Besides, it's not like QA ends at code analysis. In fact, that's pretty shallow for the field.

Why? LLMs have no will nor agency of their own, they can only generate code when triggered. This means that either nature triggered them, or people did. So there isn't a need to shift burdens around, it's already on the user, or, depending on the case, whoever forced such user to use LLMs.

She uses terms like "us", "we", "collective", but who are these? All the constituents, the people, in their totality, they are not, for people are not a homogeneous mass. In practice, it, along with democracy, just becomes a nice rhetoric device for stripping people of their rights.

Democracy was never really a good solution to an inclusive society-wide governance system. Most successful implementation even need to add limits to it to prevent the mob rule that's a feature to it. Some try to pretend it is anti-authoritarian, because the members get a vote. But that vote only matters when the voter is part of a majority. If they aren't, they might as well not even have it. That alone already creates a hierarchy. And it only gets worse: most people belong to minority of sorts, and they, by design, get alienated. This means that the doesn't really represent anyone... other than itself, very much like a corporation.

Which leads to the final point: capitalism (in the Marxist sense of the word) isn't antidemocratic. Democracy isn't in opposition to corporatocrocy, it requires a corporation large enough to own everything. Thus, dare I say, the democracy she seems to envision might as well be one of the forms of ultra peak capitalism.

But I digress, there's a plentiful discussion to be had about the ethics and morality of freedom/regulations, but my point is how there is, in fact, a dichotomy between both and it isn't just framing. Which, in a sense, you just corroborated.

Technically, a lot of gamblers are gambling someone else’s money, they just havens lost enough yet for it to matter.

If you want to bring back debtors prison I guess I’d be fine with legalized gambling. If I’m stuck holding the coupon, I’ll pass.

If you aren't the creditor, then I suggest that you make it explicit how you are losing wealth with this. Good chance the issue might be somewhere along the way.

This is technically true but doesn't deserve top-billing. Any fraudster or embezzler (or mugger or drunk-driver) will incidentally be risking some of their own property while exercising their right to control it.

> informed decisions about an event by proof-of-stake

A large chunk of the problem here occurs when people (politicians, judges, police, CEOs, etc.) are wagering assets and outcomes that aren't actually theirs, but things they control in (violated) trust. In other words, the personal "stake" of their overt bet is actually far too small.

> The latter is functionally the same as policemen/judges/prosecutors/prisons having an incentive to create more criminals. [...] we increase punishments

So... repercussions like "is is a crime for those people to possess a private account on the anonymous bribery website"?

Onto the second, I don't think the people you mentioned actually wager stuff that they don't own. To be more precise, the problem is that they use criminal means to "rig" the bet in their favor. That, at least, seems to be what OP is talking about with incentives.

Finally, regarding the last, I agree that roles that require trust should have more norms and rules to enforce that trust. In case of strictly private roles, I personally believe they should be done via contracts and cultural pressures. For governmental roles, they should be enforce by laws (such as the one you suggested). Since this is a top-level, abstract, description, we can get into more about more specific cases (such as CEOs).

Have them have a prediction market on whether their house will be arsoned tomorrow or they will be hit by a car and instantly they will recognize the danger of the incentives and the bs of "information hedging based on price discovery".

Cause way worse events allow betting and profiting.

Give me a break, we're at the complete decadence of society and its intellect. Nobody can recognize right or wrong anymore let alone understand why insider trading, betting, etc, has been outlawed and prosecuted forever.

We live in the vilest era I remember since I was born, this is beyond disgusting.

Those way worse events also have a lot of extra political motivations behind it. If someone starts a war with the sole intention of winning a bet, there might worser problems than prediction markets.

The third paragraph might as well have been written by a consertive nutcase. Surely, if only you can recognize rights and wrongs, then you can objectively and undeniably prove them to this forum. On its own, it isn't much more than a appeal to tradition.

That doesn't read like a good-faith response. Parent-poster brought up an archetypal scenario asserting that certain people are ignoring malice/harms because they are not personally affected, exhibiting a latent logical contradiction or double-standard.

