特朗普与哈里斯:Pompliano探讨加密货币在2024年选举中的作用

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

币界网报道:
    特朗普对NFT的战略使用增加了他在加密货币社区的影响力。哈里斯在很大程度上避免在她的经济计划中涉及加密货币。

随着2024年大选的升温,加密货币社区对前总统唐纳德·特朗普的支持正在加强,特别是与副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯形成鲜明对比。

Pompliano深入探讨特朗普的加密货币立场

在专业资本管理公司首席执行官Anthony Pompliano和他的妻子Polina Pompliano(The Profile的作者和创始人)最近的一次讨论中,探讨了特朗普与加密货币关系的复杂性。

当Pompliano女士向Anthony Pompliano询问特朗普持有的加密货币以及他对该行业不断变化的立场时,讨论开始了。

这项调查主要是由于特朗普在比特币会议期间对比特币[BTC]统计数据的惊人反应引发的,他似乎对向与会者提供的信息感到震惊。

在回答这个问题时,Pompliano解释说,虽然特朗普对加密货币的直接投资可能有限,但他对NFT的战略使用和公众立场的转变极大地影响了关于加密货币的政治对话。

“他(特朗普)改变了全国的对话,现在领先的总统候选人是支持比特币的。”

Pompliano进一步澄清说,特朗普的加密资产价值在100万至500万美元之间,主要来自NFT交易的2%费用,而不是个人投资。

Harris面临加密货币社区的怀疑

然而,当被问及他对哈里斯的看法时,他补充说,哈里斯并没有如此明显地谈到加密货币。

他说,

“我认为她自己并没有明确地站出来谈论加密货币。她刚刚发布了这个大的经济计划,其中没有提到加密货币。”

他甚至继续批评现任政府对加密货币的敌对态度,并抨击哈里斯,称:,

“所以,我认为哈里斯面临的挑战之一是,她想把现任政府中进展顺利的事情归功于自己,说‘嘿,见见我和乔,我们就在一起’,但进展不顺利的事情,她将不得不努力与自己保持距离。”

特朗普的胜算会增加吗?

最后,他指出,尽管特朗普之前对比特币持敌对态度,但他已经改变了立场,表明政治立场可以演变。

“所以这是可能的,政治家可以改变他们的立场。”

正如预期的那样,特朗普的支持得到了最新Polymarket图表的进一步证实,该图表显示他在赔率上的领先优势已达到7%。

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit39 хв тому

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

marsbit39 хв тому

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 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 год тому

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 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片