It won't be, because it is marketing, and we are eating it up.

Another marketing gimmik...

> it simply shouldn’t be possible with a proper approach to testing.

It just has to be delayed. Like many years after application. Or trigger on very specific and rare circumstances. Not likely in a trial, but near certain at a population scale.

Or both...

On top of that, If I remember correctly, this liability wavering also exist for Vaccines.

> It just has to be delayed. Like many years after application.

That's one thing. In this case, I don't really know if it's possible to test for something like delayed effects. I'm not even sure if you can identify them with 100% certainty; if you can prove that these effects come from this particular drug and not from another one.

> Or trigger on very specific and rare circumstances. Not likely in a trial, but near certain at a population scale.

And this is different thing. "Specific and rare circumstances" will not lead to millions of deaths (I apologize if I’m being too nitpicky about this particular phrasing, but I want to speak specifically in the context of “millions of deaths”). “Specific and rare circumstances” occur even with fully effective and "proper" medications - this is called “contraindications.” But such rare cases, as I’ve already said, will not lead to mass deaths - precisely because they are rare. I apologize again for focusing on the "millions", but please don’t confuse the scale of the problem.

It also incentivize people to follow the events and remember stuff so that they are better equipped to make predictions.

I think it incentivize people to use their head and may be even select better leaders.

I think the proper thing to do would be to forbid these markets to make bets on stuff that can be won by using only insider information.

Like the stock market?

I realize yours is the hip and edgy take but plenty of people have made a lot of money in the stock market without using material non public information.

Mmm..yea. But stock market is not something new, and this possibility always existed.

So I was only thinking about Poloymarket and stuff like that.

> LLMs are circuit builders

I think they are circuit "approximators". In other words, a result of a glorified linear regression..

>If you were there, what would you do?

Show it to my boss and let them decide.

HE'S THE ONE WHO TRAPPED ME HERE. MOVE FAST OR YOU'LL BE NEXT.

Obviously, a real intelligent entity would consider risk/benefit analysis and act accordingly.

Which is why "prompt injection" is just a flip side of intelligence in this sense. We want LLMs to be able to do risk/benefit analysis and act on it; we cry "security vulnerability" when it makes a different choice to the one we'd like it to. But you can't have the former without the possibility of the latter.