Why are people arguing about whether gambling is bad when they can just open up a contract on verifiable outcome that is a good proxy for determining whether or not allowing people more access to gambling is good or bad. Seems like offering this would be the most courteous way of engaging

Some VC on wfkat praising this slop. Careless people leading unserious people

I listened to a Tchaikovsky novel where these robots are talking to each other—Service Model—and I can totally feel this idea with the LLMs

Currently overwhelmed by the amount of information Gemini deep research provided, and using another LLM to check it for hallucinations. Is this best practice? Short answers in my domain of being able to spot bullshit and mistakes is annoying but tractable

On a he podcast one commercial was like "Al is allowing toxic order flow to evade your defenses, but we have AI for you to defend against toxic order flow."

Seems gr…

Two minutes into conversation and they are asking about AI impact on GDP or general economy, other than the build out.

Anyway, if the impact isn't swift and dramatic the explanation might be like this:

Like monetary policy sometimes, AI has the risk that it is pushing on a string

This account was in fact based in Italy

Really‽ No, not for me

Imagine the worry Gemini 3 would be so good that the competition folds and demand for compute falls, so might consider nerfing to keep punch bowl full.

But at the very moment Gemini 3 is released xAI takes itself out of the running 2nd 3rd or 4th place by gimping Grok.