'Prediction' gets overloaded with optimization. Predictions are binary, optimizations are fuzzy.
If you're saying it's predicting, then each result should be falsifiable.
The result of an LLM output should be able to be scored against what it is supposedly predicting. Of course, that isn't possible, because it isn't predicting anything when giving novel outputs, otherwise that thing would exist independently.
Your argument of course sounds nice and fails under your inability to define "gambling."
I view favored house-odds, on arbitrary games or not, as unethical and predatory. This is the classic casino slot machine and related. However, Poker doesn't have house odds, it is a fair game.
Move one level up: prediction markets don't have house-odds if implemented plainly. On non-game events, they also have a positive externality, which already contradicts your claim: prediction markets predict quite well.
Yet another level up: investing in the stock market. The same authentic gambler who burns money into a slot machine can play the stock market to similarly disastrous ends. But if you define this as gambling and want to outlaw or limit it to 'professionals' then you bar people from capital markets which is absurd.
Prediction markets very often have house odds, even if the market runner is not the house. When you bet on events, the people who can influence those events and are also betting alongside you are the house. They know or can even decide later what the outcome will be, and yet you are betting against them.
This is often called "insider trading" instead of "house odds", but it is ultimately the same thing, the same moral hazard. And note that this is illegal, both in the stock market and in commodities trading - though enforcement varies, and is not very easy anyway.
I'd also note that there are significant problems with random reward games / gambling even when there is no house advantage. Gambling addiction is a real problem that destroys some people's lives, just like alcoholism. And people can become addicted and lose their houses by playing poker just as much as they can by betting on roulette.
It does have to be said that if LLMs keep becoming better coders at some point the bottleneck on quality is prompting. Good ideas have many hidden assumptions you think are procedural but often are pivotal to your broader vision.
I find that when I give an LLM my full handcrafted codebase, it does very well. It follows my conventions, sees the intent and can coherently build within its scope. It writes much better code than a 'vibe' prompt.
It is always tempting and I myself will continue pushing the boundaries, but when you keep an LLM in reasonable scope (that may be one line, function, file at a time, depending on your idea of reasonable), you, by definition, can get sound utility out of them.
Nostr breaks down along the longstanding ambiguity around what 'decentralization' means.
In the literal sense, centralization leads to economies of scale and the alleviation of coordination issues. Those coordination issues are what make physically decentralized networks so complicated, inefficient and fractured. These networks usually just find ways to centralize despite.
People really want decentralization of power—let's just replace the word with a better word: accountability. One should be able to enjoy economies of scale (centralized infrastructure) but have the cryptographic mechanisms in place to ensure the infrastructure must reveal its use and abuse of power, and can be easily replaced.
Nostr, like most 'decentralized' tech will switch between the meanings of both. Either way, it fits the description above: a single relay can work well, multiple have awkward coordination. The sense it which it is accountable is only that it can be replaced, but network effects favor the largest, so that's a problem.
Email requires a message to reach a specific, limited set of participants. Nostr is a public forum, which means an unbounded number of participants who can engage.
Ordering a conversation between an unbounded set across independent nodes leads to misordered interactions not possible if you just centralize. It seems like a small issue, but at scale quality really suffers when some universal, fine-resolution ordering can't be agreed upon.
You can devise many clever schemes to try to avoid centralization and achieve coherency, but if one service is more up to date with more info, it is preferable and offers a more coherent public conversation. Network effects still dominate despite the protocol.
All that said, if I wasn't very aligned with the spirit, I wouldn't care so much to think about it. I'm also aligned with the spirit of Bitcoin but the culture present in both doesn't help it. The fact that Nostr is Bitcoin aligned, meaning it rejects the technical options of protocols taking more risks, hurts it.
The way it handles public keys and identities is very simple and good and to me is very obviously reflective of a good future state. But it's not unique to Nostr.
There are things like mailing lists since decades and they do fine.
You are assuming that everyone can spam your messages whereas in reality with NOSTR you choose from which relays to get updates. These relays are sovereign in the sense that they can (and will) define the rules and who can use them.
I've never experienced misordered interactions since years of using NOSTR. This might be something of a theoretical issue because in practice that isn't observed.
> Nostr is a public forum, which means an unbounded number of participants who can engage.
Thats why you layer encryption on top of that to restrict the audience to whatever you intend. And yes, traitors in your audience can rebroadcast unencrypted versions of your encrypted one - that is the equivalence of a person reposting a private whatsapp chat on instagram.
