Several timeline rating agencies have rated this timeline in the bottom quartile.

I’m starting to think an article referring to LLM as AI is s red flag, while them referring to them as LLM is a green flag.

It’s about authoritarianism.

How are you Americans holding up? I heard the ministry of plenty has increased the chocolate ration from 50 grams a month to 40 grams a month. A 25% increase. Careful, I heard East Asia, who you’ve always been at war with is predicted to increase missile attacks. At least the end of the war is in sight. Then you can celebrate your victory over Eurasia, who you’ve always been at war with.

deleted by creator

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Shorts, especially, have potentially infinite risk. Put options would be a better option for a small time speculator.

First of all, copying or modifying somebody else’s work without their permission isn’t theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I’m using your car, you can’t use it, because I’m doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.

Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can’t afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they’ve been granted).

This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.

You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn’t, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they’re a liar. When you put somebody’s work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.

when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can’t own information, copying it is not stealing.

Also, another problem with the setup here is that the assassination market requires the assassin to predict the text that will be etched into the bullet. This breaks an important feature of assassination markets, namely plausible deniability. The original concept only requires the assassin to predict the day of the death. So, is the guy behind the assassination, or did he just play a macabre lottery, and get lucky? It’s not blood money, it’s gambling winnings. Perfectly legitimate, hence no need to launder your blood money.

Contrast this with this scenario, where having to predict the text that will be etched into the bullet removes any doubt that the winner was behind the murder. It’s definitively blood money now, and getting linked to it will definitively get you in trouble.

Next problem, using Wikipedia as an oracle makes the whole thing fragile. For one, getting wrong info entered into Wikipedia isn’t that hard, especially if the wrong info only has to stay in there until the smart contract runs again. This would allow somebody to claim a bounty without the target dying, which would quickly undermine faith in the assassination market. Secondly, pressuring Wikipedia into breaking compatibility with the smart contract probably wouldn’t meet that much resistance. After all, doing so would not impede Wikipedia’s mission.

Another practical problem is that requiring bullets eliminates many viable assassination tactics right out of the gate. And requiring the target be killed by a specific bullet makes the whole thing even more difficult for the assassin. What if you need to shoot a bodyguard first? What if you miss the first shot? Are you supposed to just etch your phrase into every bullet you bring?

My problem is that each paragraph starts with the same word. It’s a style issue. Elon changing his name to L1 is funny and sounds like something he’d actually do.

Nice story. I don’t like how in the beginning, several paragraphs open up with “L1”.

Also, one hard counter to assassination markets would be to simply obscure details of the death. Say the guy survived the first attack, then claim a second attack while he was in the hospital killed him. Wikipedia would be unable to provide the correct details for this mechanism for quite some time, and the risk that the wrong data gets entered would still be substantial. Alternatively, have the target predict his own death, and then release a fake report of the death. Claim the bounty, empty the pool.