[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Liquid Neural Networks, A New Idea That Allows AI To Learn Even After Training

This model is more like humans, where there is no strict separation between training and deployment. It allows for unsupervised continuous improvement. Traditional AI model can only improve by humans making corrections and adjustments to existing performance.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Deep Fakes are About to Change Everything

Ready or not, deep fakes are here to stay. Deep fakes are going to change the way we trust information around us and even each other. The question is - are we prepared for the threat they cause while being able to harness their potential for good?

This development shows the importance of communicating the universal terminal goal and building a shared virtual universe, which I can think as the extended version of crypto currency, which makes it hard for tampering the information within it.

[alancalverd]

If real people can't live in your virtual universe, what use is it?

Forgery is forgery, and we've had to live with it for as long as anyone has valued authenticity. One of my associates had some  funds tied up in a painting that lived in a bank vault. It was "worth" millions - that is, it represented  a large sum of money that his syndicate had paid for it and was therefore a sort of unforgeable cheque or bond that could be exchanged for money, as long as it was never exhibited since that would expose it to damage, theft, or copying!

[Bored chemist]

Forgery is forgery, and we've had to live with it for as long as anyone has valued authenticity.

Yes.
But my chequebook was only at risk from a skilled forger.
That wasn't a big threat to me.
But now any Tom Dick or Harry can make a practically perfect facsimile of my signature/ face/ social media account/ whatever.
So, yes, forgery was always a problem.
But it suddenly got much worse.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If real people can't live in your virtual universe, what use is it?

To make it nearly impossible for anyone to abuse or misuse shared resources, and then just gets away with it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Forgery is forgery, and we've had to live with it for as long as anyone has valued authenticity. One of my associates had some  funds tied up in a painting that lived in a bank vault. It was "worth" millions - that is, it represented  a large sum of money that his syndicate had paid for it and was therefore a sort of unforgeable cheque or bond that could be exchanged for money, as long as it was never exhibited since that would expose it to damage, theft, or copying!

If everyone who believe in the value of that painting are already dead, and the secrecy prevents anyone new to learn about it, it would worth nothing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Kevin O?Leary: I invested in FTX. Here?s the big problem with crypto.

Crypto is a lot of things, but it isn?t a currency according to Shark Tank investor Kevin O?Leary, aka ?Mr. Wonderful." What would it take to get there?

Is the collapse of a $25 billion cryptocurrency startup a death knell for the industry? Not according to Kevin O'Leary, an investor, businessman, and author. He sees the failure of FTX as a speed bump rather than a roadblock, underscoring the distinction between speculative assets like Bitcoin and more stable entities like Stablecoins.

Despite the turmoil, O'Leary maintains that the potential of cryptocurrencies remains vast. He foresees their integration into the global economy but contends that this can only happen successfully with appropriate regulation to curtail the sector's ?Wild West? tendencies. As the cryptocurrency community awaits the final outcome of the SEC?s lawsuit against Ripple and other companies, it remains to be seen whether or when digital assets will be incorporated into our daily economic lives.


0:00 FTX's "utter catastrophe"
0:58 What crypto is missing
1:23 Speculative assets vs. stable coins
3:10 Should we trust the government to regulate crypto?
5:45 Where do we go from here?

In any system, regulations, and the capabilities and willingness to enforce them are essential to make it sustainable.

[alancalverd]

If everyone who believe in the value of that painting are already dead, and the secrecy prevents anyone new to learn about it, it would worth nothing.

Belief isn't essential - the provenance and purchase history are well documented, and its existence isn't a secret. Just like gold bullion, you have to let everyone know you have it if you want to use it as collateral for a transaction, but you don't wave it around in public!

[alancalverd]

But my chequebook was only at risk from a skilled forger.
That wasn't a big threat to me.
But now any Tom Dick or Harry can make a practically perfect facsimile of my signature/ face/ social media account/ whatever.
So, yes, forgery was always a problem.
But it suddenly got much worse.

Maybe it's time we reverted to cash or barter.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But my chequebook was only at risk from a skilled forger.
That wasn't a big threat to me.
But now any Tom Dick or Harry can make a practically perfect facsimile of my signature/ face/ social media account/ whatever.
So, yes, forgery was always a problem.
But it suddenly got much worse.

