hmm

Bullish Energy

Really nice report. Follow up: why has the fall in AI prices been so fast? When you plot the price decline against cumulative R&D investment rather than time, you get the elasticity of price declines to R&D investment. By this margin, AI is not unusual – its price elasticity to R&D investment is squarely in the middle of Epoch's considered technologies. So the AI price fall is historically unprecedented because we've dumped money into AI R&D at a historically unprecedented rate – and that R&D has paid off at a very average rate.

Honestly don't see how a dollar regime from here will be positive for risk assets

AI hedge fund, AUM grew 10x to $700m over five years, JPMorgan committed $500m, & it raised $30m at $500m val Token at $72m market cap, 11m max supply Interesting

people who are bearish near don't understand near intents

people who are bearish near don't understand near intents

Looks like binary outcome markets (prediction markets) are coming to Lighter very soon. A commit, named "Binary options support", was recently made in the Lighter prover repo, which describes the ZK circuit powering Lighter. I've read through the code; here are some of the interesting takeaways...

Getting March 2022 vibes

Wild 24 hours for AI and lots of different proposals have been made. TLDR; the only *tangible* new fact is that OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have embedded 3rd party evaluators from unknown organizations with Dario floating METR as a possibility. Having 3rd party evaluators is smart as there is no Section 230 style liability shield for model outputs and showing a “duty of care” will be important in future litigation. Several internet companies might have gone bankrupt without Section 230 so limiting liability really matters. There are minimal investment implications from this single new fact, but I do think that for anyone who wants a “smoother for longer” cycle then most constraints are good: wafers, watts, real rates and spreads. Excessive regulation is a different matter but I don’t think we are anywhere close to this even if the vector changed over the last 24 hours. To summarize the events: Dario made the most maximalist proposal of the weekend: embedded 3rd party evaluators, a national regulatory regime for models beyond a certain capability/ingredient threshold, a broad international regulatory pact between democracies, stricter limits on compute/distillation for China and then a different international regulatory regime that encompasses China. Before there is a national regulatory regime, he wants a Sherman act waiver so that Anthropic can safely coordinate with OpenAI and other frontier labs without antitrust fears. TBF, this latest proposal is much less maximalist than some of his prior proposals like “Policy on the AI Exponential,” where he advocated for an FAA for AI. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs. And despite all the protestations, all of this would also probably be good for his business over the long-term. Sam agreed that embedded 3rd party evaluators were a good idea and stated they would implement them. Again, this is smart as should help limit future liability. Elon said “Dario is right” and later specified that “Dario is right that there should be some oversight. Peer review of AI by competitors is the right way to start this off.” This would be a MPAA like self-regulatory structure for AI with regular calls between the labs plus a process where each new model is evaluated for safety by competitors for a 1-2 week period before being released. That is *wildly* different from Dario’s proposal and in-line with what David Sacks has been proposing. Elon also stated that nothing was going to slow down open-weight models. Demis said that Dario’s essay was a “step in the right direction.” Dario also said that he was also open to Demis’ idea of a FINRA like self-regulatory structure as part of his proposal. David Sacks had a thoughtful post where he said that Dario and Sam should pace unilaterally, called the antitrust waiver a cartel request and denied that METR was truly independent given their ties to Anthropic. Sriram Krishnan, former White House AI advisor, noted that it would be important to have the 3rd party evaluators come from independent organizations that are not affiliated with any lab, which is basically an indirect statement about the relationship between METR and Anthropic which Sacks was explicit about. Clem from Hugging Face said they were open to being a neutral 3rd party evaluator, which is interesting especially if Jensen was consulted before that post. Alexander Wang from Meta noted that alignment would be an increasing focus going forward. An executive order seems likely after all this and the language in this EO is going to be really important. It is possible to democratize and distribute AI broadly and safely without centralizing it in the hands of a few corporations who might each become more powerful than any single government. I do not want a few humans in control of intelligence. I want us all to have our own intelligences that reflect our own values and human variation in all of its richness. Intelligence distribution over intelligence centralization FTW.

why's no one talking about this

The cost of intelligence is going to zero. The value of human cognition will go negative. The economy will change forever. We need new institutions to navigate this transition and ensure the benefits are widely distributed. Today we present the Champion. Truly Sovereign AI.

Q: Is bitcoin:native actually following gold or software?

Happy $1B MC day :)

Fun while it lasted

lol