UwU
29d ago
I don’t find this framing to be especially persuasive since Massachusetts is apparently the 10th state to do it, and laws of the other similar states all pre-date the 2024 election. If the mainstream democratic position was “don’t be ridiculous, [passing such a law] would never happen” then they were factually wrong then, and nothing really changed in the space of an election cycle.
The steelman is that the mainstream democratic positions are actually “don’t be ridiculous, [the late-term elective abortions with zero medical reason] would never happen” and “Yes, it’s good we passed this law because it reduces the red-tape for late-term abortions for medical reasons”. These two positions are not internally contradictory.
For what it’s worth, I do not agree with this new law because I think it would actually lead to elective late-term abortions and I would prefer they kept the previous version, similar to California’s abortion laws.
You are almost entirely right but you are missing the connection: there is one possible way to make huge profits - just stop the R&D. Right now a majority of resources (compute + engineers) are actually being spent on R&D for the next big model in the AI race. If they can just pause model development instead of burning it on competing in the race, they'll be profitable immediately. Obviously this cannot be a unilateral decision, if you are the only frontier lab ceasing R&D, then no one will be using your model after six months and you'll make no more money.
More options
Context Copy link