Switching costs are still low. Anthropic can only do this while they maintain frontier status, and while they do, they can charge whatever they want. An Oracle or Broadcom would fall behind and lose all its customers in an instant.
These are sensible criticisms and things one should be mindful of when using prediction markets as a signal (I would also add an awareness of how discount rates affect the reliability of markets that trade at low probabilities), but none of them justify the original statement being contended with, which was: "They offer zero positive utility to the world."
That is not surprising. If your point is that 10% is not 5% and the odds change over time then you have unreasonable expectations. It's not an oracle. Where did I say it was? I said it's a quick and robust signal. Of course there's plenty of ways to get alpha, but those require both effort and domain expertise.
Is this a standard you hold to any other single signal? Name it. What signal (a) predicted <3% over a month ago and (b) you believed prior to be a reliable signal?
The utility is a fairly robust signal about the probability of certain events occurring. It's pretty helpful for grounding your beliefs about the world (in certain domains).
For example, I had a lot of people ask me about the Hantavirus and if it was worth worrying about. I didn't have to do any research other than look at the various prediction markets and see them all at 5-10% to determine it was probably a nothingburger. Much quicker than having to parse a bunch of fearmongering news reports and such.
This is an insane response to someone having their carefully written work casually bastardized by an LLM that rewrote the entire design spec without even being informed. The amount of institutional noise generated by such carelessness far exceeds whatever improvement in readability you could possibly imagine. Any criticism you could aim at the original text that you don't even have on hand (i.e. are completely speculating wrt its readability) you could direct 100x over at the manager's horrible communication skills.
I read what you wrote and read it as sophistry. You reply by adding more.
"It's why you believe [...]" But you don't know what I believe.
"Scott Adams claimed [...] because of a response to a survey question [...]" But his statement is, if one applies some very basic "media literacy" (as you like to call it), clearly rhetorical, with the underlying message that there seems to be a lot of racial hatred from blacks towards whites in the United States in 2023, and that this racial hatred seems to be institutionally supported, and that as a white person of means he'll use his means to avoid this racial hatred and suggests others do the same. The cited survey is merely one data point he presents to support this belief. Arguing as if he arrived at this conclusion purely off of that alone is total sophistry.
I don't live in the US, so perhaps that will give you some reprieve. Scott Adams might well have been wrong. I don't claim to know here if he was, just that you haven't actually contended with his position at all despite writing a lot of angry words, and that this excess of sophistry justifies a dismissive response.
They do. They understand you cited ADL in lieu of an argument. If it could stand on its own you wouldn't need the citation and guilt-by-association. They understand the culmination of all the surrounding context reduces to a schmittian friend-enemy distinction where you are placing yourself as enemy. Everything else is sophistry.
This demonstrates where a lot of the mismatch in impressions of this tech arise. The thousandth amateur Wonderwall rendition is not at all interesting as a piece of recorded music, but for the performer (and those listening around them) it can be a fun and playful experience. The same could be said for AI generated music: it could be a fun and playful experience in the present moment, even if the resulting product is totally worthless to the market. This would still be a valuable thing for the human experience.
Arguably this is a return to a more traditional way of experiencing music from before the invention of recorded music. Before this, music was an entirely transient and often communal experience. Once the musician stops playing, the music is over. Songs from these times have largely unknown authors, and likely don't even have any single author or for that to even be a coherent concept. They were simply part of the shared culture that many had contributed to. Now music is owned by specific people and you can play back their performance as much as you like (for an increasingly insignificant price).
This tech may be a negative thing for the market of recorded music, but it needs to be argued that recorded music is the only authentic way to experience music, and that this is why that's how most people experience music currently, rather than that being an historical anomaly due to the technology available. Once you step away from treating music like it's only valid when it's a product for a market, the problems of AI music seem a lot less catastrophic.
Not that this affects the political calculus (where perception may as well be reality), but the cost burden specific to universal healthcare is actually opposite this intuition.
Things like obesity, smoking, and alcoholism all kill you before you can get too old. Healthy citizens end up using far more of the far more expensive end-of-life care, to the point where it outweighs the extra healthcare the unhealthy citizens use in their youth.
Just because you want that to be "the key" doesn't make it so. You make that your singular focus and you let antisocial behaviour off the hook. That is your prerogative.
For me, the key is the bait and switch. It's like a drug dealer offering first time customers a discount. It's a good business strategy to get people hooked. Very enterprising. Nonetheless, I would prefer a society without such behaviour.
Yes, yes. And a person who's pick-pocketed may well do better to protect their pockets. This does not absolve the thief.
Reasonable people can disagree about the degree to which vendor lock-in is antisocial or the degree to which there even is vendor lock-in here. But telling victims of such behavior to just suck it up and price it in only serves to distract from and abet actors abusing positions of power to rent seek and create low trust environments. It's not a systemic solution and it's not a serious engagement with the criticism levied.
Vendor lock-in is a thing. Switching costs are a thing. They know this. That's the whole business model. They're expecting that the cost of switching to outweigh the cost of the subscription.
I get that this business model is fashionable amongst wannabe rent-seekers, but it's still antisocial and should be shunned.