对杰罗姆·鲍威尔明天的演讲有什么期待

币界网2024-08-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-08-22 tarihinde güncellendi

币界网报道:

明天大家都在看杰罗姆·鲍威尔。美联储在杰克逊霍尔举行的年度研讨会是大人物聚集的地方。来自世界各地的央行行长飞往怀俄明州,使其成为地球上经济最强大的舞台。

我们都希望鲍威尔的话能为通胀和利率的走向指明方向。去年同期,鲍威尔警告称,抑制通胀可能会损害家庭和企业。标准普尔500指数当天暴跌3.4%。

今年,每个人都期待他暗示降息。随着通胀降温,一些人抱有希望,但最大的问题仍然存在——鲍威尔会放松,还是会保持紧缩以避免失业率飙升?

鲍威尔不会预先承诺

鲍威尔正在谨慎行事。他一次又一次地告诉我们,他不会把自己锁定在杰克逊霍尔的任何承诺中。

据美国经济负责人表示,他降息的决定将取决于即将公布的数据,在9月中旬的下一次美联储会议之前,还有很多数据。

所以,不要有太大的期望。

作者:贾伊·哈米德

话虽如此,杰克逊霍尔的市场波动很少见,但一旦发生,可能会非常巨大。看看过去。早在2019年,标准普尔500指数在鲍威尔演讲后下跌了2.6%,尽管这更多的是关于美中贸易紧张局势,而不是他的言论。

然后是鲍威尔的前任本·伯南克,他在2009年和2010年让市场一片哗然。2009年,伯南克错误地预测全球金融危机将迅速反弹。

标普500指数当天仍上涨1.8%。2010年,他暗示将增加债券购买,市场反应积极,上涨1.6%。

axios.com

但这并不完全与股票有关。2020年,鲍威尔改变了美联储的利率策略,表示不会仅仅因为劳动力市场强劲而加息。

这是一件大事,是美联储通常做事方式的一个重大转折点。市场的反应?标准普尔500指数仅上涨0.2%。但其影响至今仍然存在。

比特币呢?

现在,让我们来谈谈这对比特币的影响。加密货币行业渴望看到鲍威尔的演讲将如何影响市场。如果他暗示降息,比特币可能会面临风险。

较低的利率通常意味着市场流动性更强,投资者开始在风险较高的资产中追求更高的回报。这就是比特币大放异彩的时候。

我们以前就看到过——当美联储降息时,随着投资者向加密货币市场注入资金,比特币通常会得到提振。

thewealthmastery.io

但这不仅仅是追随股票。比特币作为对冲通胀的工具赢得了声誉。如果鲍威尔的演讲引发了人们对通货膨胀的担忧,投资者可能会涌向比特币,以保护他们的资金不贬值。

这个想法很简单:如果传统货币因通货膨胀而贬值,比特币由于其去中心化和有限性,可以保持甚至增加其价值。这种说法越来越受欢迎,尤其是在我们最近看到的全球经济不确定性的情况下。

但我们不要忘记比特币的波动性。虽然降息可能会使比特币价格飙升,但也可能导致大幅下跌。加密货币市场的投机情绪高涨,鲍威尔的任何暗示都可能引发价格的快速波动。

这是一把双刃剑——大收益和大损失可能在眨眼之间发生。

İlgili Okumalar

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.

marsbit52 dk önce

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

marsbit52 dk önce

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.

marsbit1 saat önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片