There was also a good discussion on HN [0] about a new paper by Melanie Mitchell "Why AI is Harder Than We Think" [1]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26964819

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12871

Thanks but I avoid HN discussions. I find them to be smartypants signaling with very little substance and the opaque moderation doesn't help matters since dang and anyone else can change some numbers with their root access and silence any worthwhile discussion.

Can someone explain the legalese. I'm having a hard time deciphering it

ToS;DR has your back: https://tosdr.org/en/service/636 (Though it's not complete yet.)

Wow. That is a brilliant link. Thanks for sharing.

I don't know why terms can't be written that simply in the first place.

The "good" answer for why terms of use and contracts are written more complexly is because they encode more complex information, that is less subject to varying interpretations.

Though certainly there is a 'pattern' to these that I think lawyers just fall back into that can be less understandable than needed.

If nothing else, many contracts are written in a somewhat weird frame, where one party is referred to in third person, and the other in second person. And often phrasing is so that the second person needs to recognize a claim of the third person ("you acknowledge etc etc").

In many ways, contracts are like the ultimate reversal of YAGNI. Imagine deploying code that you literally could not fix after release, and you knew that nearly all deviations from intended behavior would just kick you in the butt. Your code (and general product function) would probably get a bit weird too.

Two reasons:

1. Legal contracts are supposed to be as detailed as possible so there's as little room for disagreement as possible when taken to court.

2. It's better for companies if users don't take the time to read and understand their terms, and beyond a certain length and complexity they will just scroll through and click yes.

3. Lawyers are incentivized to write incompehensibly because it helps keep them in business.

4. It's easier to write incompehensible legal text than simple English that a layman can follow, and customers seldomly call lawyers out on it because they've been trained to accept this as the status quo (also see 3).

I like this, curious if the interpretations are legally survivable but still very cool.

If the interpretations are accurate and complete, they'll presumably have the same impact as what is being interpreted. If the interpretations are inaccurate, then your reliance on them will not be a defense. For example, suppose TOU;dr got the arbitration requirements wrong. You could not sue ycombinator then argue that you had relied on TOU;dr, thus you were not bound by the arbitration agreement in the ycombinator TOU.

Which part specifically is confusing you? Like, it's a long TOU, so I don't think anyone's gonna write down the whole explanation here, but let's pick one paragraph:

> Commercial Use: Unless otherwise expressly authorized herein or in the Site, you agree not to display, distribute, license, perform, publish, reproduce, duplicate, copy, create derivative works from, modify, sell, resell, exploit, transfer or upload for any commercial purposes, any portion of the Site, use of the Site, or access to the Site. The buying, exchanging, selling and/or promotion (commercial or otherwise) of upvotes, comments, submissions, accounts (or any aspect of your account or any other account), karma, and/or content is strictly prohibited, constitutes a material breach of these Terms of Use, and could result in legal liability.

This means: don't use the content of the site to make derivative works to make money, otherwise we might sue you.

It's mostly straightforward stuff like that. If there's a specific part that you're having trouble with, I'm happy to have a crack at explaining it.

Not to get too reductive or anything, but the reasons are very similar to why people have the authority to compel public expectations based on the arrangement of atoms (e.g. you aren't allowed to stab me, etc.). Namely: those with the power to enforce those rules think it's a good idea to do so, and the public continues to support that configuration of the legal system.

Absolutely. I think that's how we got here. But, the thought regulation regime is pretty new historically. I don't know why we accept it, on the basis.... That thoughts ... Take up space?

I'm afraid I'm a little confused about what your question is. I don't think the notion that thoughts take up space has anything to do with why TOUs are enforceable in the US. It's more because the relevant stakeholders are either largely not very interested in or impacted by TOUs (the public at large) or are interested in and positively impacted by TOUs (the services offered with TOUs).

"EVERY developer in the team earned 150k USD"