Verifications News

NO

We could map the entirety of analytic philosophy using this question.

The list of answers to this question form a constitution of truth that can be aligned decentrally by a free market.

A network state could use a predictive market constitution to define its smart social contracts.

Large scale AI systems should have intrinsic guardrail behaviors that no one actor can override.

This prediction is effectively the same as this one and nobody can explain why this mechanism isn't able to align AI at scale. https://manifold.markets/Krantz/krantz-mechanism-demonstration

Betting on philosophy seems like a fun way to (1) learn philosophy (2) contribute to a transhumanist utopia world where our net incomes are highly correlated with how much beneficial stuff we taught the public domain AI.

Constitutions play a critical role in the frontier methods for aligning AI.

A good AI should not kill people.

There would be a dramatic positive change in the world if teenagers and homeless folks could earn crypto on an app they download for free to argue philosophy with an AI until they can either prove the AI is right or prove it is wrong.

Philosophy is primarily the pursuit of defining language.

A duty to reason is the foundation for goodness.

I have free will.

A good AI should not infringe on the rights, autonomy or property of humans.

We should stop doing massive training runs.

The evolutionary environment contains perverse incentives that have led to substantial false consciousness in humans

Induction is not justified.

A good AI, by design, requires large scale human participation to grow.

A good AI requires large scale humanity verification before it accepts new data as true.

The principle of uniformity in nature is self evident or justified by self evident facts.

AI should not create novel content.

The quality of mercy is not strained...

Vriska did nothing wrong.

Bitcoin + AI

AI + Medicine

Bitcoin + XR

AI + Robotics

Fintech + AI

AI + Internet

AI + Physics

AI + VR

XR + AI

BCI + Internet

Haptics + BCI

Decentralized IP Verification and Education (Blockchain Credentials)

BCI + Remote sensing

Predictive Markets and Constitutional Alignment of AI

AI+Blockchain

BCI + Dating Apps

Vertical farming + Solar

Apple gets subjected to financial penalties

Opening Up of NFC and Other Hardware Features - Apple is required to provide third-party developers access to hardware features currently restricted, such as the NFC chip used for tap-to-pay transactions.

IApple gets mandated to implement interoperability measures for messaging and smartwatch functionalities

The ruling forces Apple to allow developers to use their payment systems within their apps, bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and the associated fees.

The court sets clear deadlines for when Apple must implement these changes, such as within 90 days of the ruling, providing a clear timeline for verification.

The court orders Apple to revise Apple's App Store guidelines to allow for more competition.

Establishment of a mechanism for ongoing oversight of Apple's compliance with the lawsuit's rulings.

Apple is compelled to allow developers more freedom in presentation and monetization of apps, including enabling different app discovery methods (ex : use of icons or tiles for mini programs, categorizing them, or using virtual currencies).

Mandatory Allowance of Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

The court finds Apple guilty of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the performance smartphone market and/or the broader smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The court defines specific permissible actions for super apps and cloud gaming services on iOS, like not requiring each game or service within a super app to be submitted to the App Store individually.

If state antitrust laws are violated, Apple could be fined a specific dollar amount per incident of anticompetitive conduct, as defined by state statutes. (Conditional market)

The court requires Apple to permit cloud gaming services on its devices

The lawsuit leads to a decision that deems Apple's 30% commission rate as excessive.

The court may issue injunctions to prohibit Apple from continuing the specific practices that are identified as anticompetitive, such as using control over app distribution and private APIs to undermine competition.

The court mandates a specific maximum percentage for App Store commissions, such as reducing the current 30% fee to a lower figure, like 15% or 10%.

The court orders Apple to apply its rules and guidelines fairly across all apps and not enforce them selectively to benefit its services or harm competitors.

Apple gets ordered to give restitution to developers or consumers who have been adversely affected by its policies.

The court could require a measurable increase in the number of apps or services in previously restricted categories, such as digital wallets or cloud gaming, available on iOS within a certain period post-ruling.

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO