EMIRELADERO

It doesn't matter anyway. Weights aren't IP so the licenses are bunk.

No. The fruit fly connectome's simulation doesn't incorporate all the relevant mechanisms of the brain. There is more complexity in a single biological neuron than in a whole frontier LLM.

Culture and religion are intertwined even if separate. Western civilization is "culturally Christian" even in secular countries like France. Many places in the US are thus "culturally Protestant" even if most of their current-day population don't follow that religion.

> But, I think, if you aren't going to let the state carry out vengeance at all, you do need to figure out what you're going to do about people's desire for it to happen.

You educate/culture it out of them, which is what the Nordics, and Western Europe more generally, choose to do. Seems to be working fine so far.

Well, good thing we don't live in any time prior to 1800! What even is that answer? Of course premodern societies would appeal to different aspects of human nature in different ways. The question is whether a society can sustain its own survival and welfare even when certain facets of human nature are frawned upon and discouraged. I see no reason for doubting that this is the case for the retributive instinct, at least when killing is involved.

> 1. Cultural homogeneity

Can you elaborate on this? How does cultural homogeneity relate to the State being able to ditch retributive principles?

> When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done, breeding vigilantes and unrest. Especially when they get released early, but even if they are never released.

That just seems like a problem for education, no? If people are told by their teachers and other figures of authority that retribution isn't good, that should be enough. Again that's how the Nordics do it and it seems to be working out for them.

How do you explain the Nordic countries and Western Europe generally, where retribution has been explicitly rejected as a principle in the criminal justice system? Moreover, how would eliminating the death penalty endanger social unity?

Those policies are there to make sure all possible appeals can go through. And can you believe even then it's not enough to stop all executions of innocents?

At the end of the day, the death penalty's only possible justification is retribution. It does not deter crime and incapacitation of the criminal can already be achieved by locking them up. Your logic presupposes that "an eye for an eye" is a legitimate philosophy for a modern State to hold, which is reprehensible.

> I think for most people the intuition is something like: the state is there to protect people (in principle at least); when someone is sufficiently dangerous to others they forfeit this right and it becomes just about protecting others from them; whereupon 'vengeance' is basically permitted against them

There's no connection between "protect[ing] people" and "vengeance", The latter is not necessary for the former.

The retributive instinct should not be "fed" by the State. It is perfectly normal to have that feeling, but we should recognize it for what it is and let it stay as such. You might think this isn't possible or stable but the Nordics would prove you wrong.

The closedness was always the plan.

"As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)."

-Ilya Sutskever (email to Elon musk and Sam Altman, 2016)

Any protection measure that gates repairability cannot be said to control access to a copyrighted work.

That would be a stupid application of the rule, it would mean no developer could use an LLM for anything that already has a proprietary alternative with heavily documented internals or leaked source code.

> for example repairing your tractor is illegal because of this same law.

No it's not. There has never been a case establishing that, and it's absurd on its face. The protection measures that the law makes illegal to break must control access to a copyrighted work, and you can't copyright functionality.

Chesterton called it, quite fittingly, "The Puritan's opium".