Instead of addressing the actual point (the existence/seriousness of the harm category) you've begun nitpicking that there aren't enough irrelevant operational details about the hypothetical arsonist and hypothetical attack.

_______

"They are correct that rain is natural and normal, this isn't a big deal."

"If it was your house being flooded by neighbors' failure to control runoff flooding created by impermeable construction, you wouldn't say that, you would recognize the harm!"

"Pish tosh! I suggest you think rationally about the fact that my house is on a hill! For what possible reason would I put myself in such a situation?"

The reason I nitpicked on the arsonist example is to elaborate on that: the arsonist does indeed have an incentive to put fire onto someone's house due to the bet, but the bet itself increases the probability of the fire being prevented, the culprit being caught, etc., which are all disincentives that may negate the original misaligned incentive. When we escape from this particular scenario onto others, this pattern remains. If the disincentives didn't prevent said harm, there are only two causes:

- culprit is unreasonable beyond saving: this one is trivial - they are beyond saving. Banning gambling would simply cause them to commit crimes in a different way;

- the mechanisms behind the disincentives are malfunctioning or aren't enough: that warrants an investigation onto said mechanisms, not a ban on prediction markets.

Perhaps this has made it clearer that, at least from my perspective, these "irrelevant details" aren't irrelevant.

Bettor is an impoverished arsonist with no morals and confidence in his anonymity.

Better question: why would a person ask a question with such a breathtakingly obvious answer?

Nevermind the fact about what would happen after the crime, should it even happen. It seems this hypothetical arsonist isn't just immoral, but also incredibly stupid (and that also begs more questions, like how do they have access to prediction markets like this).

For something so "breathtakingly obvious", it seems poorly thought through.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

> And naysayers (which seem to be dropping from the same basket of NFT/crypto cultists) will tell you that this is about probability and information discovery.

Also, I ain't conservative, prediction markets, in their actual scope provide no benefits and plenty of wrong incentives.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

Plenty of world events have been impacted by people with misaligned interests, including by spies and double agents. Hell, wars in recent years have been started as distractions from internal political affairs.

And you want to argue to me that there's no people in position of power that may want to influence events they can bet on?

There's a reason why we prevent people in sport from betting: it's a matter of incentives. Give people incentives they will bend everything.

The fact that you can bet on a country attacking another is a tragedy.

Regardless, from HN's guidelines:

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

Edit: since posting this, the comment has been edited (at least the version I saw, which ended before the quote). I will write a full response later. For what's worth, I'm grateful for the longer post.

Then don't argue like one. Rather than making a shallow statement about "how people forgot about the evils of something" and leaving at that, get into more detail about the history. Mention specific events.

> The rest of your post makes no sense.

Can you specify what doesn't? I'd gladly do my best to clarify.

> And you want to argue to me that there's no people in position of power that may want to influence events they can bet on?

No, I'm asking why are there such people? How did they get into such positions? What can be reasonably done to prevent such people from rising into them? From what I've gathered, your point is that the mere existence of prediction markets create enough incentives for well-behaved people to misbehave. My position is that they were never well-behaved.

> There's a reason why we prevent people in sports from betting: it's a matter of incentives.

Sure, we can leave it at that. If we ignore everything else. The problem with sports betting is that it tends to convert the practice from a compention of ability into another form of gambling. This does more than create incentives, it creates a negative feedback loop that undermines the point of the practice. Neither prediction markets nor gambling are about preserving the sanctity of fair play, though. Also, for what's worth, betting about outcomes in sports seems to be legal in the US, just that athletes and other involved are prohibited from betting in their games. If your proposal is to ban people in power from being able to bet and implementing systems to prevent them from doing so, then I suppose we are in agreement. But do note that this is less about incentives, and more about trust (you can trust more that agents won't abuse their role and, if they do, it'll be harder to get away with it).

