Feels like a lot of words to avoid thinking about “black” money and favors in kind. For example, nobody would include Trump’s golden bar from Switzerland in such ann estimate - repeated ad nauseam for all lobbying corruption.
You say this, and yet there are no real comments i.e. discussion in either of them? This must be the HN equivalent of Stack Overflow's infamous "closed as duplicate".
Almost all companies issuing stock to employees also ban them and their family members and fellow house residents from trading in the same stock to avoid insider style improprieties and the SEC has frequently prosecuted such cases. Wild that congress and WH staff have zero such restrictions even in 2026!
You seem to have defined ads as "obvious calls to action that end up in me buying it for sure". That's a pretty narrow view of marketing, but it does feel like you are aware that there may be other forms as you provide examples across the thread. It comes off as some form of elitism, where you deem the simplest ads as ineffective on yourself (but work on "average people") - but then go on to mention things like discounts and sponsorships, which to most are obvious marketing ploys too. No judgement, but maybe reflect on this?
Is discount really an ad? Like if I had already made a decision to buy a thing and now I paid less for it was it really a working ad?
Also sponsored content is way different than having ads on a website or in an app or what kind of ads do you think GPT will have?
And you are definitely judging me. When people say “ads” that is pretty specific thing that they mean. If you broaden it to mean everything then I can’t argue as there is no point.
There is two options either ads (as in those things every one blocks with uBlock Origin) do not work on people OR they do work on most people but not on me, if anything they are a deterrent from buying that product.
In most cases, yes. At minimum, it’s a marketing tactic built with the same intent as an ad: to influence your decision-making.
> Also sponsored content is way different than having ads on a website or in an app
However they are all exactly the same, in that they are all ads.
> When people say “ads” that is pretty specific thing that they mean.
No, that’s what you mean. Most people aren’t limiting it to a specific kind of ad, they mean anything designed to influence their behavior, shape their decisions, or sell them something.
> And we can argue forever what counts as an advertisement.
Or we can just work off the available definitions of modern advertising.
"An ad is any paid or strategically placed message designed to influence attention, perception, or purchasing behavior, regardless of format or channel."
> There is two options
There are in fact not. There are two you seem cable of recognising, but there are in fact others.
> OR they do work on most people but not on me
That’s an oversimplification. Ads can work in aggregate without working every time, in every format, or in the specific way you imagine.
Blocking one specific type of ad doesn’t make you immune to ads, it just means you’re filtering one, very narrow channel.
Influence happens through a huge variety of other means, including those that you seem to think specifically don't count and include, but are not limited too, sponsorships, discounts, product placement, social proof, algorithmic recommendations, brand exposure and many, MANY more.
You don’t have to consciously click an ad for advertising to shape your buying behavior.
> Any message designed to promote or sell a product, service, or brand, where there is a material connection between the speaker and the advertiser.
Yes, a discount is an ad - sometimes by the brand/manufacturer to get you to buy their product instead of a competitor, or by the seller to sell that product over others (for even mundane reasons like stock clearing).
Yes, sponsored content is an ad. The content creator is reimbursed for their output that is used to convince viewers to perform some purchase activity, usually over alternatives.
You’re really severely restricting the definition yourself by claiming an ad is “things that ublock origin” blocks. They can’t block physical banners and billboards or TV commercial breaks - does that now make them not ads? Whether you intended to buy something again doesn’t disqualify something from being an ad. In fact, that’s often when an ad is most effective - to buy the one they show you, instead of one you haven’t heard of or considered.
But the BTC mining algorithm has not and will not change. That’s the only reason ASICs atleast make a bit of sense for crypto.
AI being static weights is already challenged with the frequent model updates we already see - but may even be a relic once we find a new architecture.
We can expect the model landscape to consolidate some day. Progress will become slower, innovations will become smaller. Not tomorrow, not next year, but the time will come.
And then it'll increasingly make sense to build such a chip into laptops, smartphones, wearables. Not for high-end tasks, but to drive the everyday bread-and-butter tasks.
The world continues to evolve, in a way that requires flexibility - not more constraints. I just fail to see a future where we want less general purpose computers, and more hard-wired ones? Would be interesting to be proven wrong though!
TPU usb-c dongle is less than $100 (widely used for detecting people in home assistant / frigate nvr camera feeds). If one-off $100 purchase can replace (and improve 10x by speed) anthropic subscription even for 12 months - I don't see why not.
Sounds to me like there’s potential to use these for established models to provide cost/scale advantage while frontier models will run in the existing setup.
IME llama et all require LoRA or fine-tuning to be usable. That's their real value vs closed source massive models, and their small size makes this possible, appealing, and doable on a recurring basis as things evolve. Again, rendering ASICs useless.
Neither the blog nor Taalas' original post specify what speed to expect when using the SRAM in conjunction with the baked-in weights? To be taken seriously, that is really necessary to explain in detail, than a passing mention.
> it's clear prediction markets like Polymarket incentivize sharing information
I severely dislike these euphemisms used by prediction market enthusiasts. What exactly is the value of information like “most searched person on Google in year N”? Creating 10s of options to answer this question via gambling on Polymarket/Kalshi does not help anyone except their fellow degenerates. Heck, even events like “by N date the USA invade country X” also offer no real value, except for the insider circle to front run their own invasion and profit from it. Even worse, apparently they provide anonymity and cover to illegal participants (eg obviously US citizens) just like crypto exchanges like Binance did.
