If hallucinated citations are making it to top conferences, do we just have to accept that no one is willing to do the work to ensure that our research is grounded in reality? Perhaps the volunteer peer review system is broken and we need people who are paid to carefully check the citations
If hallucinated citations are making it to a top conference, Is there anything we can do to stop this rampant abuse of AI? Or do we just have to accept that research is no longer going to be grounded in reality?
Not building enough housing? It seems like they've built 164,121 housing units too many. I think that the more correct explanation is that speculative investors are holding onto property indefinitely rather than selling or renting at a loss, preventing housing from falling back to its true equilibrium value.
I.e. insufficient land value tax rates. California created a class of feudal lords with prop 13 who get to reap disproportionate societal resources from newcomers.
Edit: the solution to which is not allowing squatters disproportionate access to others’ property via unnecessarily long court procedures. Residental agreements should be filed with the county just like land sales are, so a cop can quickly lookup who legally belongs and act accordingly.
You can claim whatever rental rate you want as a basis for your financialization agreements, but you should have to start paying taxes as though you are receiving that number as actual cash rent after some limited grace period.
That would stop most of the shenanigans by private equity in the rental markets.
I proposed something else. This occupancy tax is paid by the legal person who has the right to reside in the unit. Either the legal renter (and this would require leases be recorded) or if there is no renter, the entity that is legally allowed to reside in the unit is the owner. There needs to be no grace period.
Subtract this amount out of property taxes owed today so we have 2 taxes that would sum, and can even discount the occupancy tax of the renter based on their needs (old, disabled, poor....)
It's not "indefinite". Most vacant housing units are not vacant for a long time. They might still be under construction or might just be turning over for the next resident in a week.
And if we built more housing units in the Bay Area (increased supply), do you think that would make speculative investors' housing units increase or decrease in value?
The only way for cooperation to be a winning strategy in a prisoner's dilemma is if people have memory/reputation/trust. However, that is very difficult to build in the modern digital world where everyone is a faceless username.
One failure mode is when someone makes 1000 accounts and upvotes everything that benefits them and downvotes everything that doesn't. And you have to balance letting new users into the system with not letting the same user into the system twice, and with not requiring a picture of each user's passport. Or some orange guy convinced 1000 people that what's good for him is objectively good and what's bad for him is objectively bad and facts aren't real and words don't have meanings, which has the same effect as a user with 1000 accounts, but even scanning passports won't help you.
I went to a school in the suburbs with kids from middle class families and lower-middle class families. Many of us wanted to get into the Ivy League schools, but what I saw was that, presumable because of AA, the middle class kids from over-represented minorities (Asian, white) did not get into the Ivies, and the 1 or 2 who did get in were middle class kids from under-represented minorities (Black, Hispanic). But their families were still pretty well-off. Under no circumstances did a kid from a lower-middle class family make it into an Ivy, regardless of race. I really don't get why AA has to be about race, if we just did AA based on parental income alone, I would support it 100%. I think most concervatives would be happy because it wouls support poor whites, and most liberals would also be happy because it would in actuality URMs would still be the most benefited because they are the majority of low-income families. My only assumption is that it doesn't leave any openings for the rich and powerful to game the system, so people with the power to make changes will never make that change.
Two key caveats: 40% of people said their arthritis got better with the placebo treatment, while 70% got better with the radiation. Yes, that's clearly a difference, but it also means that 40% of people don't need to expose themselves to the side effects of radiation in order to get relief from their arthritis. Second, the realy number of people who don't need radiation is actually higher, because this study limited the use of NSAIDs like ibuprofen (Advil) or naproxen, which would probably have helped a lot of the other people. Granted, for people who can't take NSAIDs because of kidney disease or something, maybe this will be an option in the future, but I really want to see the long-term safety data before I go irradiating everyone's knees.
> at least ChatGPT attempts to give a paid option. Again, I don't think that'll stop them...
Netflix also attempted to give a paid option, but now we have an "ad-supported" plan. I think that same logic of maximizing profit means that even if there are some people paying for ChatGPT, the amount of free money that is sitting on the table means that we will see "ad-supported" ChatGPT pretty soon once the low-hanging fruit for quality enhancement start to dry up, which is kind of already happening.
I think the coexistence of ad supported plans is orthogonal to the above. E.g. Netflix still has an ad free plan, regardless of the other plans, but Google gives you no option.
"And now let's introduce this video's Sponsor, SpywareVPN"
Yeah, sure, "ad-free plan". As long as you don't watch (what feels like) the majority of videos on the platform.
I pay for premium, but I'd gladly pay 4x as much if Youtube also required creators to mark sponsored segments and let them all get skipped automatically if you paid for youtube "double premium double ad free" or whatever.
The premium plan actually gives you a little button to fast forward sponsor segments. (Not sure, if that's also on the free plan?)
You are right, that you still need to hit that button. It would be need to trigger it automatically. As far as I can tell, creators already tag the relevant segments as sponsored for other legal reasons.
But wasn't that also true in 1979 when the ban was first put in place? Obviously, yes, money is the main force driving this country toward sports betting, but I argue that there used to be a counteracting force called morals, and the loss of that counter-force is what led us to where we are now.
Well, in 1979 the people who had the money were the existing casinos, operating in the 4 states that had legal sports betting. This was a way to close the rest of the market, so they could continue to have a monopoly on gambling and wouldn't have to compete with other states.
Then FanDuel and DraftKings arrived with a lot of investor capital, and had the money and power to push through the legalization.
It was never morals that kept gambling from being legalized elsewhere, it was protectionism.
I actually agree with your take, that a model trained on a dump of the Internet will be left-leaning on average, BUT I want to reiterate that obvious indoctrination (see the incident with Grok and South Africa, or Gemini with diverse Nazis) is also terrible and probably worse
reply