impossiblefork

Robots.txt are also ToS of sorts.

Yes. I am Swedish too.

Notice again the lack of warning shots. The courts really want you to do one.

Schmidhuber isn't in the EU, nor Switzerland at the moment.

This is not the law here in Sweden, at least.

We don't have precedent in the way that common law countries do, and the judgements in actual cases point in slightly different directions-- in one case a court felt that the failure to fire a warning shot made it not self-defence, in another fighting people trying to get into an apartment with a knife was deemed acceptable.

Generally though, if someone is breaking into your apartment while you're there, possibly trying to get at you, there's no limit, as long as you're actually trying to defend yourself (so no executing someone who you've clearly disabled, etc.).

If people are breaking into your apartment and you fire a warning shot, then proceed to shoot the attackers, no one will complain.

Yes and no.

Weapons are normal here too.

I think it's probably more like a year or a year and a half. I don't want to say two years, but it's what I'm actually thinking.

An invasion can be legal when authorized by the UNSC due to some crisis or when it's done in self-defence or to defend some other country.

So examples of some illegal invasions: US invasion of Iraq, Russian invasion of Ukraine. Legal invasions (although illegalities were found afterwards, but much of the invasion was legal) are the invasion of Libya, probably the NATO invasion of Serbia depending on what actually happened (there are still some open questions-- it matters why people went in).

Reasons to think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is illegal are the mass-bulldosing of civilian buildings, destruction of farmland, some opinion articles about Lebanese territory being legitimately Israeli territory and an appropriate target for settlement etc. It shows a plan that is not primarily about self-defence.

Coups like that can happen due to organizations having a small number of board members that can decide to do as they like.

Proper mass-membership organizations are possible though. Same rules as a public corporation, but one vote per members, and the yearly meeting decides the board members and approves important decisions or introduce motions that steer the organization.

So the right way to do this would be to create something like the "Public LLM development club", some criteria on membership (after all entryism is a thing), some membership fee sufficient that there is money for a reasonable amount of work to be done and then one has to hope that people join.

But scripture also says that many people will believe that they are holy and will be saved, and won't be, and this is one of Jesus's parables.

So it's far from clear. People who believe will have works, this is also something with scriptural support. So if you are doing harm, such as by killing people, you probably don't.

Presumably they reject it because they see the military used offensively?

In EU countries where war with Russia was seen as possible, for example, here in Sweden that is not the case.

The military preparations this fear leads to take a very special form though: investment in actual defence, commitment to stay behind and fight in case on an invasion, that sort of thing.

Obviously working on defence technology is part of this, but it also shapes the direction of the defence technology you work on. Sweden's forces have looked rather different from forces that intend to conduct offensive wars, especially historically. Tanks specifically designed for conducting ambushes are one example. Artillery emplacements designed to sink invasion fleets and to resist direct nuclear attack are another.

If you believe something, that will obviously have consequences on your actions, so there's obviously no inconsistency between the verse you quote and what he said.

Beautiful work, that video.

It should also be noted, that the EU countries which this espionage targeted were not happy about it at all, and did not find it one bit normal.

The question though, surely can't be whether there's an expectation of privacy on public roads, but the total effect of knowing where people are at essentially all times through a combination of things like location data from phones, license plate readers, facial recognition etc.

Whether there is an expectation of privacy can't be what matters, what matters has to be whether the total effect allows a level of control that is dangerous or might have chilling effects on speech or on participation in things that are controversial.

But surely he has to be right here? If nuclear power is expensive relative to other ways of getting electricity and not variable, then it surely can't bring prices down?

or are you imagining nuclear power as some sort of variable base load for renewables, using some sort of improved plants or something?

Yes, the whole thing is remarkably awful. Disgusting too.

I think they have to make and sell some EV, just to have experience of it. If it isn't attractive, that doesn't matter. You can't, in this year, be so behind in EVs that you haven't ever sold one to customers if you are to be expected to make cars in the longer run, because in the medium term, even things like petrol stations are going to disappear.

Yes, and this isn't possible in a sustainable without a hardware-software carousel, which means that we must get EU AI hardware firms, including training accelerators.

The present situation must be seen as a sort of "keep alive" state, where we do something unsustainable until we can achieve takeoff, but we can only actually start up for real once we start making the machines we need.

If NVIDIA's margins were 20% or something, this wouldn't be the case, but they aren't.

Would have had, not have.

You have caused them. You exist in the environment you exist, not in some other environment.

Why should you not be burdened with that?

Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect? After all, we live in physical reality, not in some world of laws.

If you cause something you cause that thing. You are reponsible, even if it is through some long chain.

After testing this for understanding complex stories, text comprehension is definitely comparable to or better than Sonnet, and definitely better than Microsoft's free stuff. Opus is of course very impressive, especially with how Opus is set up with recursive calls that allow it to make rather complete things as if by magic, but the underlying model probably isn't incredibly much better than this.

Yes, of course this won't have any practical effect, unless people are writing everything down, which I, however, think they often are.

But the actual rule for civil cases (federal rules of civil procedure) is

>(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:

So the "by or for another party or its representative" seems more like my thinking than the thinking you're describing.

I think considering other statements, Rakoff is certainly wrong. The documents were prepared as part of pretrial preparations. Non-experts need to be able to use search engines, books, etc. and which books someone was handed for their pretrial preparations, or what lookups they have made can't be the business of their opponents. You have an adversarial system. One party can't have access to the pretrial preparations of the other party, it won't lead to fair trials.

Yes, I think that's completely wrong. It focuses on the advocate as some kind of special role, but I think the core problem is preparing for a court case, and I don't think it makes sense to focus on him.

I think an accused should be able to make strategy notes for a court case and be able to have those be secret from the prosecution, and to look up things for these purposes, and, to use Google docs etc. if he so wants.

I also see that some other comments describe that work product has previously been treated as a broader notion with less focus on the advocate and more on preparing for the court case, so I'm far from convinced this has been decided correctly.

Think like this: in the US you can fire someone for almost any reason, except if it's one of certain forbidden reasons.

Similarly, the US government can revoke someone's visa, but they can't revoke someone's visa because of speech protected by the first amendment.

Yes, but he's still using it to prepare his legal arguments and to understand the law.

The reason attorney-client communication is privileged is so that people won't interfere in people's preparation of their case, not because the lawyer is magic. The principled thing is for the courts to apply principles like this based on the principle.

I don't think it's communication at all. Instead, I think it's a kind of lookup. Dealing with an LLM is searching a database. You are looking up legal texts in order to prepare legal arguments.

I think the principled way of treating this is that it's privileged for the purpose of preparing legal arguments, but not privileged in general. I think this can be supported using the existing law.

Presumably a lawyer's Google searches with terms like "what article is X" etc. are privileged too, since they are used for preparing legal arguments. That it uses AI doesn't suddenly make it communication.

Yes, but that later stuff can't happen without destabilization, and that's what this kind of thing does.

>It’s deeply precedented.

Ah, we are confused about what we mean. You mean that workers, activists etc. will be killed. I mean that their killing is oppression, whereas the killing of non-grassroots supported people at the top of power pyramids, isn't.

But that isn't the point: you are in fact right, I am right too, but the thing I want to say is: the oppression of workers, activists, journalists etc. that might be triggered by the destabilizing violence is necessary in order to get the reaction.

When a person who understands destabilization does it, he of course wants to trigger this oppression, and for that oppression to trigger the organized war-like stuff.