Yes, and we should say "no more making money from stupid things like secret technical standards"
Copyright and patent protection is afforded under the principle that said protections grant concurrent value to the people as is granted to the holder of the rights. Stuff like HDMI specs gatekeeping simply allows a select group of people to exploit licensing and seek rent. It doesn't provide any benefit to the people of the US whatsoever, and the fundamental principle by which the rights were granted is violated.
Copyright and patent protection is intended to incentivize and reward creativity, not to allow conglomerates of IP hoarders and patent trolls to exploit legal gotchas, to allow endless rent seeking, or empower megacorps to mass file endless vague patents so as to provide endless legal challenges to small competitors.
Copyright and patent law as currently implemented and practiced are fundamentally broken and far diverged from any principled, meaningful benefit to the people.
There are what, 2 publishers now? Five nines of commercially viable patents go to megacorps and universities? Seven nines of all music and media belong to conglomerates of one sort or another? Something like that.
I understand the intent of the original implementations of copyright, and maybe the laws even made sense for a few years, but either they were corrupt from the start, or they were so badly written that they never had a shot at achieving any sort of meaningful ROI for the price paid by the public.
It's four horsemen of the infocalypse 101. Look at the platforms they allowed to continue - discord and roblox, the specific worst of all socials with the most predators, least effective countermeasures.
The purpose of a thing is what it does. Australia's policies do not protect children. They quite brazenly and blatantly leave children vulnerable and exploited. The question of what those actions accomplish has a simple answer - narrative control, censorship, and weaponization of public discourse against dissent.
The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information.
None of the policy Australia crafted does anything good. It's just another power grab using "won't you think of the children?!" as the excuse. Next year it will be terrorism or drugs or money laundering, and they'll keep constricting around civil liberties until they have absolute control.
They'll also put various racial and ethnic officials in prominent positions, so that you may not criticize anything lest you be deemed a racist or bigot (super effective social engineering.)
> The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information.
This is just complete bullshit. Ah yes, my solution to this problem is just to require every single family to be infinitely better in every way imaginable. What is the proposal if that can't happen? We just execute people who don't meet the "stable loving family environment"
No doubt in my mind you are from the generation of a stiff upper lip
You fix it with better culture. You don't throw away your principles and liberties because "bad things are happening to children, quick, burn the system down!"
As far as Australia is concerned, this isn't as much of a throwing away of principles and liberties as it might look. It's classic Australia to have a heavier hand in these types of ways. Admittedly though, less social media use generally sounds like a better culture to me.
Ticketing systems inevitably get Goodharted. Everyone starts in good faith, then the manager starts using the number of tickets closed, touched, etc as a proxy for work being done, then the agents replace number of tickets with things actually accomplished.
Economists are a short hop up from astrology along the line of how much science things are.
The entire field is five nines of vibe, with an occasional legitimate universal mathematical insight.
If economology were practical and useful, economists would be rich from successfully modeling markets and economies and arbitraging asynchronous information advantages. Instead, the economists that get rich do so by prognosticating and pontificating.
This guy's pet theory probably wasn't viewed as compatible with anything OpenAI wanted to be doing.
If your theory or perspective runs against the commodification of human level AI, then you probably aren't going to be a great fit at any of the big AI labs.
"Economists are a short hop up from astrology along the line of how much science things are."
LLM advocates that say that this tech is magic and hours away from human intelligence are a short hop up from astrology along the line of how much science things are.
The solution is really easy. Make sure you have web search enabled, you're not using the free version of some AI, and then just ask it to research the best way to prompt, and write a tutorial for you to use in the future. Or have it write some exercises and do a practice chat.
It might be a side quest, or it could be an elegant way to frame a category of problems that are resistant to the ways in which transformers can learn; in turn, by solving that structural deficiency in order to enable a model to effectively learn that category of problems, you might empower a new leap in capabilities and power.
We're a handful of breakthroughs before models reach superhuman levels across any and all domains of cognition. It's clear that current architectures aren't going to be the end-all solution, but all we need might simply be a handful of well-posed categorical deficiencies that allow a smooth transition past the current jagged frontiers.
Not quite - just because an infinite variety of things are allowed to happen doesn't mean that they will. You will never have been born with all your cells suddenly swapped out for pure gold. Your brain will never spontaneously spark a fission chain reaction and detonate, in all the infinite variety of outcomes through all time. The universe as we know it will also end long before any meaningful notion of infinity applies to the possible outcomes of various configurations of atoms.
The best science can estimate, for now, is that heat death will occur in around 100 trillion years, probably closer to 1, and other universe ending outcomes can happen long before that. For the solar system, there's a few billion years before the inner planets get devoured by the sun.
In those timeframes, the only outcome you have is the one occurring now. There's no eternal endless reset waiting at the end of everything where things endlessly repeat - the number of things that occur and near infinite variety of outcomes means that even if there's a big crunch and a restart long after the heat death of the universe, there will never, ever, in any meaningfully cognizable period of time, be another universe where Earth exists, or even the Milky Way. Tiny perturbations at the beginning of time across the sum total of all particles and energy defined the state of all the things that could ever be within our universe. Across an infinity of infinities, a multiverse in which all things exist, there's no meaningful differentiation at the level of thinking about everything, so I don't think it brings anything to the table.
You get the one life - if science progresses to the point where we reach longevity escape velocity, or if they can guarantee preservation of your mind until such a time as they can revive or restore or fully emulate your embodiment, that's worth pursuing, even if somehow some weird mystical configuration of "you" traverses the eternal multiverse.
We're closing in on really weird changes in human technological trajectories, it's going to be one hell of a ride.
Mustafa is a side-character, he's the friend of a brother of someone who knows what they're doing. Competence isn't something that people pick up through proximity, and Microsoft is finding that out in real-time.
Copyright and patent protection is afforded under the principle that said protections grant concurrent value to the people as is granted to the holder of the rights. Stuff like HDMI specs gatekeeping simply allows a select group of people to exploit licensing and seek rent. It doesn't provide any benefit to the people of the US whatsoever, and the fundamental principle by which the rights were granted is violated.
Copyright and patent protection is intended to incentivize and reward creativity, not to allow conglomerates of IP hoarders and patent trolls to exploit legal gotchas, to allow endless rent seeking, or empower megacorps to mass file endless vague patents so as to provide endless legal challenges to small competitors.
Copyright and patent law as currently implemented and practiced are fundamentally broken and far diverged from any principled, meaningful benefit to the people.
There are what, 2 publishers now? Five nines of commercially viable patents go to megacorps and universities? Seven nines of all music and media belong to conglomerates of one sort or another? Something like that.
I understand the intent of the original implementations of copyright, and maybe the laws even made sense for a few years, but either they were corrupt from the start, or they were so badly written that they never had a shot at achieving any sort of meaningful ROI for the price paid by the public.
reply