Getting oxygen from the moon to LEO requires less delta V than going from the Moon to LEO!
I think there might be a typo?
Jalex S
Karma: 272
possibly an easier entry point to the topic is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constantwhich is a specific construction that has some relation to the ideas OP has for a construction
MoviePass was paying full price for every ticket.
Well what’s the appropriate way to act in the face of the fact that I AM sure I am right?
Change your beliefs
Convince literally one specific other person that you’re right and your quest is important, and have them help translate for a broader audience
I agree that my suggestion was not especially helpful.
I think a generic answer is “read the sequences”? Here’s a fun one
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qRWfvgJG75ESLRNu9/the-crackpot-offer
With regards to subsidizing: all the subsidizer needs to do in order to incentivize work on P is sell shares of P. If they are short P when P is proven, they lose money—this money in effect goes to the people who worked to prove it.
To be more concrete:
Suppose P is trading at 0.50. I think I can prove P with one hour of work. Then an action available to me is to buy 100 shares of P, prove it, and then sell them back for $50 of profit.
But my going fee is $55/hour, so I don’t do it.
Then a grantmaker comes along and offers to sell some shares at $0.40. Now the price is right for me, so I buy and prove and make $60/hr.
I think part of your point, translated to local language is “GPTs are Tool AIs, and Tool AI doesn’t necessarily become agentic”
IMO those issues are all very minor, even when summed.
Is that relevant? Imagine that we were discussing the replacement of a ramp with stairs. This has a very minor effect on my experience—is that enough to conclude the change was benign?
This is an example where the true distribution of future prices is bimodal (with the average between the modes). If all you can do is buy or sell stock, then you actually have to disagree with the market about the distribution to make money.
Without having information about the probability of default, there might still be something to do based on the vol curve.
Because the phenomenon happens at the tokenization level, GPT at runtime can’t, like, “perceive” the letters. It has no idea that “SolidGoldMagikarp” looks similar to “SolidSoldMagikarp” (or the reverse)
it would be 3 lines
~all of the information is in lines 2 and 3, so you’d get all of the info on the first screen if you nix line 1.~
edit: not sure what I was thinking—thanks, Slider
For those who care, it’s open source and you can host your own server from a docker image. (In addition to the normal “just click buttons on our website and pay us some money to host a server for you” option)
I think that to get the type of the agent, you need to apply a fixpoint operator. This also happens inside the proof of Löb for constructing a certain self-referential sentence.
(As a breadcrumb, I’ve heard that this is related to the Y combinator.)
Cmn~Dno
I think this is a typo
Who do you suppose will buy them?
Yes.
My knee-jerk reaction to the argument was negative, but now I’m confused enough to say something.
If the contract is trading for M$p, then the “arbitrage” of “buy a share of yes and cause the contract to settle to 1″ nets you M$(1-p) per share. Pushing up the price reduces the incentive for a new player to hit the arb.
If you sell the contract, you are paying someone to press the button and hoping they do not act on their incentive.
An interesting plot twist: after you buy the contract, your incentive has changed—instead of the M$(1-p) available before purchase, you now have an incentive of a full M$1 for the button to be pushed rather than not (which maybe translates to a somewhat lower incentive to personally push the button, but I’m not sure that’s the right comparison)
that’s what the entire post is about?