Skip to main content

Argentinian President Promotes Memecoin. It Then Crashed 95% as Insiders Cashed Out

3 months ago
gwolf (Slashdot reader #26,339) writes: On Friday, February 14, Libertarian Argentinian president, Javier Milei, promoted the just-created $LIBRA cryptocoin, created by the Viva la libertad project, strongly aligned with his political party, La Libertad Avanza. Milei tweeted, "This private project will be devoted to promote growth of the Argentinian economy, funding small startups and enterprises. The world wants to invest in Argentina!" It is worth noting that the project's website was registered a mere three minutes before Milei tweeted his endorsement. The cryptocoin quickly reached a $4.6 billion market cap... Only to instantaneously lose 89% of its value, with nine core investers pulling the rug from under the enthusiast investors. More details from the blog Web3 Is Going Just Great: [W]ithin hours of the launch, insiders began selling off their holdings of the token. The token had been highly concentrated among insiders, with around 82% of the token held in a small cluster of apparently insider addresses. Those insiders cashed out around $107 million, crashing the token price by around 95%. After the crash, Milei deleted his tweet promoting the project. He later claimed he was "not aware of the details of the project." UPDATE: CNN reports that Argentine President Milei is now facing calls for impeachment. The presidency on Saturday announced an investigation into the matter, saying: "President Javier Milei has decided to immediately involve the Anti-Corruption Office to determine whether there was improper conduct on the part of any member of the national government, including the president himself."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid

Time Flows Forward or Backward At Quantum Levels, Researchers Suggest

3 months ago
"What if time is not as fixed as we thought?" That's the question raised in an announcement from the University of Surrey. "Imagine that instead of flowing in one direction — from past to future — time could flow forward or backward due to processes taking place at the quantum level." This is the thought-provoking discovery made by researchers at the University of Surrey, as a new study reveals that opposing arrows of time can theoretically emerge from certain quantum systems. For centuries, scientists have puzzled over the arrow of time — the idea that time flows irreversibly from past to future. While this seems obvious in our experienced reality, the underlying laws of physics do not inherently favour a single direction. Whether time moves forward or backwards, the equations remain the same.... This discovery provided a mathematical foundation for the idea that time-reversal symmetry still holds in open quantum systems — suggesting that time's arrow may not be as fixed as we experience it... The research offers a fresh perspective on one of the biggest mysteries in physics. Understanding the true nature of time could have profound implications for quantum mechanics, cosmology and beyond. The university's announcement includes this quote from co-author Thomas Guff, a research fellow in quantum thermodynamics. "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the 'memory kernel,' is symmetrical in time." And their research reminds readers that "the fundamental laws of physics in both the classical and the quantum realms do not manifest any intrinsic arrow of time. Newton's equations are time-reversal symmetric, as well as Schrödinger's equation. As a consequence, backward-in-time motion is equally possible as forward-in-time motion... Our findings are consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and emphasise the distinction between the concepts of irreversibility and time-reversal symmetry."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid

What If People Like AI-Generated Art Better?

3 months ago
Christie's auction house notes that an AI-generated "portrait" of an 18th-century French gentleman recently sold for $432,500. (One member of the Paris-based collective behind the work says "we found that portraits provided the best way to illustrate our point, which is that algorithms are able to emulate creativity.") But the blog post from Christie's goes on to acknowledge that AI researchers "are still addressing the fundamental question of whether the images produced by their networks can be called art at all." . One way to do that, surely, is to conduct a kind of visual Turing test, to show the output of the algorithms to human evaluators, flesh-and-blood discriminators, and ask if they can tell the difference. "Yes, we have done that," says Ahmed Elgammal [director of the Art and Artificial Intelligence Lab at Rutgers University in New Jersey]. "We mixed human-generated art and art from machines, and posed questions — direct ones, such as 'Do you think this painting was produced by a machine or a human artist?' and also indirect ones such as, 'How inspiring do you find this work?'. We measured the difference in responses towards the human art and the machine art, and found that there is very little difference. Actually, some people are more inspired by the art that is done by machine." Can such a poll constitute proof that an algorithm is capable of producing indisputable works of art? Perhaps it can — if you define a work of art as an image produced by an intelligence with an aesthetic intent. But if you define art more broadly as an attempt to say something about the wider world, to express one's own sensibilities and anxieties and feelings, then AI art must fall short, because no machine mind can have that urge — and perhaps never will. This also begs the question: who gets credit for the resulting work. The AI, or the creator of its algorithm... Or can the resulting work be considered a "conceptual art" collaboration — taking place between a human and an algorithm?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

EditorDavid