rschneid (u/rschneid)

rschneid commented on His psychosis was a mystery–until doctors learned about ChatGPT's health advice psypost.org/his-psychosis... · Posted by u/01-_-

tempodox · 18 days ago

And, what, LLMs to the rescue?

rschneid · 18 days ago

I think their point is that, in general, social-scale healthcare is an under-solved problem in practice and LLMs have potential to improve a significant portion these challenges by increasing accessibility to treatment. The availability of these tools will inevitably lead to more instances of reports like this (from the report the article is based on):

> This case also highlights how the use of artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially contribute to the development of preventable adverse health outcomes. Based on the timeline of this case, it appears that the patient either consulted ChatGPT 3.5 or 4.0 when considering how he might remove chloride from this diet. Unfortunately, we do not have access to his ChatGPT conversation log and we will never be able to know with certainty what exactly the output he received was, since individual responses are unique and build from previous inputs.

However I don't see this single negative instance of a vast social-scale issue as much more than fear/emotion-mongering without at least MENTIONING that LLM also have positive effects. Certainly, it doesn't seem like science to me. Unless these models are subtly leading otherwise healthy and well-adjusted users to unhealthy behavior, I don't see how this interaction with artificial intelligence is any different than the billions of confirmation-bias pitfalls that already occur daily using google and natural stupidity. From the article:

> The case also raises broader concerns about the growing role of generative AI in personal health decisions. Chatbots like ChatGPT are trained to provide fluent, human-like responses. But they do not understand context, cannot assess user intent, and are not equipped to evaluate medical risk. In this case, the bot may have listed bromide as a chemical analogue to chloride without realizing that a user might interpret that information as a dietary recommendation.

It just seems they've got an axe to grind and no technical understanding of the tool they're criticizing.

To be fair, I feel there's much to study and discuss about pernicious effects of LLMs on mental health. I just don't think this article frames these topics constructively.

rschneid commented on $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money data-and-politics.ghost.i... · Posted by u/pulisse

hdevalence · 5 months ago

> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew.

Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT.

If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.

rschneid · 5 months ago

The consolidate audit trail regularly has millions of errors within a day... It's far from complete data; here's their latest report card:

https://catnmsplan.com/sites/default/files/2025-04/04.01.25-...

Also, CAT is run by CATNMS, LLC which was created in response to an SEC rule 613, however it is operated by the same consortium of SROs that it purports to provide oversight on...

All these layers of responsibility diffusion and a notable absence of penalties for failing to meet rule 613 guidelines mean that rule is little more than for show.

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> Evidence of the SEC's imperfect lawlessness implies the greater financial markets are also, in part, lawless

By this logic lawlessness anywhere means lawlessness everywhere.

> my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not

You said the “lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized” [1]. You cited the SEC in respect of Enron as an example. I “asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t” do with Enron. You ignored the question and started pontificating on not the law but legal philosophy.

You continue to evade that first question. Now you’re claiming you didn’t make the first statement.

This is arguing in bad faith.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40890110

rschneid · a year ago

To maybe help you alleviate a small bit of your presumably nearly overwhelming confusion I will repeat my reply to your SEC question[1], if that is indeed the 'first' one you ambiguously refer to.

> When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations

I'm not sure what about that you think is evasive but I'd like to end the conversation here regardless.

[1][Whats] one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations

In a broad sense, sure. But that means making the SEC both an auditor and determiner of fair value. Even after the ensuing flurry of rule making, that is very much not part of the SEC’s remit.

There is a reasonable debate to be had around whether it should be. But the SEC not double checking auditors is not evidence of its lawlessness.

rschneid · a year ago

The financial markets are more than the SEC but the SEC is part of the financial markets. Evidence of the SEC's imperfect lawlessness implies the greater financial markets are also, in part, lawless.

But my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not, that's your sweeping strawman. I was just saying that in Finance of ALL industries, the line between lawful and illegal has been, and continues to be literally, morally and philosophically blurry...

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> vacuum of enforcement actually ENABLES selective enforcement

Prosecutorial discretion enables selective enforcement. Our drug laws are massively enforced; that doesn’t change their selectivity.

> an implicit status quo that could be changed any time

So is a history of enforcement!

rschneid · a year ago

Laws and their enforcement will always have some nonzero amount of selectivity by the localized nature of the universe but good legislation confronts these challenges proactively and tries to make prosecutorial discretion closer to the question: What should the Punishment be? Rather than: Is this behavior Punishable?

>> an implicit status quo that could be changed any time

> So is a history of enforcement!

Are you really saying that history can be changed at any time?

While there will always be jurisprudence that attempts to advance precedent, a history of consistent enforcement cannot, in fact, be changed. People will always have vulnerability to novel interpretations and surprising re-interpretations of the law, but laws which sit on the books IGNORED can easily lead to essentially undefined behavior which I have no doubt you can understand the potential pernicious nature of...

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement

Enforcement opens the door to selective enforcement. A lack of enforcement precludes it.

And the STOCK Act has been enforced [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_t...

rschneid · a year ago

You've got it backwards mate, a lack of enforcement isn't an agreement or resolution or much of anything reliable or solid or sound. This vacuum of enforcement actually ENABLES selective enforcement because a lack of enforcement isn't an official stance but technically at odds with the written law: It's an implicit status quo that could be changed any time and when it does, you could become retroactively liable for behavior that was acceptable under the prior status quo. That is precisely the conditions of selective enforcement: the choice of the enforcer. Under these inconsistent regulatory modalities you may insidiously lose valuable rights like: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value

They’re all derivative.

> the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities

Sure. You’re describing ambiguity outside securities trading.

> more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case

I asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.

rschneid · a year ago

The SEC has a three-part mission: to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

These mandates are, of course, subjective and vague enough to be interpreted a variety of ways whether you view 'investors' as institutions, households, individuals, etc... What you define as 'fair/orderly/efficient', and what meaningful 'capital formation' really is.

When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations. You could argue that eventually the SEC fulfilled its mandate by recovering much of the misappropriate funds, but it's hard to say they didn't also facilitate the disorder in approving these instruments given how that story concludes with a corporate collapse and flurry of regulation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> Congress exempts itself from insider trading laws

Not true [1]. (Enforcement leaves much to be desired.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

rschneid · a year ago

Pretending to be subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement. How is this not the worst of both worlds? What a weird gotcha....

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture

Right, this is the popular narrative, and it’s why numpties think they can get away with trading out-of-the-money calls on tenders.

> check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments

Source? Because the SEC doesn’t approve (or deny) corporate instruments. It regulates disclosure.

rschneid · a year ago

Well official disclosure in finance is very similar to assigning value, since many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value.

My only point is that the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities that rival or exceed intellectual/manpower of the agencies responsible for regulation.

If you want to learn more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case you could start here: https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#...

Google could lead you to more evidence, if you wish to explore the hypothesis further...

rschneid commented on U.S. SEC Wins 'Shadow Insider Trading' Trial akingump.com/en/insights/... · Posted by u/walterbell

JumpCrisscross · a year ago

> the SEC really seems to only go after small timers

Insider trading is a fuckwit sport. The N != NP asymmetry of executing an insider trade, profitably and discreetly, against the simplicity of looking for weird trades ex post facto leads most with money to conclude it isn’t worth it. The meme about the lawlessness of finance tends to be held by those furthest from it.

rschneid · a year ago

I humbly submit to you hypothesis that the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture. If you're interested in supporting evidence for this idea, check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments....