referring to legality is self referential, since they enact the laws, everything they do can be legal. US could sentence commissioners to prison by enacting certain laws or declare war, we wouldn't certainly say 'they have a right to do that' in that situation.
Of course no one cares about random companies in Czechia or France getting pressured; it's not meant to sway public opinion in Sweden, otherwise it would have been a waste of influence (money). I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
It's easier to justify stock markets banning insider information because there are ignorant participants through their investment funds who we would like to protect. Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events? Even if we ban on this one too, should we in general be able to create a market that explicitly allows insider information for some arbitrary thing, insideinformationverywelcomemarket, where everyone is aware it's the main point of the market or shall we just protect these people from themselves?
why? The purpose of the prediction market is not to be fair to market participants, it's to aggregate information regarding an event. There is a public benefit to allowing participants to bet on insider information. It could be even argued there is nothing unfair about it if everyone is free to do it/can anticipate others might have insider info. If we actually limited the market to participants who have insider information(not feasible because we can't verify), that'd be a great public utility. this is the next best thing for all those who don't participate in it. These are specialized markets and we shouldn't rush to 'protect' people who bet on very technical events happening.
It's not just him though. His views are very common in AI labs, who actually build these systems and have better visibility than the rest of us on what's going on.
Those memesters invented and deployed the current systems, are currently training the next, and raising funds for the next after.
Some scientific breakthroughs were memes at first, but some people believed in them and proved everyone else wrong. Majority were memes and are still memes. I don't think whether this is a fad or not is that interesting, what's interesting is these 'memesters' who are optimistic about these systems have all the capital, determination and brain. Unlike in other times in history where public needed some convincing, whether through President on Manhattan or with Apollo project, memesters are using their own funds so don't need to convince anyone else.
>That's... probably not sustainable for four more years. If it is, it's not sustainable much past that. You're probably not going to see a ten-trillion-dollar cluster; you're definitely not going to see a one-hundred-trillion-dollar cluster, ever.
Compute is just one part, as he claims. 3^4 is just 81X, i.e. 10B to 40B of compute, certainly within the budget of a single big tech company.
He couples compute gains with algorithmic advances, which he claims there is also a trend and with other gains(gpt to chatgpt advancements, inference time gains from searching as in alphago etc) and calls it effective compute and it might increase 5 OOM in 2027.