It's not just the funding but the jobs themselves. Universities and even the funding bodies want to show shiny easy-to-digest numbers to their stakeholders to justify tuition and government funds. Which means these institutions in turn expect those numbers from their researchers, who then are happy to comply and build their paper mills and citation cartels, solving no real problems at best and producing fake data at worst.
Something that gets overlooked here is that most people will associate the early players for a particular kind of AI (OpenAI) with being at the forefront. Even if there are 100 competitors offering the same service with similar quality, sticking to the best-known provider gives confidence to enterprise buyers, especially when they have to explain the purchase to their bosses or shareholders. This, and the ability to attract and retain top talent, will continue to be an advantage of the early winners as long as they also continue to focus on pushing the boundaries and don't fall too far behind when competitors come up with new advances. Heck, they can even relax and cash out after a while and continue to reap the benefits, like IBM continues to do for enterprise computing even to this day despite (shamefully) not caring to be at the forefront anymore.
We don’t know yet. They’ll get consideration for sure but it is unclear where on the Nxivm scale of sex cult enablers they’ll get. In the case of Nxivm, Raniere got life in prison but two of the biggest enablers of the sex cult, his co-founder Nancy Salzman and Smallville’s Allison Mack, are both already out of jail. Clare Bronfman who was primarily on the money and intimidation stuff was sentence to 81 months and I think that was the highest of all the accomplices who turned against him and pled out.
Personally, I feel like someone like Allison Mack did way worse crimes than the uggos in the FTX polycule, but I don’t know enough about the sentencing statutes here to know if they’ll get more time or not. I feel like they will, but we’ll see I guess.
They pleaded guilty to federal felonies. I wouldn't call it getting away with it so easy, even if after sentencing they don't face much serious prison time. The whole point of the trial, corroborated by the "kid" witnesses, was that SBF was calling the shots and thus 1) his crimes were far more serious and 2) the mountain of evidence made the prosecution's case so strong as to make the idea of a "sweetheart" deal for him moot.
>Is there any place in the world where it isn't that way? Honest question.
Yes, many cultures don't have this Old Testament idea about justice, as if they take delight in seeing the prisoner suffering. This is more about sadism than justice.
This is how they can be OK with treating criminals humanely, not focusing on revenge and punishment but rehabilitation, not having the death penalty, giving lighter sentences, etc. Or even to have prisons that look more like motels - like the Nordic prisons.
>Seems like you’re pretty far off on a tangent? What does this have to do with SBF?
Seems like you're pretty far off the subect of the subthread? Have you read what we're discussing in this subthread? It's not SBF specifically.
Even so, if you want to see how it still ties to SBF, see the glee with which people elsewhere on this post comment about "life in prison" and throwing away the key for what is basically financial fraud.
>And if you think the US prison system is bad, wait until you see…. Well everyone else’s except a handful of Western European countries prisons.
For a western country, especially one with such pretentions of being a superior one, the "home of the brave/land of the free", constantly preaching as hollier than thou, and so on?
Uh huh. Good luck with that in real life. Nothing in this thread or in my responses ever made such a claim. You’re the one being ‘holier than thou’ and trying to make ridiculous claims.
>Nothing in this thread or in my responses ever made such a claim
Which is neither here, nor there. I didn't say you made such a claim, or that somebody in this thread did.
Just pointed that it's a be low bar to being content to be better than "90% of countries" when that means being at the bottom of all your western peers.
And that it's especially ironic given than Americans do make superioty claims, quite often, from lowly folks, intellectuals, and artists, to official statements by POTUS.
It IS a low bar, and it IS especially ironic given the expressions of superiority - regardless of whether you or others in this thread share them or not.
You don't need to have visited a place to be informed about some aspect of it, or to have a good enough idea based on related facts about it and the region's track record to use it as an example in casual conversation.
In any case, here you go: "Prison conditions in Rwanda today remain harsh and harrowing – especially for those incarcerated for daring or perceived by the authorities to challenge the government’s narrative.
Today Rwanda’s prisons are overcrowded at 174% of capacity – with the second highest incarceration population rate (that is, the number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population) outside America, according to the Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. The institute listed Rwanda’s total prison population at just over 76,000 – out of a national population of a little over 13 million. Rwanda’s prisoners include thousands detained in connection with the 1994 genocide, the report added".
or
"significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the
government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions"
I think you're under the wrong impression that when the parent said "Rwanda" they meant Rwanda specifically, and they didn't just use it as a stand-in for "well known third world country" with the understanding that such countries usually have horrible prison conditions.
Suppose your brother committed a crime. Do you care more about him being punished, or about him turning his life around and making amends for his actions?
Maybe from that perspective it's easier to understand why some other closer-knit societies don't value punishment as highly.
> Examples of these closer societies might be helpful
Pretty much all of Europe.
The US are often take as an example of an exceptionally individualistic society - in every sense of the word. It's also one of the most punitive countries in the world (the most punitive by some metrics). It's really not hard to find places that are both closer to the other side of the spectrum and less punitive. Drop a pin on a map.
Look. I am not an American and your answer doesn’t tell me much. A name of a country that you think is somehow representative of the international mainstream and the features of their justice/penal system that are an improvement would help me understand your point better.
Norway, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, Austria, etc. Pick one. Compare them.
Or ask something specific, no one here is going to give you a full run down of every European nation's penal system along with the US one for you to compare and contrast.
My comment tries to explain a different mindset to someone who seemed surprised that it exists at all, not directly answering their honest question, but rather trying to create understanding of that different way of thinking.
There's no rebuttal here, because there was no statement that could be rebutted - assuming that was actually a honest question I replied to.
How can he pay them back if he's in jail? I'm not saying he shouldn't be sent to jail, but the whole concept of expecting someone to pay someone else back by being in jail has always just struck me as strange.
But they are going to be made whole, or nearly so. It may take a while, but the guy they brought in to untangle FTX is the same guy that untangled Enron. He's said that FTX always had enough assets to cover its obligation, at least on paper, it just sucked at keeping track of them.
Those are separate issues -- whether crimes were committed, and whether depositors will be made whole eventually. If some of the bets they illegally made end up paying off, enough to reimburse the people who trusted them, that doesn't mean it was legal or ok to take that money to make their own bets with in the first place.
And while John Ray did say they were bad at record keeping, he also said that “This is just old fashioned embezzlement, taking money from others and using it for your own purposes,” he said. “This is not sophisticated at all.”
He never said FTX had enough assets to repay its creditors. Even worse, many of FTX’s assets are worthless (the FTT tokens are a prime example of this).
What he said was he had never seen a company with such atrocious record keeping. BTW, the US government would not have charged Sam Bankman-Fried with fraud if the money was all there.
Click on the top link to understand what's going on. The point is that ChatGPT purportedly generated that nonsensical answer to a human prompt and Google somehow picked it up as the top search result for that query.
What crypto people want to mean by "regulate it", and what everyone else means, are unrelated.
Crypto people want it to mean, "We continue to do what we want to do, but claim to follow regulations." Meanwhile everyone else means, "You follow KYC and AML regulations properly. So you shut down criminals. Can reverse transactions when ordered by a bank. And have sufficient knowledge of who you're dealing with to help law enforcement in a practical manner."
Crypto people respond, "But once it is cryptographically signed on the blockchain, it is final! And wallets are designed to be anonymous! We want to be regulated, with regulations that make sense for crypto!"
Sorry crypto. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Right now you're an attractive nuisance for criminal enterprises. There is no particular reason why society should want crypto to be part of the financial system. There are good reasons to shut down crimes like ransomware.
