> It's not obvious the subsidization will end. Loss leaders are a thing.
Loss leaders are a thing so long as they actually do lead somewhere. If your primary value proposition is conveyed by the loss leader itself, where do you go from there?
It might be an idea that Marx incorporated into some of his thinking, but it's not a "Marxist idea" in the sense that any variation on it must carry with it all other specifically Marxist precepts.
Marxists themselves were historically quite guilt of the same error, in that they assigned objective value to outputs and prioritizing raw output over subjective utility.
There's also the underlying problem of trying to evaluate "objectively right/wrong examples" in the context of decisions that depend on mutable subjective variables.
Chess mostly boils down to a mathematical optimization problem within a fixed, predetermined rulset, with predefined success and failure conditions.
Geopolitical decisions involve pursuing outcomes in situations involving far more variables, often changing in realtime due to factors outside the "game board", where the rules are complex, mutable, and not necessarily known in advance, and where the success and failure conditions are subjective and may themselves change during the course of the scenario.
Geopolitical situations are Chess, Nomic, and Werewolf all rolled into one. How good is AI at winning all of these games?
One of the things I notice is that a lot of these aren't generic decorative images, but are unique to a specific website. It'd be nice if this archive identified the point of origin, and linked back to a snapshot (or to neocities.org) so we could see them in their original context.
What statute gives authority to the FCC to "make up rules for marketplaces"? My understanding is that they only have authority over actual broadcasting.
the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 USC 154 1601 ff) is one place, among others, that Congress gave the FCC the authority to make rules about importing and selling electronics
I looked up the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ124/pdf/PLAW...), and it appears to be the act under which products from certain manufacturers were excluded from being purchased with federal funds. It seems to make no mention of either regulating domestic marketplaces or giving any powers to the FCC. Are you sure you're citing the correct statute?
yeah the 2019 act begin this odyssey, and the authority to regulate electronics imports is 47 USC 302 when Congress gave up their power to write down specific laws about electronics to appointed bureaucrats at the FCC back in 1934.
>Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, *offer for sale*, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.
I appreciate the reference to an actual, applicable statute. Based on that, it sounds like whether eBay acting as a marketplace is actually the party offering equipment for sale, rather than merely providing a venue for others to offer it for sale, is something that would have to be figured out by the courts, as would the question of whether the specific regulations the FCC is enforcing actually are pursuant to that section.
If you believe the FCC or Congress misapplied the interstate commerce authority in the constitution or prior case law, then you can take this up in Federal Court after you synthesize standing by trying to list a radio for sell on ebay
this SCOTUS has expressed interest in reverting the interstate commerce authority to its pre-New Deal interpretations, which would disintegrate the administrative state of the last 100 years, so they’re just waiting for a case, if you’d like to see what small government looks like again
> If you believe the FCC or Congress misapplied the interstate commerce authority in the constitution or prior case law
I'm looking for the specific statute in which Congress exercised its interstate commerce authority to actually assign this power to the FCC.
> this SCOTUS has expressed interest in reverting the interstate commerce authority to its pre-New Deal interpretations, which would disintegrate the administrative state of the last 100 years
The the post-New-Deal interpretation of the interstate commerce authority still relies on understanding that the power to regulate interstate commerce belongs to Congress, such that administrative agencies only have those powers specifically granted to them by statute.
So regardless of this, the FCC still doesn't have direct interstate commerce authority under the constitution, and can only exercise such regulatory authority as has been assigned to them by by Congress.
Whether or not those statutes will continue to be recognized by the courts as a legitimate exercise of commerce clause powers is another matter entirely.
"Models doing rogue things" is just another way of saying "complex system operating out of control limits".
Software engineering has until now dealt with deterministic systems that operate on Boolean logic, so dealing with stochastic processes involving unaccounted-for variables has never before been something we've had to deal with. But over in the real world, people dealing with physical, mechanical, operational, or even social systems have had to deal with the failure modalities of stochastic systems forever.
Maybe when working with LLMs as functional tools, it'd be wise to bring some of the wisdom from operations research, quality engineering, etc. into play.
This is exactly correct. I don't understand all of the arguments that attempt to special-case LLMs. LLMs are just a different way of giving instructions to a computer, and one that we know is based on stochastic models and therefore has a higher likelihood of malfunctioning than conventional software.
But an LLM behaving in unintended ways is functionally no different from a conventional program behaving in unintended ways due to bugs or design flaws.
I think the narratives that anthropomorphize AI are doing everyone a major disservice in leading some people to think that the standard rules and expectations somehow don't apply when it's involved. But it's still just software, and you're still responsible for the results of software that you deploy and operate.
Loss leaders are a thing so long as they actually do lead somewhere. If your primary value proposition is conveyed by the loss leader itself, where do you go from there?
reply