NFTs are stupid AF for most of the tasks people currently use them for and definitely shouldn’t be used as proof of ownership of physical assets.

However, I think NFTs make a lot of sense as proof of ownership of purely digital assets, especially those which are scarce.

For example, there are several projects for domain name resolution based on NFT ownership (e.g you look up crypto.eth, your browser checks that the site is signed by the owner of the crypto.eth NFT, then you are connected to the site), as it could replace our current system, which has literally 7 guys that hold a private key that is the backbone of the DNS system and a bunch of registrars you have to go through to get a domain. This won’t happen anytime soon but it is an interesting concept.

Then I think an NFT would also be good as a decentralized alternative to something like Google sign in, where you sign up for something with the NFT and sign in by proving your ownership of it.

In general though I find NFTs to be a precarious concept. I mean the experience I’ve had with crypto is you literally have a seed phrase for your wallet, and if it gets stolen all your funds are drained. And then for an NFT, if you click on the wrong smart contract, all your monkeys could be gone in an instant. There is in general no legal recourse to reverse crypto transactions, and I think that is frankly the biggest issue with the technology as it stands today.

“I use Signal to hide my data from the US government and big tech”

“Wait, you seriously still use Reddit? Everyone switched to the Fediverse!”

“Wow, can’t believe you use Apple! Android is so much better.”

No one who isn’t terminally online understands what these statements mean. If you want people to use something else, don’t make it about privacy and choose something with fancy buttons and cool features that looks close enough to what they have. They do not care about privacy and are literally of the mindset “if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear”. They sleep well at night.

This is another reminder that the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon was recalculated by two different groups using higher precision lattice QCD techniques and wasn’t found to be significantly different from the Brookhaven/Fermilab “discrepancy”. More work needs to be done to check for errors in the original and newer calculations, but it seems quite likely to me that this will ultimately confirm the standard model exactly as we know it and not provide any new insight or the existence of another force particle.

My hunch is that unknown particles like dark matter rely on a relatively simple extension of the standard model (e.g. supersymmetry, axioms, etc.) and the new physics out there that combines gravity and QM is something completely different from what we are currently working on and can’t be observed with current colliders or any other experiments on Earth.

So probably we will continue finding nothing interesting for quite some time until we can get a large ML model crunching every single possible model to check for fit on the data, and hopefully derive some better insight from there.

Though I’m not an expert and I’m talking out of my ass so take this all with a grain of salt.

I think this is downplaying what LLMs do. Yeah, they are not the best at doing things in general, but the fact that they were able to learn the structure and semantic context of language is quite impressive, even if it doesn’t know what the words converted into tokens actually mean. I suspect that we will be able to use LLMs as one part of a full digital “brain”, with some model similar to our own prefrontal cortex calling the LLM (and other things like vision model, sound model, etc.) and using its output to reason about a certain task and take an action. That’s where I think the hype will be validated, is when you put all these parts we’ve been working on together and Frankenstein a new and actually intelligent system.