"This very clearly does not" apply to X and "I have an argument that it doesn't apply to X" are not the same thing.

(And it wouldn't be hard for a court to make some excuse like "these specific harms have to be $500m, and other harms 'of similar severity' means either worse things with less than $500m damage or less bad things with more than $500m damage". That would explain the need to detail specific harms while putting no practical restriction on what the law covers, since the court can claim that anything is a worse harm.

Always assume that laws of this type are interpreted by an autistic, malicious, genie.)

If your model is not projected to be at least 2024 state of the art and it is not over the 10^26 flops limit?

It's not going to be 2024 forever. In the future being 2024 state of the art won't be as hard as it is in actual 2024.

That developers risk going to jail for making a mistake on a form.

1. This (almost) never happens.

Because prosecuting someone for making a mistake on a form happens when the government wants to go after an otherwise innocent person for unacceptable reasons, so they prosecute a crime that goes unprosecuted 99% of the time.

The bill says the $500 million must be due to cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, autonomous illegal-for-a-human activity by an AI, or something else of similar severity. This very clearly does not apply to ‘$500 million in diffused harms like medical errors or someone using its writing capabilities for phishing emails.’

"Severity" isn't defined. It's not implausible to read "severity" to mean "has a similar cost to".

I guess in the average case, the contrarian’s conclusion is wrong, but it is also a reminder that the mainstream case is not communicated clearly, and often exaggerated or supported by invalid arguments.

This enables sanewashing and motte-and-bailey arguments.

I've heard, in this context, the partial counterargument that he was using traits which are a little fuzzy around the edges (where is the boundary between round and wrinkled?) and that he didn't have to intentionally fudge his data in order to get results that were too good, just be not completely objective in how he was determining them.

Of course, this sort of thing is why we have double-blind tests in modern times.

What happens if you ask it about its experiences as a reincarnated spirit?

Features to benefit people accused of X may benefit mostly people who have been unjustly accused.  So looking at the value to the entire category "people accused of X" may be wrong.  You should look at the value to the subset that it was meant to protect.

Slavery is one subject that it's highly likely ChatGPT is specifically programmed to handle differently for political reasons. How did you get around this problem?

If they are, that link doesn't show it. First of all, it doesn't show Japanese prices at all. Second, even though it claims to "reflect restaurants of all sizes and segments", it doesn't, because a burger at McDonald's or Wendy's is not $16 and they obviously excluded fast food restaurants. How much is a burger in Japan if you exclude fast food?

Yet, that’s not what happened; inflation has been higher in the US. In Japan, you can get a good bowl of ramen for $6. In an American city, today, including tax and tip you’d probably pay more like $20 for something likely worse.

I'd be unsurprised if you could get a jar of peanut butter or a turkey in the US for a lot less than you could in Japan. This tells you nothing about the economy.

Non-instant ramen (or peanut butter) is vastly more popular in one country than another. Comparing the prices between the US and Japan is trying to compare the prices of a specialty food and a common food. Of course the prices will be different.