I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg in the least, but one area a super intelligent lawyer would be fine at is being drowned in court filings and paperwork

The bigger problem with his argument IMO is that even with open models, it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning. They run the larger model (or collection of models), they can process more tokens through them in the same amount of time etc

▲

altcognito 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Naively, you'd think the judicial systems would invoke "judgement" on the underlying purpose of dumping content in the form of filings, paperwork, etc...

▲

Ajedi32 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

9dev 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That is true… unless AI were to end up as a public good, available to everyone, not in the hands of a few oligarchs.

Radical times may need radically different approaches.

	▲	twright 13 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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: > 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.
	▲	thewebguyd 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is the only valid future for tech like this IMO. Should 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.