Or just legalize it across the board recognizing that when only the powerful can make use of it. and we're not going to do anything about the powerful, we might as well let everyone else in on the game.

That is truly my cynical mindset at this point. The degree to which my trading is regulated is beyond absurd in a market and society where things like this are allowed to happen.

Reminds me of a debate in college. I was in college during the baseball doping days in early/mid 2000s and gave a debate presentation that the only way to make it a fair sport is to allow it for everyone; basically there should be no rules. The class vehemently disagreed but purely on emotion, no solid defenses were made that I couldn’t counter with a simple logic rebuttal. In any case, I tend to agree with you. The laws are only on the books to make naive people feel like there money is being looked after and the asset values aren’t manipulated. Remove the laws and the layman is a skeptic by default as he should be.

How exactly would someone with no special access, knowledge or power get in on the game? Legalizing it across the board would just make things worse.

They would be smart enough to know/assume it’s a rigged game they are playing and stay away from it. The veil of laws and regulations is a lie when they’re not enforced

The biggest issue here is not insider trading itself, but the fact that (foreign) policy is being used for insider trading.

Think of the tariff madness of last year. The biggest issue wasn't that insider billionaires were robbing outsider billionaires. The bigger issue was the massive stress small businesses had to endure, who didn't know how they were going to survive.

I am of the mind that legalization of this practice would decrease trust in the marketplace to an extent that I think is necessary at this point. Of course, the better alternative would be to actually enforce these laws and increase confidence in the marketplace but how will the inside track billionaires make their money if we do?

Scratch a libertarian and a fascist bleeds libertarianism here, no?

I think the weakly efficient market of mortality is the only fix here. Dead attitudes and mindsets need their advocates to die of natural causes for society to advance IMO. Also known as "blank advances one funeral at a time."

I have a Ford EV and a local Ford dealer refused to do warranty work on it because I didn't buy it there.

So broadly, they should have acquired VRChat and just slapped their name on it before its own developers enshittified it, but nooooooo...

I'm really glad they did no do that! That would be the end of VRChat & big damage for the community, basically requiring a migration to to inevitable replacement.

Just see what Facebook did to BeatSabre and other VR games and Game studios they acquired.

Sure, they could have cloned it, but better with more money - that would be less questionable, especially if it actually worked out.

Well, at least they helped to provide affordable headsets for VRChat players at the right time. :)

Fair enough, it is really striking how VRChat got so much right about the medium.

And there was much shareholder rejoicing...

What if Epstein was an alien all along?

I find simple Ralph loops with an implementer and a reviewer that repeat until everything passes review and unit tests is 90% of the job.

I would love to do something more sophisticated but it's ironic that when I played both agents in this loop over the past few decades, the loop got faster and faster as computers got faster and faster. Now I'm back to waiting on agentic loops just like I used to wait for compilations on large code bases.

Curious what you mean by "played both agents" and "faster and faster"? API calls are API Calls or are you running an open-source model locally?

Rephrasing of the post in case it's clearer:

"I would love to do something more sophisticated, but it's ironic that when I performed both of the duties done nowadays by agents, the development loop got faster and faster as computers got faster and faster."

For context and curiosity, are you using local inference? Which models?

It's a pretty ambiguous definition. The most powerful man in the world right now is not someone I consider a role model for social cognition and yet there he is with the football for the second time demonstrating grandmaster skill at social cognition to get there.

You don't have to be empathetic and nice, just good at navigating society.

So in all seriousness with a bit of snark: Do you want a malevolent AGI? Because "good at navigating society" as the only benchmark here is how you get a malevolent AGI...

Evidence: cuckoos and cheaters all the way down the evolutionary ladder as a winning strategy and arms race against the hard workers.

I don't like a$$holes but they do exist and they are part of our species, ergo intelligent. My opinion of them doesn't change the fact

Yes, but we have a choice about whether the AGI is an a$$h0l3 or not. That's the difference here. You do see that right?

He needs to do more in this universe and maybe connect it to one of his others. He really specializes in all the variants of collapse and I love every page of it.