I think the weakest part of the bakery example is the lack of specific numbers for the rent situation. Paying for someone's rent for over a year is a pretty large financial contribution and for two people not in a romantic relationship is should not be hard to do the accounting on. Like if you can fight over equity but you can't even calculate the rent you paid over the last year ... well it's no wonder you ran out of savings ...
This also points to a weakness in the product itself: it jumps to creating a solution without pushing for more info.
Great idea though I am skeptical it will be adopted in contentious situations without some sort of stick. In amorphous situations where there is just high trust but an aversion to talking things out I could see this kind of tool being used. But in contentious or low trust situations (strangers) I suspect most people do not want fairness, they want to be ahead. A fair agreement will, paradoxically, disappoint everyone since every party feels the lack of clear advantage.
I think this is mostly right, but it depends a bit on how you frame "fairness".
The system isn’t trying to impose a notion of fairness from the outside. It’s trying to find agreements that both parties prefer over their BATNA (i.e. what they get if they walk away). If there’s a way for one side to come out clearly ahead given the other side’s preferences, it should find that. If not, it finds the best mutual improvement available.
On the "no stick" point, I agree this probably isn’t useful in fully adversarial situations where one side expects to win outright. Where I think it helps is when both sides suspect there’s a deal but can’t quite find it, or don’t want to go through a long negotiation process to get there.
That's the problem, the story is saying he stopped focusing full-time on the business in order to make his own ends meet. It looks like the main innovation of the mediator generated deal is that it attempts to reconcile by drafting a way back in to 50/50 if he recommits. The starting 60/40 split is not that important.
Her ends, too. They share an apartment, in the story.
This is certainly an example of what I would expect from a product designed to optimize a prenup. You know, they say money ruins people, but sometimes you just have to acknowledge there was nothing really ever there decent to begin with.
Yeah after re-reading the scenario it is pretty weird. The AI doesn't have enough data. There should be concrete numbers for the rent. Why wouldn't Daniel tell the LLM exactly how much it was?
I'd argue it's basically entirely this. The modern food environment is incredible (over)-stimulating. Food is ubiquitous and abundant, with a dizzying array of novel variations. Food cues enticing you to eat are ever present.
Being vegan has the accidental side effect of counteracting much of this. A lot of the built-up food infrastructure suddenly becomes non-existent.
Imagine. You're walking into a busy mall in a foreign country. On your left, there's a café advertising a variety of tempting pastries. Your sister told you about that cafe. She loves their cream cheese cake. To your right, the sizzling flames from a steakhouse grab your attention. Moving to another level, you spot an ice cream parlor showcasing a new flavor: Strawberry Daifuku. But all this has to wait, because you're heading straight for the ramen shop you've heard so much about. They're known for their amazing pork bone broth. It's why your foodie friends have chosen to meet up here.
Now if you were vegan, all of that is just ... gone. Possibly the foodie friends as well ;)
Non-vegans don't think about this but they recognize it subconsciously -- most non-vegans would balk at having to go vegan even for a short time, just due to the inconvenience alone.
Some of the aspects of the modern food environment come back when you figure out where to look of course, but even the even a savvy vegan consumer won't encounter the same level of choice, variety and catering and let's not forget cost-competitiveness that a modern omnivore experiences.
Can you provide sources on your explanation of "the law in most countries"? In similar cases I've seen in news, the bank does not usually provide (full) reimbursement.
Either way, it means more levers of control by the CCP, which is not positive if you're trying to run a business. It introduces more uncertainty if nothing else, which is a negative.
reply