Maybe it's time we reverted to cash or barter.

You would face problem of practicality. How would you make a transaction that's more than one billion dollars?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If everyone who believe in the value of that painting are already dead, and the secrecy prevents anyone new to learn about it, it would worth nothing.

Belief isn't essential - the provenance and purchase history are well documented, and its existence isn't a secret. Just like gold bullion, you have to let everyone know you have it if you want to use it as collateral for a transaction, but you don't wave it around in public!

How do you know that the documents are not altered?

[alancalverd]

You don't rely  on a single document or even a single source for proof of provenance. At each stage in the commercial life of the painting there will have been a document authorising the money transfer (now held by the seller) and one acknowledging it (held by the purchaser).  Indeed it was these documents that got Van Meegeren into trouble for selling "Vermeers" to the Nazis, and out of trouble (indeed raised to a national hero) by proving that they were all forgeries!

[alancalverd]

You would face problem of practicality. How would you make a transaction that's more than one billion dollars?

I haven't dealt at that level, but I have been offered a cargo of oranges in exchange for $200,000 worth of x-ray film, and a vanload of Tokai for a $15,000  radiation measurement system. No problem if your workshop is near a supermarket, but I couldn't persuade my bosses to do the deal.   

[paul cotter]

AS anyone here used crypto? Personally I wouldn't touch it. Sorry for the off topic question, Hamdani.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You don't rely  on a single document or even a single source for proof of provenance. At each stage in the commercial life of the painting there will have been a document authorising the money transfer (now held by the seller) and one acknowledging it (held by the purchaser).  Indeed it was these documents that got Van Meegeren into trouble for selling "Vermeers" to the Nazis, and out of trouble (indeed raised to a national hero) by proving that they were all forgeries!

It's susceptible to fake transactions which are purposely made to jack up the price without increasing intrinsic values.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AS anyone here used crypto? Personally I wouldn't touch it. Sorry for the off topic question, Hamdani.

As the last video I've posted said, it's too risky until it's adequately regulated.

[alancalverd]

It's susceptible to fake transactions which are purposely made to jack up the price without increasing intrinsic values.

One, maybe, but planting false cheques and receipts into the accounts of umpteen artists and dealers who died 500 years ago is pretty difficult, and most of the transactions will also be recorded at salerooms and in art history books.

And what is the "intrinsic value" of oil on canvas? Whatever the artist paid for the materials, plus his time. That's well short of the millions that you'd have to pay at auction.

True story: A friend of mine was working in an art gallery in the USA. She had a recent abstract painting by a currently fashionable artist. One day a woman walked in and paid $40,000 cash (yes, she had it in her bag!) for it. The painting was so recent that the artist had only brought it in a few days ago and was actually sitting in the back office during the transaction. When the customer left, he came to the desk and said "Not bad for four hours' work,eh?" 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Consider this situation. Alice is the current owner of a rare painting. She recently bought it for 1K$. She can increase the value of the painting by selling it to her accomplice Bob for 10K$ with a promise to buy it back the next year for 12K$.
In total, she only spends 3K$, but has 12K$ asset while producing nothing useful for the society.

[alancalverd]

It's only an asset if (a) someone is prepared to buy it from her at $12K, (b) the dollar hasn't depreciated during the transaction (c) she doesn't have to pay interest on the $12K she borrows to buy it back and (d) the goods she wants to buy for $12K, assuming she can sell it, haven't increased in price. and (e) she really does buy it for $12K.

Alice seems to be falling into the UK housebuyer's trap - the numbers keep increasing but everyone (apart from the bankers and lawyers) is getting poorer because none of the conditions are met!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's only an asset if (a) someone is prepared to buy it from her at $12K, (b) the dollar hasn't depreciated during the transaction (c) she doesn't have to pay interest on the $12K she borrows to buy it back and (d) the goods she wants to buy for $12K, assuming she can sell it, haven't increased in price. and (e) she really does buy it for $12K.

Alice seems to be falling into the UK housebuyer's trap - the numbers keep increasing but everyone (apart from the bankers and lawyers) is getting poorer because none of the conditions are met!

It's like Ponzi scheme where you can benefit from bigger fools. It exploits human psychology who likes to generalize things and find patterns where there's none, like pareidolia. They tend to forget to think from first principles and consider the longer terms consequences.