Yeah once I realised you could just scroll-read on your phone I started reading a lot more. You can have an entire library of books without having to carry them.

Great Depression style collapse and all the current AI companies go bankrupt.

Existing profitable companies like AWS and Google eat up all their hardware at 3% of its original price.

Countries are borrowing money at the same rate that I can borrow unsecured. That’s just not sustainable.

If that were true then everyone would have centralised their industry in WW2 to make it resist the bombing. They didn’t, because having one small target is way worse than having dispersed targets.

Nobody gets upset, they just think you’re silly. Law simplification is just a classic time waste discussion. But I’ll waste 30 seconds on it for you.

Consider a simple crime, murder. Let’s simplify it to “if you kill someone, that’s murder and you get life”

But then what if I’m being stabbed by the person I kill?

Okay so self defence.

But then what if I say it’s self defence but factually that’s incorrect, but I genuinely believed it was self defence?

What if I’m a soldier and I’m shooting an enemy?

What if I shoot them because they’re raping my child?

What if I’m shooting them because they raped my child ten years ago and I’ve been plotting my revenge ever since?

What if someone said they’ll shoot me if I didn’t shoot them?

What if I was in psychosis and thought they were going to kill me?

What if I thought they were a deer and shot them by mistake while hunting?

It turns out we have all these laws in this particular way because of thousands of years of work dealing with all of these issues.

Other than genuine self defense, I disagree with every single “justification” you listed. So yes, in my eyes (and the eyes of many other people I expect), the law could be substantially simplified.

You can disagree but no one has to care...unless you can mobilize an army.

Anyway it seems like much of this discussion presupposes the virtue of law and or has amnesia regarding its origins and its service to power. Sure there are exceptions, not every civilization has turned into a tinpot dictatorship because they adopted having a legal system. But without exception, it's those in power who make the rules. And quite often the powerful make rules that benefit them...often benefitting them exclusively.

I would rather live in a society with just laws than not, but again who settles what is just and what is not? Some people clearly have very different ideas. And yet geopolitics and world history aren't determined by the discourse.

And anyway, the law and justice are two different things. Many judges and attorneys will tell you so, I've known more than a few.

Did the post actually justify anything? Reads like a list of things that make simplification of laws hard.

And if you can’t sympathise with any of those cases, I hope you’re never called upon to decide anything involving other people.

This case was about trying to obtain the museum’s own scans under FOI, it’s nothing to do with releasing your own scans.

I’m open to ideas but I don’t see how they could screw you if they’re your own scans. They can’t copyright stolen artifacts from other countries, so they can’t get you on copyright. It’s not their files, so they can’t get you on piracy.

Do it.

>They can’t copyright stolen artifacts from other countries

While the museum may have some looted items anyway, I thought this is about Rodin's art, i.e. items from Rodin's own collection and studio, or perhaps casts made by the museum. Discussion about looted items seems off topic.

it's gonna get torn or ripped off more easily than something that's on the cable itself.

They probably slopcoded the entire post including the examples, so nobody human even touched any of it or tested it before posting it.

Good enough for many people, it seems.

If I’m the AI company why would I let you do that, when I could just do it myself and get all of the money?

Regulation. If it got proven to the point that it was scaled out en mass, it would get hit hard and fast.

???

Then why would any AI company exist when they could just use their money to buy tokens from another AI company and make money for zero effort? There would be no incentive to be a provider.

Not to mention inflation would grow to match or outpace the rate you could earn on these guaranteed AI gains.

In a human brain it can reason regardless of what you personally know. In an LLM, the knowledge and the structure are the same thing. It doesn’t have separate knowledge parts and processing parts, it’s all one network. If you delete the part about cats, it can’t think at all anymore. Whereas a human could lose all their memories and still be capable of thinking.

How can you know that, when every human who reasons knows a lot? We spend years in a pre-rational state, and by the time we can reason reliably we have ingested a huge amount of evidence about the world. Memories are just a snippet of what you learn by observation; you don't have a memory of gravity but you do have an internalised model of gravity derived from what you learnt as a baby.

That is how being the active party works.

“The active salesman got better sales than the person that just sat there and accepted offers? Outrageous!!!”