Both have risk associated with them yes, one has oversight from the goverment and the other is a game / world event.
With stocks if I try to do insider trading I run the risk of Jail time. Or if I try to do a Pump and Dump scheme, I go to jail. If I am an person and I "place a bet on polymarket/kalshi" and then go and influence that outcome. It may not be illegal. Since these markets commodify literally any event, its impossible to control the items themselves. So the markets need to be controlled.
But oversight from the government could change tomorrow. The definition of something shouldn't hinge on what the government thinks it is. The government's definition should be based in something meaningful.
You can consider adding in a small amount of js that tracks if a person actually engages with the content before "counting" their view. Eg, did they stay on the page for more than 15 seconds.
Youtube wont count a view until you watch for some percentage of the video. Maybe consider something similar.
Funnily enough, Youtube recently changed how they count views to be more in line with its competitors, so now they do count views as soon as the video starts playing.
You could still have fathom own it, but create a sort of small proxy that takes in the view requests and then forwards them on to your fathom instance / account behind the scenes. That way you can be responsible for counting who is actually a view and fathom can own the data and do all the BI things.
Just my two cents, you'll figure out a good solution.
Because they need to show several billion dollars in revenue. A million dollars a day would be utter failure for them. If they have $122 billion cash on hand, at 3 percent interest, they're getting $10 million a day just in interest.
If they asked their unreleased bot to get a million dollars and it suggests betting on Kalshi, that would be hilarious.
Why wouldn't someone with access long before you ask first? For example a model provider like hugging face, or a nation state looking to interrupt some other nations economy?
The problem with any simple question is you're exceptionally unlikely to be the first person to explore the problem space and pick the lowest hanging fruit. It's not impossible, it's just improbable.
--
Lastly why wouldn't OpenAI ask how to make a million dollars a million times? Or if it's cheap enough for them, how to make $1 a trillion times. There is a reason people talk about AI risks, and one particular risk being that the AI companies no longer need us pesky humans to think for them. They hoover up all the GDP and leave the rest of us to fight for scraps.
I could put zero effort into writing a quick post on some piece of programming knowledge. But if someone needed that information, I suspect that they would feel happy to read the sentences and not care about the process.
I don't think this "effort" argument for technical knowledge pieces makes sense to me. If there is something I need, I do some research and I look for signals of authoritative information. I don't really care about how much effort it takes to write a blog post.
> I could put zero effort into writing a quick post on some piece of programming knowledge
For starters, if you're writing something yourself, it's not "zero-effort". It might be low-effort, but you still put some effort into it. And low-effort doesn't mean worthless, as you illustrate ("but if someone needed that information...").
Consider that the refrain seems to be: "I won't put more energy reading something than you put into writing it". A "quick" post takes little energy to write, and little energy to read. That's fine!
Effort is sort of a see-saw; if the writer puts in less effort, the reader needs to put in more to decipher it. If the writer literally puts in so little effort that the result is completely wrong, the reader needs to do the work to check it and find the correction.
If you put in zero effort on some programming knowledge, they would be to put in the effort to confirm that you're correct.
Why do you trust something that is LLM-generated is authoritative?
Even if, on the most good-faith scenario, someone did all the research them told an LLM to add more pizzazz for some reason, there is still a chance that the LLM hallucinate a lie here and there that the author might have skipped when proof-reading if they proof-read it at all.
I can't trust a machine specialized in generating convincing bullshit.
Yes! I remember it being a bit difficult and confusing to set up when I was 10 or so. And of course, you can't use it on e.g. your gaming consoles or phones, and AFAIK you can't set up BOINC for personal use (e.g. rendering your own blender projects on all your machines). (That said, Blender itself does provide good tooling here for Blender specifically).
Working with good recruiters is my best advice now. They will actually talk to hiring managers and good corps will pay money for good people.
If you recieve any recruiter inbound, I would take their meeting and then let them know your goal of getting placed at whatever type of role youre looking for.
The ability to hold laweyers accountable not a panacea. In this instance most competent lawyers are going to still give conflicting good advice and charge for it.
Because truly the answer boils down to "it depends" and many people will take it many different ways and not be "wrong". Publishing anonymously is a good choice, publishing publically and complying with a removal order is a good choice, not publishing is a good choice.
"Good" here being somewhat sound in that it likely wont cause the person publishing a huge life changing issue.
With stocks if I try to do insider trading I run the risk of Jail time. Or if I try to do a Pump and Dump scheme, I go to jail. If I am an person and I "place a bet on polymarket/kalshi" and then go and influence that outcome. It may not be illegal. Since these markets commodify literally any event, its impossible to control the items themselves. So the markets need to be controlled.
reply