NFTs were fueled by two different drives. One interested in the technology and if it could do something new and interesting, and another seeing it as an area of speculation (be that fueled by get rich quick and cash out or thinking it is a long term investment generally driven by how much the first factor played in).
OpenClaw seems to lack the monetary interest driving it as much. Not to say there is none, but I don't see people doing nearly as much to get me to buy their OpenClaw.
So, yes, on some level, hype alone doesn't prove use, because it can also be because of making money. But, on the other hand, the specific version of hype seems much more focused on the "Look at what I built" and much less on "Better buy in now" from the builders themselves. Of course the API providers selling tokens are loving it for financial reasons.
At first glance this looks like it might be the halting problem in disguise (instead of the general function of the logic, just ask if they both have logic that halts or doesn't halt). I think we would need to allow for false negatives to even be theoretically possible, so while identical text comparison would be easy enough, anything past that can quickly becomes complicated and you can probably infinitely expand the complexity by handling more and more edge cases (but never every edge case due to the underlying halting problem/undecidability of code).
For some of these, we fully disallow company to child transactions or interactions. Wouldn't applying the same logic require the adult to fetch any internet content and give it to the child on a case by case basis?
In this case, it is the data from the website, not the electronic device itself, that is seen as the item being transacted and regulated by age gates, no? The attempts to actually regulate it do feed back into changes on the electronic device, but the real cause of concern (per the protect the kids argument, if that is the real reason is debatable) is a company providing data directly to a child that parents find objectionable. That transaction doesn't have a parent directly involved currently.
Controlling the device itself and saying free game if a parent has allowed them access is a bit like saying that if a parent has allowed a kid to get to the store, there should be no further restrictions on what they can buy, including any of the above three items.
My main issue with this argument is that we never applied it to any other age gate created in the past. Why? Maybe part of it was control, but also because we know parents will fail their kids, and there were cases bad enough in the past that society decided to step in and protect kids even when parents fail.
If we really embraced this logic, then should we look at returning to the laws from before the 'protect the children' push of the 20th century. Compare this to some countries where kids can go buy beer. I've read stories from people in less regulated countries who use to buy beer for their parents when they were underage, and nothing was stopping them from buying it from themselves if their parents allowed it (or failed to stop it). Even a concept like child labor, why should we regulate that out to companies to control instead of depending upon parents to parent? When you consider web access as a person having some sort of transaction with a company, it generalizes to a very similar position of if a parent or the government should monitor that relationship for harm.
That really depends upon the the reputation. If the police were to arrest a lot of 'very dangerous people', and all you see on the new is that they put the 'very dangerous people' in prison, then that isn't going to cause outrage. What causes outrage is when you know Mark down the street is one of those 'very dangerous people', but he was definitely not someone you gave your those vibes. So you look it up and notice the actual crime, even if it sounds bad on paper, means Mark might not actually be one of those 'very dangerous people'. A single instance isn't much, but across society this leads to questioning a law.
But it only happens because you got to know Mark originally. If he was already labeled a 'very dangerous person' and was arrested early on, there's a much better chance you wouldn't have gotten to know him, and the extent you would question the law would be very differently.
This is difficult to talk about in theoretical, because most examples are obvious cases of bad law (people already recognize the issues) or cases of good law that how dare I question (laws people don't recognize as an issue). People spend a lot of time thinking about a law that has already soured but hasn't been removed from the books, but rarely catch the moment that they realize the law originally soured in their mind (and any real world modern examples that might be changing currenlty would be, by their nature, controversial and quite easily derail the discussion).
Put shortly, those people are only obviously innocent (not deserving to be punished, but technically guilty of what the law stated) because the law was imperfect in enforcement and you got to know some of them before the law caught them.
>so what do they do, force you to quit and then sign up again? That adds a lot of friction.
Maybe that's a good thing? Imagine if changing the T&C required cancelling everyone's account and then letting people sign up with new accounts if they still want to do business. That would probably make any T&C changes much harder to justify, creating a balance against what many see as abusing T&C updates.
It gets worse x2: the executor of the estate having signed up for Disney+ means the estate of the deceased loses the right to sue, despite the deceased having never signed up. Like a client being bound by all unrelated legal agreements their lawyer entered into.
(If I recall the details correct, it has been a while since I read into that case.)
It's all just games, they just want to win. Dollars are the overall points, but they're even willing to sacrifice some of those to win bigger cases more brutally.
The issue is how this will be handled in law. Can the law define this in a way that is not overly strict or overly permissive? The current attempts is effectively the law doing this, but with an overly strict approach of what counts as 'objectively the same' by judging the process and not purely the outcome. Would it be possible to make the law's definition of this more permissive, to focus only on the product produced, without accidentally becoming overly permissive?
In some sort of weird sense, it makes me appreciate the 'free armor trimming', 'alt F4 helps block attacks in pvp', and similar people in RuneScape. It gave young me a very low stakes environment to learn about scams, losing only what amounts to a little bit of my time. I wonder if there is an argument that we should encourage a certain level of scamming in video games just for the lessons it teaches at low cost? Alas, this isn't generalizable to society at large.
Should we view those who chase status as a bad thing, or look to those who assign status that is then chased? If the average person cares more about who won last night's big game than some work done to improve medication, should we really have anything to say about those who decide to optimize their lives by what society actually rewards?
I noticed this way back in grade school. Good grades were, if anything, a net negative prestige, while sports were a positive prestige. It made me wonder what the school was actually optimizing for, because the day to day rewards weren't being given to the studious. (The actual reward function was more complicated, such as good grades being a boost if one was already a sports star, but these were exceptions to the norm.)
OpenClaw seems to lack the monetary interest driving it as much. Not to say there is none, but I don't see people doing nearly as much to get me to buy their OpenClaw.
So, yes, on some level, hype alone doesn't prove use, because it can also be because of making money. But, on the other hand, the specific version of hype seems much more focused on the "Look at what I built" and much less on "Better buy in now" from the builders themselves. Of course the API providers selling tokens are loving it for financial reasons.
reply