Insightful! We struggle with containing true decentralised protocols like BGP, Bittorrent, and Bitcoin.
Email, RSS, and also Nostr are too simple. The core protocol does not contain any measures against spam, abuse and fraud. No accountability. Just launch a million fake identities and spam these network. Your Internet address got blocked? Try the a16z-funded startup that uses a USA-based phone farm. Decentralised accountability is unsolved.
My university lab has focused on decentralisation for decades, its hard. We need a decentralised trust framework (e.g. our TrustChain protocol), decentralised spam prevention (StarveSpam) and decentralised democracy (our TwoStepDemocracy protocol). Getting this deployed and do iterative improvements needs more resources then universities have. Another coordination problem for The Common Good.
> We struggle with containing true decentralised protocols like BGP, Bittorrent, and Bitcoin.
I find it hard to parse the intent of this. Are you saying this is good or bad? I think it’s good; I want my communications to be “uncontained,” even if there are downsides to this approach.
I do not believe in such a thing as “The Common Good,” to be quite frank, and find your mention of the concept to be alarming. What is “good” is relative across individuals, cultures, and situations. I certainly have my own beliefs about it but I don’t believe they should be enforced at the technological level.
Most people working on decentralization tech understand this innately. It’s not about reinforcing majoritarian views of what society is or should be.
Yes, we solved it by centralising and ceding our power, so that two companies can see when a lot of people get the exact same message, and delete it for them.
the main method against spam in Nostr is probably lightning. You can simply attach sats that are worth a couple cents to the content. Note that lightning has the concept of hold invoices so the receiver may or may not chose to actually claim the money. I.e. your friends and family will always attach 50cents to a message, knowing that you will never claim it anyway. If a spammer attaches 50cents to a message, the recipients will claim it and the spammer looses.
This is where we are headed in the AI age without Nostr/Bitcoin anyway. On some sites like youtube it has already become impossible to separate spam bots fom real comments. Agents that remote control users real browser instances and post AI slop all over the network will bring spam to another level. Attaching some money to whatever you post will actually be usefull to separate spam from real content.
> You can simply attach sats that are worth a couple cents to the content.
That is a great point! You can attach real money to messages to prevent spamming. However, this has been tried many times and failed to get mass adoption. Friction is too high when users need to load money on their fresh wallet. Giving everybody their own karma-credits could be the best of both worlds.
AI slop is a fundamental problem. The signal in Youtube clicks/views has gone to zero. Even adversarial machine learning can't make it a nice place anymore. I think its even doomed if we find a collective system that filters crap.
btw RSS usage is consistently declining, its 1999 server-focused technology.
In the context of 'decentralized tech' I've come to believe literal 'decentralization' has unavoidably poor network effects, while 'accountability' gives what people envision from 'decentralization' without the tradeoffs—by being a more fundamental property (decentralization can emerge from it if required).
Users set their own relays. Other users can see this list and use it to send and receive events. It's fixed the need of big common relays.
https://nips.nostr.com/65
So how does this hypothetical client find out what non-big relays have been set by the other users whose notes its user wants to receive, if not by receiving notes from those other users via one of the big common relays?
This is the "bootstrap problem" faced by all p2p networks.
NIP65 suggests spreading relay lists widely and to "pay attention" to popular relays:
> Clients SHOULD spread an author's kind:10002 event to as many relays as viable, paying attention to relays that, at any moment, serve naturally as well-known public indexers for these relay lists (where most other clients and users are connecting to in order to publish and fetch those).
Note this is different to centralising the whole protocol on popular relays. If affects the discovery phase only, and is robust to large relays disappearing.
If clients seed address lists widely they can easily find each other without major centralisation.
> People really want decentralization of power—let's just replace the word with a better word: accountability. One should be able to enjoy economies of scale (centralized infrastructure)
Let's not. Decentralization of power is not the same thing as accountability. They are alternatives that can achieve some of the same goals, but in significantly different ways.
My working definition is that a system is decentralized to the extent that a person cannot be banned from it.
I assure myself of a bed to sleep in in a decentralized way: there is a bed in my bedroom, in my house, which I lock with a key, so that nobody can sleep in my bed without my permission (or my wife's). Or I can go to a hotel, if I can find one that is willing to accommodate me, or to a friend's house. I am not accountable to anyone for my bed. If my bed has boxes of books on it and cannot be slept in, nobody will hold me to account. Not even my wife; she has her own bed. It is impossible to ban me from the Bed System, other than by arresting me; even if you took the bed out of my house, I could go over to my friend's house and sleep there, or I could get a new bed from a store, or from someone who's selling theirs.
