Can someone link the actual products they're talking about? ChatGPT isn't exactly great at forming emotional bonds, but I could see some other app doing this.
> We conducted extensive research on social AI companions as a category, and specifically evaluated popular social AI companion products including Character.AI, Nomi, Replika, and others, testing their potential harm across multiple categories.
You’d be surprised. I think it varies with the update, but I’ve often suspected that it has been optimized for role-play at some level. As OAI looks for mass-market fit I expect this to continue.
ChatGPT is just a really good bullshitter. It can’t even get some basic financials analysis correct, and when I correct it, it will flip a sign from + to -. Then I suggest I’m not sure and it goes back to +. The formula is definitely a -, but it just confidently spits out BS.
Its not even technically correct as the original sentence was "...generate profit so great their boss was able to finance his own private space program." They didn't say he funded his space project with amazon profits, they are saying that as a result of the profits bezos was able to fund a space program. Which is undoubtedly true as the amazon equity wouldn't be worth much if amazon wasn't making any money .
Eh, not really. This is just, in practice, how profits are extracted from this sort of company (and most sorts of companies; for various reasons, the phenomenon of a company paying out most of its profit in dividends is dying out) at the moment.
These days, the formal difference between the two is really hard to grasp, and mostly depends on which way accountants find they’ll pay less taxes.
There is no point nitpicking someone because they used one term instead of the other: Bezos’ fortune is derived from Amazon’s activity, and the rest of us has no interest in changing our vocabulary to abide by some obscure tax code rule.
Adding to that, most of these workers are probably working on Amazons unprofitable or barely profitable business. AWS is most of Amazons profits, retail was losing money till very recently and maybe recently is profitable
It gives the unwitting a chance to lose their money. “Do your homework” against professionals whose job it is to make your homework as difficult as possible, including the very tactic you seem to be arguing for.
Meanwhile, if things such as SPACs are such solid investments, why are they pulling such weasely stunts to begin with? (A rhetorical question, at least it is to me.)
Yeah; you shouldn't be trading pink sheets if you're an unwitting investor. It's there to make your job as easy as possible. You shouldn't be trading OTC or pink sheets or any of these things.
SPACs can be solid investments. A SPAC is just a reverse acquisition to avoid listing costs, or sometimes because you're putting faith in a capital allocator. Again, investment carries risk of loss. I'm not sure what you're being critical of. Are you saying that we should only allow companies to go public through investment banks taking millions of dollars of fees?
The NASDAQ should not become Pancakeswap, Polymarket, or pump.fun. If you want to invest in those products, you know where to find them (and it's not the NASDAQ).
Unfortunately, the next question becomes “is consumer reports considered an ad” etc.
It becomes a question of what truly is an ad?
That said I appreciate this sort of thought; it would even be nice for it to be implemented, but whether it could be enforced is another question. At that point it then becomes a question of who you allow to advertise.
For a long time, hedge funds were not allowed to
solicit investments publicly under rule 502c of reg D.
I could see grounds to restrict things further; I’m sick of restless leg syndrome drug treatment ads…
He's a SV/SF investor who basically just invests in tech. His returns are about the same as QQQ which makes sense. If he's getting valuable inside information from Nancy to help his trading he's not using it well.
I’m still amazed that people take the Pelosi bait when many other politicians have been far ahead of her on the charts. Most of them are Republicans, though, and haven’t had the same amount of headlines and Twitter/Reddit traffic.
The services pushing politician trade tracking and ETFs really leaned into Pelosi to capitalize on it.
As the other comment already said, her (more specifically, her husband’s) returns haven’t actually been noteworthy or suspect, it’s just the implication that gets people worked up.
> I’m still amazed that people take the Pelosi bait when many other politicians have been far ahead of her on the charts.
This comment doesn't help. You haven't mentioned another politician, either Republican or Democrat, when you had all the room and time in the world to do so.
This line also depends on the fiction that people think that Pelosi is uniquely trading on the information that she learns at her job, rather than just openly and proudly trading on the information that she learns at her job. Other people being corrupt doesn't make the corruption disappear. It isn't like Democrats are positive numbers and Republicans are negative numbers that cancel each other out. We're not looking for equity in corruption.
She isn't trading on anything. Her husband's portfolio manager is trading, mostly pointless over-trading to look busy and get management fees, and it's being reported on her paperwork.
