1- Making a bet with privileged information.
2- Creating the event and making the bet.
2 would be a war crime, 1 would be a probabilistic leak.
Trump claimed they didn't want to pass through congress because they leak, and there were no leaks about the event. But if any personnel made a polymarket bet, that would constitute a leak. It wasn't acted upon, but if personnel continues to leak information in this manner, it is possible that an adversary will eventually listen to this signal, and that it was just ignored because it is too fresh.
This analysis would also make it clear why it would be immoral to participate in such markets as a civilian. Because if it is your country you might be compensating an insider for information, benefitting the enemy. And if you are not, you might be harming the enemy, but you would be an unlawful belligerent.
Of course the next step beyond that is "leaking" false information as a decoy by placing large bets on certain events. If that happens enough times it seems like it should wash away the value for agencies hoping to act on "privileged" information.
In the context of legislating prediction markets or not, sports is not a concern at all.
Whether it's a net positive or negative for important shit like war and corruption, we'll see, but if it helps in the important stuff, but damages sports, sorry bud.
First - I can not comprehend how you could possibly have a charitable interpretation on the war point and how it might have a net positive. I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, I would like to hear a single positive for being able to make BTC bets on killing people.
Second - even if you are not one of the millions of Americans that give a shit about sports, there is still a massive fraud implications just by the existence of crypto prediction markets. All it takes is one bad call to changed the outcome of game. The Superbowl last year had over $1 billion wagered on it.
If I live in a country that is under threat of being attacked by U.S. it is nice to have a website where I can look to get a reasonable probability that the attack happens
Might be better to provide a downloadable executable instead of asking the user to trust that the browser isn't doing what the browser was designed to do.
I disagree on that. I think that the main value of this kind of tools is "no installation required".
There are already free PDF editors that can be downloaded and installed once forever. What I used most is Libreoffice Draw: it imports a PDF, edit it as if it were a file in its own format, export as PDF again. It's not the only choice. Firefox has had a vanilla PDF editor since last year: download a PDF or drag one inside the browser window, edit it, save it. It's enough to add a PNG of my signature and fill out forms.
It's possible to run WebAssembly programs from the command line (without any GUI) using WASI (see e.g. https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI). Thus if the user downloads pdfconverter.wasi , and the user already has e.g. wasmtime installed, they can run `wasmtime pdfconverter.wasi input.pdf output.pdf` from the command line (see https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/docs/... for details).
In addition to the web site, the Electron app and the Chrome extension, you may want to distribute a command-line version of your tools as WASI-style .wasm program files. If you do so, I would exclusively use the them this way, from the command line.
>What if the agent only had one tool? Not just any tool, but the most powerful one. The Turing-complete one: execute code.
I think this is a myth, the existence of theoretically pure programming commands that we call "Turing Complete". And the idea that "ls" and "grep" would be part of such a Turing Complete language is the weakest form I've seen.
The topic is the subject of analysis in other disciplines, especially around Business Administration and Economy.
The use of the word agents is interesting is mostly a coincidence, it is used today in a sense that didn't quite exist 2 years ago (and that definition isn't yet formalized). We know that in economy the term agent was used to refer to people or organizations, possibly to programs especially in trading, but usually in the context of purchasing decisions or simulations. Of course it was used in an adjacent sense before, but in a way that isn't different to other similar words like "entity", or "decision-maker", or "being".
We can see that agents are used in this sense "The three largest nodes may represent countries, or buildings, or software agents"
In the context of agents that are computational, this has been discussed as well, especially in OOP, early OOP texts from Kay make parallels between Objects and cells, or create examples of Objects as office workers with specialized knowledge.
The phenomenon talked in this paper makes me think more of "the algorithm" as used in common parliance, rather than modern LLM agents. While these algorithms were usually controlled by a single company, this mode of analysis would consider a company as an agent as well, but it interacts financially with consumers, clients and in the case of public companies, through stock exchanges (which are connected to global markets at high speeds through HFT).
The math goes over my head, but I would say that if someone looks into it because of the current agent craze, it might be worth it to look into the broader intersection with economics, and look into the classical etymology of agents, rather than diving deep into this article just because of a deceiving word coincidence that gives the appearance of prophetical.
An agent is an autonomous entity that makes goal-driven decisions in an environment it can (partially) observe, and influence through it's actions. It is a very general term.
With that title, I'm clicking and reading all the way through.
I'm writing an article on a similar topic, but it's a critique on a popular development style that imports a huge dependency supply chain (without concern on if they are cathedral, bazaar, or megachurches), and what the benefits of building your thing bottom-up has.
If this sounds interesting to you, hacker news reader, you can leave a comment and I'll reply with a link once it's published.
As someone who doesn't understand this shit, and how it's always the experts who fiddle the LLMs to get good outputs, it feels natural to attribute the intelligence to the operator (or the training set), rather than the LLM itself.
1- Making a bet with privileged information. 2- Creating the event and making the bet.
2 would be a war crime, 1 would be a probabilistic leak.
Trump claimed they didn't want to pass through congress because they leak, and there were no leaks about the event. But if any personnel made a polymarket bet, that would constitute a leak. It wasn't acted upon, but if personnel continues to leak information in this manner, it is possible that an adversary will eventually listen to this signal, and that it was just ignored because it is too fresh.
This analysis would also make it clear why it would be immoral to participate in such markets as a civilian. Because if it is your country you might be compensating an insider for information, benefitting the enemy. And if you are not, you might be harming the enemy, but you would be an unlawful belligerent.
reply