This is somewhat inefficient. For example, tonight my wife is visiting her parents, so nobody will be using her bed. This kind of thing results in the community in aggregate needing more beds than people.
If I were staying in a homeless shelter, I would instead rely on accountability. If I arrived at the shelter and there was no bed available to me, I would complain to the staff. I would attempt to complain to the manager. I might at some point write a letter to their funding agencies. Depending on factors like my social status, I might or might not obtain some kind of alternative accommodation, and homeless shelters that systematically failed to provide accommodations to their clients might be shut down, or they might not.
If the homeless-shelter system in an area is completely centralized, accountability is all I'd have, and banning me from that system could be done at the stroke of a pen. But if there's some degree of decentralization, I might hoof it to another shelter, and perhaps find accommodation. Otherwise, I'm stuck either looking for a place to sleep on the sidewalk where nobody will steal my shoes, or maybe trying to find a bus ride long enough to permit me to nap in a seat for an hour or so, because I am significantly vulnerable to the centralized power of the homeless-shelter staff.
Despite its efficiency, this is considerably worse than my current actual situation, in which I really don't have to worry very much about having a bed to sleep in tonight, considerably lowering my stress level.
So accountability is very different in practice from decentralization of power. And that is why we prefer the Bed System, and most other necessities of daily life, to be decentralized.
In the case of Nostr, the idea is for relays to enjoy economies of scale without enjoying centralized power, in particular because they don't coordinate. There's always some tension there; if one neighborhood store stops carrying Sugar-Free Speed Energy Drink, you can go to another one, but there's no guarantee they carry it either. So the power enjoyed by the shopkeeper is definitely nonzero, even in ordinary commercial transactions (not to mention if they accuse you of shoplifting, which other shopkeepers might notice).
It's still much less power than that enjoyed by a big-box supermarket in a neighborhood with no neighborhood stores, and often economies of scale tend to drive neighborhood stores out of business when a big-box store moves in.
As an alternative to trying to decentralize your food retail system in neighborhood stores, you could try to centralize it and make it accountable, with a food co-op. If the co-op members don't like the food buying decisions of the staff, they can vote in a new board of directors that will fire the management, if necessary, in order to ensure better food buying decisions.
But this is very different from the decentralization of a diversity of neighborhood stores. Among other things, the food co-op can ban someone.
Culture us already far more ironic and appreciative of irreverent and absurdist humor, and open-minded to ideology- than it was prior generations.
Why would it tend this way before AI? Something to do with the creative potential where tech reduces the consciousness and menial work requirement perhaps.
If I'm going to be iterating on one document or idea in an extended manner with feedback from the chatbot, I will make an effort to setup the decorum it should follow, because it's a small proportion of the time in that chat.
But the guy just trying to get a report or email out quickly? Not so much.
The article reads like AI, which is a shame because the topic is at least in-theory compelling.
'Crypto' adopts to some extent a principle of being 'decentralized' and now has to square what it means for that type of hardware to compete with economies of scale which are naturally centralized.
"Decentralized" is just a bad metric. The real value-add of 'crypto' done right is accountability; Bitcoin mining is just the simplest example: any miner who builds less utilitarian blocks (either worse transaction selection or building on a bad history) is accountable by any other miner with the same margins who will maximize that utility, thus their income.
The urge to 'decentralize' is always in tension with that efficiency optimization. It is fine for an agent with concentrated power (under certain bounds) to be in a system, so long as they are accountable, usually by being easily replaceable.
Unfortunately a lot of 'crypto' intuition is just based on the idea of a wide breadth of servers or nodes equals some meaningful distribution of power, which is naive.
> Advertisement serves to increase purchase of the inferior product.
> The best product, which previously didn't require ads [on Amazon] now must pay Amazon to compete for eyeballs.
Advertisement, when successful, increases the purchasing of any product, generally. That the best product is subject to this effect and competition has nothing to do with Amazon or technology.
Consider also the utility of a weaker technology: Succinct Non-interactive Arguments of Knowledge. Theses can be ZK, but even if not they can take an expensive verification, like a hundreds-wide multisignature, and make it cheap.
If you're saying it's predicting, then each result should be falsifiable.
The result of an LLM output should be able to be scored against what it is supposedly predicting. Of course, that isn't possible, because it isn't predicting anything when giving novel outputs, otherwise that thing would exist independently.
reply