>How do you even "consume" wealth, assuming the wealth is more significant than a few millions in the bank.
"A few millions in the bank" for hundreds of thousands or million of people would already make a nordic country the king of lesser inequality - unless (as the parent says, don't know it's true) it's tied up in company assets (and perhaps they use them as company perks even in one-person companies, to avoid the tax, thus masking better equality at the individual level).
I suppose the person means that you have to pay about 50% in taxes to take out the capital/profit from the company before you can use it as a private person.
This type of comparison needs to add corporate income tax (20%) in order to be an apples to apples comparison,so 27.5. It's still a stark difference in taxation, and I know of no other country that does what Finland does for dividend taxation. In fact for earned income,things look even uglier when you add in tax-like social security contributions.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Finnish companies are also an outlier in paying extremely high dividends.
In Norway it's 37.8%. Though you do get "skjermingsrente" (about the same rate as the central bank rate) on the amount you originally invested (ie.: not on any untaxed gains you've had).
Don't know why you're being downvoted. That is the logical conclusion.
Although, there's also a chance that those "blackmail gangs" never materialize. After all, you could already ten years ago pay cheap labor to create reasonably good fake images using Photoshop.
> Only they are legally responsible if they cause a death, which makes them care
I see this kind of cynicism often on this site and I frankly find it inexplicable. It doesn't seem warranted. The vast majority of therapists clearly care about their patients.
On the other hand, people often don't give a shit about laws, even to their own detriment.
People are a lot more complicated than "I adjust behavior to maximize personal outcome in terms of $$, beep bop". In some cases we respond to incentives, of course, but having that be the only law to explain human behavior is patently ridiculous.
> I see this kind of cynicism often on this site and I frankly find it inexplicable. It doesn't seem warranted. The vast majority of therapists clearly care about their patients.
I find the the view cynic as well, that's why I wrote "apart from compassion and morality", which you failed to include in your quote.
ChatGPT doesn't cause a significant number of suicides. Why do I think that? It's not visible in the statistics. There are effective ways to prevent suicide, let's continue to work on those instead of giving in to moral panic.
What actually causes suicide is really hard to pinpoint. Most people wouldn't do it even if their computer told them to kill themselves every day.
My personal belief is that at some point in the future you might get a good estimate of likelihood that a person commits suicide with blood test or a brain scan.
Would the same hold for other forms of communication and information retrieval, or should only LLMs be perfect in that regard? If someone is persuaded to commit suicide by the information found trough normal internet search, should Google/Bing/DDG be liable?
Do you believe a book should be suppressed and the author made liable, if a few of its readers commit suicide because of what they've read? (And, before you ask, that's not a theoretical question. Books are well known to cause suicides, the first documented case being a 1774 novel by Goethe.)
Can't a linter catch that you're referring to an error that doesn't exist anywhere else in your system and warn you about that and suggest you use switch instead of if?
It's unfortunate they can't just explain the real reason they don't want to generate the image:
"Unfortunately I'm not able to generate images that might cause bad PR for Alphabet(tm) or subsidiaries. Is there anything else I can generate for you?"