This segways into main issue with your post. Incentives are highly subjective. For all intents and purposes, they always exist. They are the product of people having goals and desires. The incentive to murder always exists. The reason people generally don't "bend everything" for it is that few will satisfy their goals with that, and even less have it as their goal. For the few that do, there's another tool: disincentives. I don't think I need to explain why murdering someone might result in a terrible outcome for most. For the even fewer that murder as their sole and primary goal, they will bend everything to accomplish it, regardless of incentives/disincentives. Personally, I don't find it even worth discussing. This, perhaps, made it clearer why simply saying "there are incentives to do evil" doesn't cut it. A deeper, more contextual analysis is needed.

Unless you can show there are only criminal uses, or even that there are no set of disincentives we can employ to dissuade potentially bad actors from doing evil, a blanket ban is not warranted, specially when it comes at the cost of a human right.

>(To avoid perverse incentives, though, the HRT requirement is critical. Otherwise you have trans women having to choose between being more competitive and receiving necessary medical care.)

This is incoherent as an argument. It conditions the category on checking off boxes on a medical treatment list. I hope it's not necessary to explain why this is absurd.

There is a category called woman, it’s defined by something that’s identify related.

Sports should only be segregated by this category, except that to remove perverse incentives it’s reasonable to require hrt

I’m unclear on what you find absurd about this?

But that’s not how it’s defined. People have been using that word in every language humans ever invented for thousands of years to mean biological female. If you want to argue that there is something else that isn’t biological sex and you want to invent a word for it, go nuts, but “woman” is already defined. Words can and do change definitions over time, of course. If it’s your contention that the definition by consensus has already changed, say so, but there are billions of people on this earth who haven’t got the message, which seems odd for something determined by consensus of the people who use language.

Putting that aside, since sports are about physicality and accomplishing things in the real world, it makes no sense to base them on “identity” - something that cannot be detected or defined by anyone but the self identifier - rather they should be based on physical aspects of reality.

Plus it’s totally normal for words to have more technical detail than they first appeared. The idea of a sex binary doesn’t fully exist so we’d need something to deal with that anyway.

I personally support segregation based on hormones as the fairest option available. Otherwise if you use purely a genetic test there are plenty of women with high t levels without an sry gene and no one disputes that high t levels confer a biological advantage in many sports

[1] https://etymologyworld.com/item/gender

I don't know any culture which defined gender by how you dress and how long your hair is rather than what is between your legs. You would be called a girly boy or a boyish girl.

So girly and boyish is how you are perceived, girl and boy is your sex, that is how almost every culture defined it through all time.

>except that to remove perverse incentives it’s reasonable to require hrt

"I took a drug, therefore I am now a woman" is not a reasonable position to hold. The debate starts out with one based on an identity, and then in the very next formulation reduces that identity to which medicines you take.

So which is it?

    This is a position that one could take up, but it comes
    at a steep cost. It holds the societal acceptance of
    transgenderism hostage to a biological account of
    sex-gender. This is problematic for several reasons.

    Moreover, it is worth highlighting the problems with
    suggesting that sex, as biologically based, determines
    the gender with which one psychologically identifies
    [...] Second, whatever criterion is offered to ground
    this similarity would inevitably disqualify many women,
    for not all women share the same hormone levels,
    reproductive capacity, gonadal structure, genital
    makeup, and so on. (Tuvel 2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538165

Such a common pattern, I'm tired of seeing it. "That's not what it's saying, those words actually mean..." again and again, ad infinitum. A perverse form of moving the goalposts. Your reply has no relation whatsoever to what was previously stated, it is a new argument entirely.

This was never said by anyone until you came along with that comment, which is a totally different idea (effectively a non sequitur). Can you quote who echoed the same argument?

That was trying to elaborate on citruscomputing's argument where they said "Otherwise you have trans women having to choose between being more competitive and receiving necessary medical care."

I'm rephrasing those two points. Apologies if I initially described that badly, but I'm just restating the perverse incentive they were talking about

> I'm rephrasing those two points.

Quod erat demonstrandum.