Imagine bad (incorrect and potentially harmful) information is public knowledge. Examples are "X cures cancer" or "Is Y dangerous to consume".
A prediction market will be seeded by public knowledge (of course it cures cancer or its safe to consume), which you describe "suckers". History is filled with many examples of bad public knowledge that turned out to be false (e.g. DDT is safe pesticide).
An insider (someone who knows the drug trial results, or works at the Corp creating the harmful substance) is incentivized to trade on that knowledge, which creates a better informed public (via people who pay attention to prediction markets).
Why does secret(insider) knowledge exist? To the benefit of the organization that wants to keep the knowledge secret. Insider trading laws purpose is to keep Corp and gov orgs in power. They prevent the dissemination of true information (for private power). Prediction markets incentivize the dissemination of true information, a public good.
That is the beauty of the Resolution part of prediction markets. If evil DDT Corp bets money to skew the market, then they lose even more money on the Resolution (assuming the resolution is deterministic of harm and has not been manipulated).
Oh good, the entire premise of the value of the system rests on an axiom with such giant and obvious flaws that you could drive a supertanker through it.
Does the resolution use the scientific paper that says "DDT is safe" or the one that says "DDT is unsafe"? There's no objective resolution of scientific facts.
"Prediction markets provide better information" in the exact same way that "Markets are efficient". You need to interrogate what "Better information"/"efficient" actually means even if you take the claim at face value, and also it's just not a model that maps to reality well.
So because Quebec ancestors killed all the people who opposed the conquest of that land, it's okay for Quebec to secede?
But because another set of Canadians didn't kill off all the natives that still claimed Alberta's land, they can't secede legally?
Is that the logic?
Wow, I'm not sure where you're going with that. Read up on the ''Brandy Parlit'' debates and you'll see that genocide of indigenous people was never at play in early Quebec. The relationship between European colonists in New France/Lower Canada/Quebec and First Nations has always been frought, but not genocidal.
you might want to do some amount of research before accusing the french ...
who by far out of the colonial powers had the best relationship with indigenous people in north america, and whos relationships created a new culture blending french and indigenous cultures together into the Metis,
What's great about this article is it's a falsifiable hypothesis. Is anyone keeping a list of companies in different sectors not firing due to AI? We can revisit this in 2 years and see how we did.
Mass produced EVs and reusable rockets are already decade old accomplishments. His track record this last decade of accomplishing things he proposes is noticeably much worse.
Neuralink is just another medical device company right now. The things it is succeeding at aren't the crazy sci-fi Elon "telepathy" vision at all, and there are other BCI companies.
Boring Company is quite stagnant and I would say what they achieved is very underwhelming. The original framing was that it would revolutionize the costs of subway and high speed rail tunnels and it has not achieved that at all. The things it currently does are nothing like the vision Musk was selling in 2017, much of the original concept was shelved.
Robotaxi is wildly off schedule and his timelines that he puts out for it have been non-stop over optimistic and wrong. This may catch up eventually, but it's currently not at the point that Musk was already claiming it was at 10 years ago.
I'd list as another big flop of the last 10 years the Tesla Solar Roof.
Also, I think by far the biggest Musk reality mismatch is the story he pushes regarding Optimus vs what anyone has actually seen of that product. That mismatch is absolutely wild. Anyone who believes the things he says about timelines for it needs to get a grip.
Have you calculated the CO2 output of Terran datacenters run on natural gas vs. space datacenters run on solar? The launch CO2 usage is one time, the datacenter energy is for the life of the equipment.
A Falcony Heavy probably generates 1 kiloton of CO2 per launch. Data centers on the planet are highly variable depending on their energy mix. It's true that a large a datacenter running on natural gas or coal power is significantly more in a year, but the sheer number of launches required to get that same data center into space is actually comparable, and there's no saying that this is the end of it. Oh and we should also have questions about how you safely de-orbit these things.
If solar+batteries are so cheap and viable to power giant 100 megawatt datacenters in space, why not do the same on Earth instead of using natural gas generators?
Solar panels on surface get ~70% less energy than in space once you factor in atmosphere absorption, day/night, weather, etc.
Solar + battery on the surface is not economically viable versus nat gas generators (excluding externalities)
Sounds like the solution is to actually price the externalities of running on-site natural gas generation and suddenly we don't actually need to go to orbit.
reply