I think there's a point of diminishing returns here. A more competent lawyer can only do so much if you're wrong on the merits, assuming your opponent also has a decently competent lawyer.
replyNaively, you'd think the judicial systems would invoke "judgement" on the underlying purpose of dumping content in the form of filings, paperwork, etc...
replyThat is true… unless AI were to end up as a public good, available to everyone, not in the hands of a few oligarchs.
replyRadical times may need radically different approaches.
I think that's what's ringing to me about the whole piece. There is a large assumption of equity. There is this section header:
reply> Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools.
"access" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, yes everyone has access to the US healthcare system. Is it affordable for everyone? Not even close, but politicians will always phrase it that way as a non-agreement to proposals of universal healthcare.
This is the only valid future for tech like this IMO.
replyShould any kind of "superintelligence" exist, it must be a public good, available to all. Not controlled by a small handful of oligarchs and profit seeking entities.