These markets are a straightforward way to cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates. Rather than getting bombarded by inflated headlines a glance at polymarket or kalshi is often enough to know whether something is actually happening or it's just the media corporations trying to get your attention.
Of course there should be limits with regards to what kind of markets are allowed on these platforms. But in a lot of areas there's genuine price discovery happening that's not available anywhere else.
It's very strange that they think prediction markets "cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates" and yet the temperature bet is easily manipulated, and any bets about war and other foreign affairs are resolved by reading news reports from the field and not some new group of independent arbitrators or investigators. The war journalists are even being pressured by the gamblers to change their reporting https://www.timesofisrael.com/gamblers-trying-to-win-a-bet-o...
Prediction markets seemed neat when I first heard about them, but they've proved to have "theory meets the real world" externalities I wouldn't have ever considered. Insiders betting on (and possibly influencing) military/diplomatic stuff, reporters getting threatened, weather stations getting hit with hairdryers. It's wild.
1. I have only moderate confidence that the odds on prediction markets represent true odds.
2. I think the existence of prediction markets can change the outcome of events. See the Super Bowl Streaker as an example.
3. I don’t have a strong use for prediction market odds. In the few areas of my life that require forecasting I have sources of information i understand and trust more, sometimes with private data not available to the general public.
> 3. I don’t have a strong use for prediction market odds. In the few areas of my life that require forecasting I have sources of information i understand and trust more, sometimes with private data not available to the general public.
100%. I have no earthly idea what the value of these markets is for things I'm not an expert in (I assume they're roughly equivalent to asking the bots and teenagers on Reddit and pretending that's crowd-sourcing, given what they show in things I understand well), and I have no use for them in things I am an expert in.
But hey, at least government employees/soldiers can cash in on secret operations before they happen? That's fun, or whatever.
Prediction markets were a lot more useful and benign when it was nerds staking small amounts of money for fun. I still think they're fun but it's clear that the prediction market platform companies aren't interested in staying a fun niche business for nerds.
I think this is far from widespread. It's very difficult to tamper with the majority of markets, and nearly impossible to do so without getting noticed (hence, the news story about this case).
I chose that example precisely because even by prediction market standards it shows the degree to which people will go to skew the market.
The much more popular method of making bets in a variety of ways to skew the system, use all the power of financialization to manipulate values of contracts independently of the underlying measurement, and everything that we're already seeing in quantity and abundance ruins the utility of the market as a prediction market.
You say it's really hard and can be neglected... I say it's already happening so much that the putative value of the markets is ruined. I wave at all the news already written about it and the ongoing flood of news that will continue. The system is fundamentally broken, does not work, and will never work. The theory only works if the value of the prediction market is somehow completely isolated from the value of the things under prediction, but the prediction market itself is the engine for destroying that assumption.
I agree that there's something interesting here, but the majority of markets are absolute garbage. "Drake Iceman First Week Album Sales", "Arsenal vs Burnley", "Another GTA 6 Trailer Released by May 31", for instance. I am much more interested in the price discovery on markets relating to politics, global trade, pandemics, etc., but sports betting has proven to be largely a net negative for society imo.
I think LLMs will make dealing with complicated ERPs much simpler. So I built a chat-native one that can do all the functionality just via prompting: https://github.com/lambdadevelopment/lambda-erp
I believe this is the direction enterprise software is generally going. An open-source base with a very permissive license that then each company can adapt (with claude, codex, etc.) for it's own needs. It's either running it on it's own infrastructure or in hosted environment by the author. I've built a similarly extensible codebase for an ERP: https://github.com/lambdadevelopment/lambda-erp
I think a more realistic model is not fully open source, but apps with extremely open/flexible APIs and data models that allow arbitrary front-ends (likely with a default one provided by whoever provides the API). Kind of like Stripe's model, but the audience of "developers" is bigger since anyone can be a "developer" with Claude Code
Or maybe it will be the more established open source model where the code is free but the maintainers offer hosting/some default product
good question - some thoughts I had: hosting the model and maybe some review process. for example: you have the customer's employees telling llms about new features and then a dedicated review cycle on the hosting side makes sure it doesnt break anything and is secure, etc.
I'm really interested in how LLMs will enable more customizable, personal software. Our PMs & Designers are writing a lot of code now, and our engineers are spending time figuring out how to make a system that's easy for PMs & designers to extend/add to.
It's not a big leap to apply that model to a company and its customers, where the company builds a well-abstracted, easily extensible base that 1) Customers can easily extend/customize for their workflows 2) Customers can self-host or run fully isolated, much easier (probably not quite there yet, but is a possible world)
> Our PMs & Designers are writing a lot of code now, and our engineers are spending time figuring out how to make a system that's easy for PMs & designers to extend/add to
Sounds like your developers are relegating themselves to being review monkeys instead of developers
In a post Claude Code world that's the job of engineers - the engineering is designing good abstractions, scalable systems, and things that are easy to contribute to. This is what the highest leverage senior engineers have always done, the audience has just changed
Engineering has moved up another layer of abstraction (just like we moved past managing buffers & writing machine code)
Thanks. The demo itself is prerecorded - so no LLM calls. It's just replaying from the sql db. In an actual request it isn't much slower though in finding what tools to use, etc. You can test it btw. I've allocated an hourly budget - anything that you query after the demo goes to an actual LLM.
A few hours ago I noticed a considerable decline in code quality. It seemed the model got downgraded so I switched to codex. Anybody else noticed this? It starts to switch from deep reasoning and trying to fully grasp architectural changes to trying to solve things on a very adhoc basis. Maybe that's just my imagination or maybe that's Anthropic trying to balance the load before being fully overloaded.
Another commenter explained it: It's about working on multiple branches in parallel. You can only check out one branch at a time currently in git - but with "but" you have all the changes just in memory so different agents can work on different branches at the same time.
Working on multiple branches in parallel is literally what Git was created for, and how it's been used since the very first version 20 years ago.
Other commenters mentioned worktrees, which let you check out different branches at the same time from a single local repo. That's convenient, but not required.
Git always supported "fast cloning" local repos as well. You just "git clone" from one directory to another. Then they are independent and you're free to decide what to merge back.
These days, agents can also fork their containers or VMs as often as required too, with copy-on-write for speed.
So that's four ways to work on multiple branches in parallel using Git that we already use.
I'm still looking for a viable alternative to AWS or Azure. A European provider that can be managed through Terraform and can spin up all the services a standard web application needs: K8s, DNS, Mail Service, Blob Storage, etc.
The war in Iran proves the opposite: It is actually the future. The US could easily establish air dominance over Iran, yet it can't stop their military from launching smaller drones both in the air and at sea. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed and air power alone seems unlikely to fix the situation. If you want to effectively eliminate an opponent nowadays you need an army of drones - the economics don't work out if you are only fielding expensive ships, planes and missiles. And regarding your point that an Apache can easily shoot down a drone: Roughly 9/10 drones in the Russia Ukraine frontline get shot down and the remaining 10% make up for about 80% of the casualties (rest being mostly artillery and mines).
Quick fixes have tendencies to break other stuff and just make matters worse. Better to leave it offline for a little longer, fix the definitive root issue and make sure it comes online nicely. If the issue was just a quirk in a recent deployment then these probably can be reverted easily on the endpoints where they were just deployed (I'm sure they are using staggered roll-outs). These long term downtime things are probably not issues related to a recent release.
reply