of consistent enforcement cannot, in fact, be changed. People will always have vulnerability to novel interpretations and surprising re-interpretations of the law, but laws which sit on the books IGNORED can easily lead to essentially undefined behavior which I have no doubt you can understand the potential pernicious nature of...

You've got it backwards mate, a lack of enforcement isn't an agreement or resolution or much of anything reliable or solid or sound. This vacuum of enforcement actually ENABLES selective enforcement because a lack of enforcement isn't an official stance but technically at odds with the written law: It's an implicit status quo that could be changed any time and when it does, you could become retroactively liable for behavior that was acceptable under the prior status quo. That is precisely the conditions of selective enforcement: the choice of the enforcer. Under these inconsistent regulatory modalities you may insidiously lose valuable rights like: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Pretending to be subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement. How is this not the worst of both worlds? What a weird gotcha....

I humbly submit to you hypothesis that the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture. If you're interested in supporting evidence for this idea, check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments....