Counterpoint, who cares?

Markets will simply adjust and financial services will arise to smooth instances where liquidation is problematic.

The status quo shifts to optimize once taxes change. Our system will do the same.

I don’t understand why people don’t think it through all the way to the next equilibrium

> Markets will simply adjust and financial services will arise to smooth instances where liquidation is problematic.

The market will address by the wealth moving to where the wealth tax isn't.

Then the countries will start creating ridiculous exemptions and they become nothing burgers (e.g. see Switzerland's wealth tax).

Plenty of contracts end up being unenforceable.If people think they have a strong case for breaking a contract, they are welcome to do so and see if a judge or jury agrees.

I think it’s laughable to think OpenAI has some special sauce that can’t be replicated easily. They simply have asymmetric access to compute and the dollars to power it. Thats the only moat here.

OpenAI doesn’t even know how their model works. Nobody knows how LLMs work. So it’s not like it’s technically difficult to replicate, just costly.

How can we prove intent? I’m sure a clever actor can disguise their prompt and simply claim the LLM suggested such and such on its own.

It’s not like Anthropic or OpenAI have the faintest idea how their models actually work.

Obviously lab just means company. They use it because it confuses the public into thinking they are doing research primarily. Which of course is nonsense.

Of course, just your normal 10000% return. Pretty typical I’m sure that’s very accurate.

Ofc. This announcement is in all likelihood a calculated pr play to create some regulatory moat, because internal progress is likely stalling out

A machine that exhibits behavior akin to human intelligence. OPs analogy is accurate.

Fortunately we don't have those machines... Yet.

I guess you haven't tried Fable or Astra yet for a complex task that would require intelligence.

OFC, YC is in the business of making money and simply doesn’t care or consider ethics whatsoever. They just don’t care.

But this is pretty standard for this class of people. To get super rich you have to fuck people over, there’s simply no way to amass a billion ethically.

Isn’t that exactly the problem pointed out on the article? In an attempt to make driving more affordable, the state causes the victims of drivers to pay for their own victimization. Par the course for a CA law but still.

As a side n ote,curious if people have takes on why CA creates so many objectively garbage laws.

Worth pointing out that uninsured motorists coverage in California is quite inexpensive. And that is NOT true of Florida.

Where I disagree with the point of the article is insurance is a last resort thing. If you want to reduce traffic deaths that's not where to focus your attention. Reading the article it smells of neoliberal thinking.