That choke hold was vastly vastly vastly more dangerous than what happened to Altman here.

"Scary people on the subway deserve to be put at extreme risk of death" is what I'm talking about. Somehow that violence doesn't bring out the "violence is never the answer" crowd.

Why is "well we removed that stuff" a defense in other contexts but not here? In both cases the issue is this community writing stuff you deem objectionable.

* ending all covid measures to achieve herd immunity, accepting that this condemns hundreds of thousands or even millions to die

* ending foreign aid that goes to tuberculosis treatments, condemning hundreds of thousands or even millions to die of a treatable disease

* accepting the deaths of iranian, palestinian, or israeli children as collateral damage because of the evils of their governments

Or go read any thread involving the Jordan Neely story.

Somehow it is vastly more evil when violence is acute and focused at a single wealthy person.

They'll get right on it.

This isn't a "who knows" situation.

Now look at Polymarket's advertising. It is 100% presented as a gambling platform, not an information discovery system. There is nothing saying "don't play if you don't have insider information." I do not think that we can reasonably fall back on this defense of these platforms anymore.

I also don't much societal value in these platform's ability to suggest political events a few hours before they happen.

And this wasn't even really the original theoretical claim for these markets. The goal was to financially incentivize research and deep investigation, not to financially incentivize people who have access to hidden information by default. If somebody developed a system for predicting cease fires and used that to win in these markets then we've created a new thing for society. If somebody is just in the room when a cease fire is decided we haven't progressed society at all. All we've done is create a new way for people with power to extract personal wealth.

But Trump went to Wharton and Vance went to Yale. Educated people leveraging anti-intellectualism for political gain is not even remotely the same thing as what happens in Idiocracy.

Is there an advocacy arm of OpenAI pushing for legislation for UBI? Or is this like Musk's supposed support for UBI while also insisting that welfare payments to the poor are a bad thing?