As opposed to governments renowned for colonizing half the world, destroying countless cultures, committing genocide in living memory?

If AI can do everything and gets everyone out of jobs, who is going to consume the ‘everything’ produced by AI for someone to pay for the AI?

I don’t think UBI is a real solution, it’s too hand wavy.

If you pull nonsense like this in a two party system, there are enough people with blind spots that it tilts the results against you.

My favorite example of such a blind spot is a friend being flabbergasted that someone funny could be evil.

Think of the situation where the string search is running on a system that has hyper threading and a bunch of cores, and a normal amount of memory bandwidth.

It'll be faster, but at the same time make everything else worse if you overuse vector instructions.

(also cherry on top: some modern CPUs automagically lower the clock when they encounter vector instructions!!!)

For example, one simd instruction vs multiple arithmetic instructions.

  x1 += y1
  x2 += y2
  x3 += y3
  x4 += y4
  

The concept behind vector instructions is great, and it starts to work out for larger widths like 512 bits. But it's extremely tricky to take advantage of that much SIMD with a compiler or manually.

My point is equally valid for "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly".

The occasional 'no' will wipe you out on average.

This is mainly because vector instructions are implemented by sharing resources with other parts of the CPU and more or less stalls pipelines, significantly reduces ipc, makes out of order execution ineffective.

The shared resources are often involve floating point registers and compute, so it's a double whammy.

This was overwhelmingly true ten years ago, not so much now.

Modern GPU threads are about 3Ghz, CPUs are still slightly faster in theory but the larger amounts of local fast memory makes GPU threads pretty competitive in practice.

It’s the 90% chance of making 1$ vs 10% chance of losing 100$.

The exact numbers vary, the expectations even out with high volume stocks but prediction markets do not because of rounding that favors the house.

It exists so there's a way to respond to demands like 'no criticizing Israel', or 'Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory', or double negatives like 'no not agreeing to automated droning'.

Because if you do not have a way to agree with these, your business can and wil be targeted and shut down.

No, all these variables cancel out.

If you were picking and choosing, yes. But this approach is basically betting no on all the markets.

The textbook explanation of this is the central limit theorem, proving this mathematically is a bit more involved for power-law systems like this but it’s empirically valid.

Say 70% of the time it resolves to ‘no’, you still don’t make money by blindly choosing ‘no’.

Guess why?

Hint: This strategy is also described with the macabre analogy: picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.

Do you want to pick up pennies in front of a steamroller?

Most of the article seems like minor annoyances that you take for granted.

Asimov’s favorite overarching theme is that whenever you try to constraint robot/AI ethics with rules, creative misinterpretations or misunderstandings tend to have outsized impact.

  https://observer.com/2026/03/the-catholic-priest-who-helped-write-anthropics-ai-ethics-code/