I truly question the sanity of those who believe that prediction markets are providing a positive force in this world.
I'm very tempted to agree that those markets are not providing a positive force, given the focus on questions for which a small group of people know the answer ahead of time. They are not sharing that information because it is not in their interest, and insiders likely won’t have a great time for long.
However, there is large value for some people in knowing when a country will be invaded: if you live there, you know when to leave; if you are an airline, when to stop scheduling flights there, or, if a lot of people are in the first group, up until when to schedule many more flights to get them out. But I’m positive the invading army would prefer some kid in a basement didn’t make one Lieutenant General on the committee obscenely rich overnight.
I wished the focused on markets where many people are part of the decision, like elections. There, the wisdom of the crowds would add some value.
> there is large value for some people in knowing when a country will be invaded
Are there any examples of people/companies trusting degenerate gamblers on prediction markets and making real life-changing decisions?
All the examples I’ve seen are exactly what I started in my original post - the insider circle opening a massive position on the right invasion date mere minutes/hours before they actually do it. This is useful to precisely nobody! And it happens because they are insiders, who want to avoid risk of exposure. Not to share their godly wisdom with the world for others benefit.
I don't have links. I'm a yeshiva student and many of my friends study in Israel and/or fly back and forth and I know multiple people who used polymarket to make flying decisions.
> questioning the fundamental basis of this.
Empirically, you can look at https://calibration.city/ (among other such trackers) look at polymarket, filter by market midpoint and you'll see that if a market resolves in a year, and 6 months in it's at 30%, the actual event happens at (remarkably close) to 30% of the time.
Theoretically, it relies on standard market theories, like efficient markets hypothesis etc. Basically, however corn comes ot be valued correctly, much of the same mechanisms are present here
Doesn’t Orthodox Judaism (like all religions) look quite harshly upon all forms of gambling? How is Polymarket kosher?
To be clear, I didn’t question efficient market hypotheses - my stance has been pretty clear along the thread, questioning the value of the kind of information gambled upon in popular prediction markets.
Yes, it does. I never gambled on Polymarket, I look at it to figure out the odds of things I care about.
I thought I explained the value quite clearly. ~10 years ago if you wanted to know the odds your flight will get canceled due to war, you had to trust the hyperventilating talking head on your favorite cable news channel (who's job it was to keep you watching...). Now you get basically the actual odds. If that's not value, I don't know what is.
I find the way you operate - supporting and benefitting from Polymarket - to be equally disdainful from the same moralistic standpoint that gambling is banned from, but I guess even in orthodoxy one can bend the rules to their liking.
> Now you get basically the actual odds.
But that's the thing - insiders bet & trade at the very last minute, and thus are not supporting the /just cause/ of "information sharing", rather just plain, old front-running and racketeering. The odds you see when booking your flight are not the real odds - when the actual action happens just before event takes place.
> equally disdainful from the same moralistic standpoint that gambling is banned from
I don't know which religion/s you're familiar with but I bet you don't know the reason gambling is prohibited in Judaism. It doesn't carry the moral stench you think it does. I've been studying Talmudic law for a very very long time and am confident there is no issue with using polymarket to get the odds on anything.
> The odds you see when booking your flight are not the real odds
In my previous comment I shared a link with you (https://calibration.city/) I told you to filter by market midpoint.
I don't know if you didn't see it or you are being obtuse but between repeating something I disproved and lecturing me about my religion, I have my suspicions...
Value? The market itself values having Google insiders ("Wow I can now ask questions about Googles' internal affairs") and Google values knowledge of leaks.
Aside from those tertiary effects, perhaps people would pay Google to know this information ahead of time but previously lacked the coordination to make a deal directly.
I'm sure people with business (plans) in country X question your sanity too. Markets create value, not postitve force. Only people can do that.
> Andrej helping coin yet another new term, something he's very good at
Ignoring all the other stuff, isn't this just a phenomenon of Andrej being worshipped by the AI hype crowd? This entire space is becoming a deification spree, and AGI will be the final boss I guess.
Language matters. If you have a term that's widely understood you can have much more productive conversations about that concept.
"Agent" is a bad term because it's so vaguely defined that you can have a conversation with someone about agents and later realize you were both talking about entirely different things.
I'm hoping "Claw" does better on that basis because it ties to a more firm existing example and it's also not something people can "guess" the meaning of.
What is the firm example that provides meaning to “claw”? I guess we don’t have any concrete analytics, but I would be willing to bet that the fraction of people who actually used openclaw is abysmally small, vs the hype. “Agent”s have been used by a disproportionately larger number of people. “Assistant” is also a great existing term (understood by everyone), that encompasses what the blogs hyping openclaw discussed using it for as well.
Completely agreed - and that media exposure is a result of clickbait journos piggybacking on the AI hype crowd. It's all a quite disappointing feedback loop.
You see, this is no longer necessary - companies are firing all the non-seniors, are not hiring any juniors, and delegating everything to AI. This is the future apparently!
reply