When all these datacenter projects halt (as is their trajectory), at some point someone is going to ask about what to do with the unused GPUs. Those will probably sell to bitcoin miners or other new AI companies that know how to use exotic sources of power, though at smaller scales.

Knowing that you can be killed is a very powerful deterrent for most criminals.

If the government were to hold themselves to account, they would fine themselves some amount N, and pay itself N using your taxes. It also wastes other finite resources for all the paperwork and legal action involved that could be used for something else.

Speaking pragmatically, there's no point trying to hold the government itself to it's own laws. The only time citizens do hold the government accountable, it's always done in the form of hangings, or the guillotine in France's case.

The problem is bad actors (i.e, power hungry sociopaths) have convinced the public that it's reasonable to assert liability claims on you simply because you have some intangible association to someone that committed a crime. This shows up in things like KYC laws making it impossible for certain kinds of legal businesses to use the banking system. It also shows up when states use the courts to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with legally manufactured items.

We should expect to see companies pursuing legal action against Big AI for their own security blunders. Presumably, at some future point we will see the capabilities of Mythos as commonplace (otherwise they're tacitly admitted to intractable scaling limitations). It will be easy for lawyers to make the same argument that Big AI is just as liable as a bank or gun manufacturer for the actions of its customers.

But even if the DA prosecutes, the jury can nullify the charges, which is a risk. What happens when a jury finds the accused not guilty?

The masses will only tolerate so much before the elite start dying. See all of human history.

I'd also invest in companies that make rope.

Every serious attempt to answer that ends up admitting something uncomfortable, that democracy only functions as intended if voters are consistently rational and informed. But that assumption doesn’t hold. It never has. Even the Athenians put Socrates, father of Western civilization, to death.

If society were at all rational, we'd see a lot more people swing from lampposts.

Sure, there will be a court battle, but I don't think these companies want to take that chance. They'll capitulate after the lawyers realize that option is on the table.

Under current First Amendment law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting "imminent lawless action" and is "likely" to produce such action.

To illustrate how high this bar is: you can legally sell and wear a T-shirt that says "I heart killing [X group]". While many find that expression offensive or harmful, it is protected speech. This is because:

- It is not a true threat (it doesn’t target a specific individual with a credible intent to harm).

- It isn't incitement (it doesn't command a crowd to commit a crime immediately).

In the US, you don't need approval to express yourself. The default is that your speech is protected unless the government can prove it falls into a tiny handful of narrow, well-defined exceptions.

He moved to a different city a few years ago and reported more hookups, but serious dating is just as bad. I'm starting to notice him becoming tired of it all, even though he hides it quite well.

Given it's not realistic to keep moving to different cities as it's financially and socially expensive to do so. What should I suggest?