Answering this from a legal perspective:

What is the easiest and most practical way to translate legalese into scientifically accurate terms, thus bridging the gap between AI experts and lawyers? Stated differently, how do we move from localised papers that only work in law or AI fields respectively, to papers that work in both?

Glad somebody finally made a post about this. I experimented with the distinction in my trio of posts on photographic memory a while back.

I was naive during the period in which I made this particular post. I'm happy with the direction LW is going in, having experienced more of the AI world, and read many more posts. Thank you for your input regardless.

you don't think it's "snobbish or discriminatory" to pretend it's something more because you count yourself among its users?

Fair point. I had already provided special justification for it but I agree with your reasoning, so I'll leave it out. Thanks for the example.

AI alignment mostly; seeking to bridge the gap between AI and law. Since LW has unique takes, and often serves as the origin point for ideas on alignment (even if they aren't cited by mainstream authors). Whether this site's purpose is to be cited or not is debatable. On a pragmatic level though, there's simply discussions here that can't be found anywhere else.

This is hilarious, and I'm sure took a lot of time to put together.

Likely isn't receiving the upvotes it deserves because the humour is so niche, and well, LessWrong is more logic and computer science-y than philosophy at the moment. 

Thank you!

PS: Would love to see more posts in the future that incorporate emojis, example: 

Apollodorus: anybody wonder why the vegetarians are online so often? If they love the natural world so much, I say they should be getting more mouthfuls of grass than anybody! 
[ ✅9, including Asimov, Spinoza and others].

Socrates: The same can be said of you and your whining Apollodorus, but of course you are always exempt from your own criticisms!
[😂31, including Pythagoras, Plato and others.]

It seems increasingly plausible that it would be in the public interest to ban non-disparagement clauses more generally going forward, or at least set limits on scope and length (although I think nullifying existing contracts is bad and the government should not do that and shouldn’t have done it for non-competes either.)

I concur.

It should be noted though; we can spend all day taking apart these contracts and applying pressure publicly but real change will have to come from the courts. I await an official judgment to see the direction of this issue. Arguably, the outcome there is more important for any alignment initiative run by a company than technical goals (at the moment).

How do you reconcile keeping genuine cognito hazards away from the public, while also maintaining accountability & employee health? Is there a middle ground that justifies the existence of NDAs & NDCs? 

Would love to collaborate with you on a post, check out my posts and let me know.