特朗普在Polymarket上扩大了对哈里斯的领先优势

币界网Publicado a 2024-08-22Actualizado a 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

加密货币预测市场Polymarket度过了一个相当不错的夏天,在与2024年美国总统大选有关的问题上获得了价值数亿美元的赌注。与民意调查相比,最近的发展似乎检验了Polymarket的准确性。

在该网站的最后几天,前总统唐纳德·特朗普重新夺回了11月入主白宫的最高赔率,这是自副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯参加竞选后不久以来的首次。他目前的支持率为53%,而哈里斯为47%。

特朗普本周早些时候在该网站上超越了哈里斯,差距逐渐扩大。

然而,传统民意调查认为,哈里斯仍然是竞选中健康的宠儿,而且差距越来越大。例如,著名的民意调查专家内特·西尔弗(Nate Silver)上个月加入Polymarket担任顾问,他昨天给哈里斯53%的获胜机会。根据他对现有民意调查数据的深入分析,他说副总裁保持了自本月初以来的领先地位。

预测市场的倡导者认为,像Polymarket这样的网站涉及质押资金,现在可能比民意调查等传统方法更能洞察关键问题,比如谁更有可能成为美国下一任总统。

然而,本周的总统选举似乎很少有头条新闻会对哈里斯产生负面影响。事实上,目前正在芝加哥举行的民主党全国代表大会为她提供了额外的积极媒体报道。

那么,Polymarket目前对总统选举的见解与Silver之间的差距是什么?

一种可能的解释是,在区块链上运行的Polymarket比普通公众更倾向于加密用户。因此,加密货币和政治的交叉点更有可能改变现状。

虽然业内许多人最初似乎对哈里斯可能在加密货币政策上与乔·拜登总统有重大分歧充满热情,但本周初,当民主党发布了一份未提及加密货币的党纲时,人们的情绪有所转变。今年夏天早些时候,共和党人在自己的平台上接受了加密货币,一些民主党人希望他们的政党也能效仿。

周一,民主党候选人哈里斯正在积极考虑提名加密货币恶棍、现任美国证券交易委员会委员加里·詹斯勒(Gary Gensler)担任她的财政部长,如果她成为总统,这一谣言的迅速传播就说明了哈里斯加密货币行业的沮丧。

尽管该报告被广泛质疑,但就在加密推特上爆发这种反哈里斯情绪的几个小时内,特朗普开始在Polymarket上飙升6个百分点,这使他几周来首次回到多数优势。

当然,预测市场的可能性,就像民意调查数据一样,绝不是确定的,哈里斯和特朗普很可能在11月5日之前多次失去领先地位。然而,随着Polymarket等网站的数据开始偏离传统预测方法,总统选举可能不仅仅是一场政治公投,而是一场关于预测未来的高级方法的公投。

Lecturas Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片