Peter Suber

Aha, great point! Fluxx is fantastic...it reminds me a bit of Nomic [1] and 1000 Blank White Cards [2]. Have you tried making your own Fluxx deck? [1] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm [2]

Your question reminds me of Peter Suber's excellent book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment [0]. [0] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/

Firstly, it is now pretty much exactly two years since OpenAI announced GPT-3 and it is great to see that access to these models – for scientists in particular – is becoming increasingly commonplace. I should also note that Hugging Face really have taken a “big tent” stance on the development of this model and their business in general. This is refreshing given that no other entity capable of raising the funds and manpower to develop these kinds of models have taken a similar stance (despite much deeper pockets…). Yes, Hugging Face is running on venture capital, but at least for now I see no reason to be cynical about their efforts that in every way appear genuine to me. Still, it is not all great. OpenAI, DeepMind, Google, etc. continues to produce models that are completely closed and thus can never be the subject to analysis from the rest of the community. Models which all dwarf GPT-3 at this point. My fear is that those of us arguing for access will continue to play catch up – maybe even forever. However, while BLOOM is more open than say FAIR’s OPT [1] – which had the gall to call itself both “open” and “democratising” despite restricting commercial usage in its “open” license – I believe there is a discussion to be had about how they (and many others in the community) use the word “open”. [1]: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/democratizing-access-to-large-scale-langu… While I am not a lawyer, I am somewhat familiar with licenses and have gone…

If you want to open these sorts of questions you'll quickly run into the fact that there are a bunch of different judicial opinions out there. I recommend the following link: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/csepref.htm It is the preface and introduction to Peter Suber's book The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions; as the introduction discusses, the original Case, posted online here: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawspelunk.html#fuller ...was published by Lon Fuller in 1949 and contains a statement of facts in a (fictional!) case where a bunch of explorers get trapped for many days, ultimately eat one among their number, and are tried for murder and found guilty, sentenced to be hanged: this case is the final appeal of their sentence to the Supreme Court. In general people are sympathetic to the explorers, who faced death had they not acted. This statement-of-facts is followed by the opinions of 5 court judges, who come to very different conclusions with very different reasonings. For example the chief justice says "Well, it's my job to apply the law as correctly as I can -- not to evaluate whether hanging these people for doing what they needed to do to survive is important. They broke the law, the law says that the punishment in this case is hanging, therefore I must rule that they should be hanged. Whose job is it to make sure that these laws are good to these people? Well, that's what we have lawmakers and an executive branch for. I'm…

Neat! OTOH, Peter Suber's Nomic page must win the contest "who has the biggest dead-to-live link ratio": https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm

Í'd like to mention the good book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers It delves into multiple possible stances regarding the nature of laws. I think Justice Thomas falls squarely into one of the explored stance. PS: also, an extended version: https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/cse.htm (that's the one I have)