For the last week of classes, I thought I’d look back on what has happened the last year in this column on complexity.
Policymakers must learn from experts in the field to better understand the timeline towards more robust artificial intelligence, and to consider ethical and safety guidelines to which researchers must adhere.
The SEC and other regulators ought to figure out where cryptocurrencies stand. Are they property or currency? Are such transactions taxed like any other? Are earnings on trades taxed as capital gains or something else? And perhaps most importantly, how can we simultaneously recognize anonymous platforms as enablers of illegal transactions and legitimate financial instruments?
If we want to live in a society where people who become sick with curable ailments can get treatment, then we need to address the pricing of medicine, among many other items.
Why should we expect drug manufacturers to behave any differently than firms in other markets?
The need to mitigate existential risk stands or falls with free will—if it does not exist, then there is little or no case to be made. But if it does—even to an extent—then we have every reason to at least listen to the experts.
In the case of drugs in a market system, we would hope, and possibly expect prima facie, for this to hold true—drug prices ought to fall towards the cost of production, as competitive firms enter the market both to serve consumers what they need and pocket a nifty profit. But that’s just not happening.
You can’t become an expert on everything, but you can learn something.
By donating to effective and efficient charities that put up malaria nets, deworm people in developing countries, or even give money directly to those who need it, you can literally save people’s lives.
The fact that the general public dislikes the candidates at such high levels might indicate that our electoral system is broken and failing to do its job.
