> When everything is "just data", you spend a lot of time digging deep in libraries trying to figure out exactly what shape the data should take

or that is a good spend of time where you familiarize yourself with said library (as they say, the documentation is the code!).

Usually the library is well written enough that you can browse through the source code and immediately see the pattern(s) or keys. The additional experimentation with the REPL means you can just play around and visually see the data in the repl.

A spec does similar (and it does make it easier to seek through the source to find it).

I've often got value from digging through libraries (in other languages), but I've almost always had the feeling that I'm not "doing it right", or that someone somewhere isn't "doing it right". Logically, the concept of encapsulation doesn't extend to meta-coding, but it feels like it should, by symmetry. It feels like I'm breaking encapsulation if I use the knowledge I gain from poking around when I code to the library.

I'm fumbling at the concept of a library surface not being self-describing but I suspect I lack some concepts; does this thought lead anywhere? Can anyone give me a clue?

I suppose if you examine the behaviour of a library, and code against that, then it is possible that the behaviour is unintentional and thus you end up being locked into a bug. This is most clear when the library is supposed to follow a standard (e.g., parsing some format), but is bugged and didn't do it right - and you code against that buggy behaviour.

However, that's an extreme case imho - you do that when you can't fix that library's bug or wrong behaviour.

But for things like key names and such, i dont think this applies - those key names are part of the library's api - and i often find that clojure libraries don't document them (or do but it's one of those auto-generated docs that dont mean anything).

Stealing electrons is a chemical reaction.

That was before it was discovered that these LLM have incredible monetary potential.

Not really. The entire premise of the structure was that obviously AI would be immensely valuable and that they needed binding contract structures to prevent themselves from falling victim to the greed and ambition that would obviously consume those at the helm.

Unfortunately their contract structures weren't strong enough to protect from the combination of the "king of the cannibals" and completely absentee regulatory oversight.

The writing was on the wall when they feigned horror at an early GPT being able to play poker in the 2010s, and failed to release the model

I think Mr Altman had this idea from the beginning, and in his own, "can't stop lying" way, he lied.

Trust that they already knew long before, and that this was the play all along.

And if you don't believe that, do some digging into the lives of the psychopaths that started it.

LLMs themselves don't. But selling LLM related bullshit to investors has.

> They matter a lot because they're the ones that push your design language, develop new ideas, influence the general community, build new programs, find your bugs, and all of that

they used to care, but they don't now, because these corps have sufficient monopolistic control to not require "outsiders" to push their design language, develop new ideas, influence or programs.

In fact, it seems to me that these big corps want power users out, as they disrupt the agenda, find workarounds for "features" being pushed out that should have been mandatory for pleb users!

> [Linux is] still not right for the average joe but it's on its way and a few more specialty distros are already there (e.g. steamos).

i hope that is the future, because it's the only road to freedom for general computation. Unfortunately, the hard part is not the end user's acceptance of it, but the hardware manufacturers, who are being gripped by the balls one way or another. Unless they're willing to sacrifice any microsoft certification etc, they will be somehow beholden to them (may be not now, but certainly in the future when linux truly threatens window's dominance).

I think making the bets not anonymous is sufficient imho.

If a gov't official (including the president) is leaking classified information, there's already laws about that isnt there? (Whether it's effective is another question - i'm assuming it's currently effective).

I think that we are agreeing here, there should be regulation on the government side and laws without regulating what people can bet on.

> Congrats, your price movement signaled non public information to the market!

so from bin laden's perspective, this would've been a good outcome isnt it?

Can't say what a good outcome is without saying who.

What if enemies of the USA had corrupt generals who also make bets on anti-US actions to profit personally, and inadvertently reveal information to the CIA/NSA, who then prevent such anti-US actions? Would that not have been a good outcome as well?

Information is information - and one cannot say if it's good or not. However, i am a believer that more information generally do good than bad - assuming the consumer of said information is smart.

> Are you losing money because you bet on the wrong outcome ...

It doesnt matter, because you chose to bet. You do not need to bet in order to make use of the information being revealed by those who are betting.

>so from bin laden's perspective, this would've been a good outcome isnt it?

Of course

> Information is information - and one cannot say if it's good or not. However, i am a believer that more information generally do good than bad - assuming the consumer of said information is smart

Smart doesn’t always equal good. The consumer can be smart and use the information to benefit themselves (and possibly harming others), but this doesn’t necessarily justify releasing information. In fact, even Snowden, who famously released a lot of information, didn’t release everything. He applied his judgment and avoided publishing some stuff. Was his judgment correct? I don’t know. The question is - at some point, is information release always neutral?

> Are you losing money because you bet on the wrong outcome ... It doesnt matter, because you chose to bet. You do not need to bet in order to make use of the information being revealed by those who are betting.

What I’m saying is, if I bet on event X and X happens, I would expect to be paid. Instead I may not get paid simply because someone else who bet against X has the power to suppress any proof of X happening (via threats, money,…). This doesn’t happen with regular sport bets because sport events inherently have a lot of witnesses (physically present at the place where things are happening), there are referees, the teams themselves advertise the results, there is a professional league keeping scores and so on. If you bet on someone getting killed abroad by some military abroad, or military skirmish happening in a remote place, or other plausible but hard to verify event, faking something with AI or a friendly reporter is easier. And because people use cryptocurrencies in this platform, how can you prove active manipulation vs bona fide in some video some reporter published? “Hey, I just saw this video, who knew it was wrong?”.

The argument that you can lose money simply because it’s a bet, even when you should have won, is not convincing. Ok, I can lose but if I win shouldn’t I get the money?

> people who don't agree with you to do things.

the problem is that those people who don't agree with me are also not taking the externalized cost of non-action.

That's fine but as someone whose side hobby is literally politics, it's not hard to convince people that disagree with you to join your side. This is what organizing is, please note I am not talking about discussing things online (advocacy). Online advocacy is by far the worse form of politics, albeit the most popular, where you will rarely, if ever, convince anyone of anything.

You're going to have to go out and speak with people that disagree with you person to person to try to convince them to join your cause.

If you can't do this, you won't succeed.

This is the power of language.

The bias is built into it.

> Then the person who harmed him will be prosecuted ... NY Times isn’t calling for violence.

And the negligent driver also didn't mean to cause injury, yet we have laws on negligent driving.

If the NY Times would have known that harm could come to someone by having information published, they should consult and/or take measures to prevent that harm (or at least, take measures to minimize it).

The negligent driver was driving the vehicle though. The NY Times writer isn’t holding Back hostage and holding a knife to his throat nor indicating anyone should do that. Your metaphor is nonsense.

No, because those people are already public figures. They own companies that are publicly known (i don't mean publicly traded), and thus by proxy, are public face of those companies.

Or they appear(ed) in public to make something of being in public (such as lobbying, or civic activities, or philanthropy etc). This makes any article about them not a doxx - they already revealed themselves publicly. You cannot segregate public affairs of the person with private affairs.

Mr Back is already a very public figure in the bitcoin/crypto community who is the face of a public company. This isn't some rando who nobody has ever heard of before.