Ruben D.

research assistant @UniCologne. main: private law & legal theory | sides: EU law & multilingualism, rhetorics & argumentation theory.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@MichaelAArouet Trains are a catastrophe; I take them 6 times a week. Flights on the other hand have been ok for me this year!

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@bernardtjoy Probably works by Carl Schmitt.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@MichaelAArouet Whom do you want them to elect? Who has sound economic policy for the long and medium term?

[Leopold Aschenbrenner @leopoldasch]

AGI by 2027 is strikingly plausible.

That doesn’t require believing in sci-fi; it just requires believing in straight lines on a graph.

[recht unterhaltsam @recht_haltsam]

Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen gefällt das

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@MichaelAArouet MP3

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@tunguz @gmiller Same bubble here then. The Valley is not the world, never forget that. None of this has much publicly support in the EU.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@4lc4p @FrankfurtZack Guter Punkt

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@8teAPi Quite similar to what I hear actually working in “big law”.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@guntramtrebs @Siedepunct @Radioaktivmann2 @factionprosa75 @CantorUnendlich Ich will auch noch mal einen Hinweis auf gute Wissenschaftstheorie zu Kausalitätsbelegen haben.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@factionprosa75 @CantorUnendlich Ist das nicht alles Hume? Ich glaube schon, dass man die Aussage in diesem Sinne als vernünftige deuten kann.

[Prof. Franz C. Mayer (@mayerprof.bsky.social) @prof_mayer]

Gehts noch pauschaler? "unfassbar" "Regelungswut" "der EU" "Rechtsstaatsproblem"? Das ist die Sprache der Populisten.
Europarecht 101: nichts wirklich Operationelles passiert in Brüssel ohne Zustimmung der Mitgliedstaaten. Und schon gar nicht ohne den größten Mitgliedstaat.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@Axel_Bojanowski @maternus Wenn das so klar ist, warum befasst sich dann überhaupt noch wer mit dem Meeresspiegel als Risiko? Offenbar ja irrelevant

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@MichaelAArouet Manifestly incorrect

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@MichaelAArouet Agree on the workweek, disagree on AI regulation. This is a civilisational matter. One can debate the merits of specific rules in the AI act but that regulation is necessary seems hard to dispute. Vast majority of key experts sees existential risk.

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

“A BILLION years of phd time saved”

one. billion. years.

slowly at first, then all of a sudden

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@repligate @jpohhhh Totally agree. But here is where cooperation could be meaningful, why not work with some people who do CS, linguistics, literature & philosophy (of mind) to analyse these texts more. Publication would also certainly shake up the literary scene.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@repligate @jpohhhh Sorry, but seems like
mixture of egoism and ignorance. I don’t get why this historical chance isn’t taken more seriously by you. It’s like discovering new biology and instead of writing to Nature/Science, saying “others will find it too”

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@repligate @jpohhhh If that is true, why don’t you publish serious stuff about this instead of preaching to the choir on X.

[Ruben D. @differenzierend]

@FlorianGallwitz Would tend to agree with we are LLMs in a way, auch wenn mir das wenig gefällt.