Economies of scale aren't specific to states. That's something every cooperative group benefits from.
Historically, the formation of most large states was not a voluntary merger of smaller states for the benefit of all but the conquest of smaller states by larger states.
1) *All major players open source their unobfuscated training data.*
a) The evidence so far shows that every major AI company engaged in intentional and historically unprecedented copyright violation to obtain their training data.
b) LLMs have now poisoined future data for any new players. This is a massive negative externality, and we shouldn't accept this externality as a moat locking out future players from competition.
2) *Levy a 20% royalty on all future genAI revenue to authors and artists who appear in the dataset and exempt genAI from future copywright violations.*
a) The current copyright model is bad for both authors and AI companies. It's hard for authors to collect from violations, and it's expensive and tedious for AI companies to comply with innumerable individual copyrights. Simplify the regime for everyone, and properly reward the people whose work is the foundation of these models.
b) The specifics can be worked out, but, among other things, the royalty should be proprotional to the token count of a work, not just number of works.
Simply, the scale of observation matters. Making observations at scale is categorically different than manual observations. And yes, there is a spectrum. But the important thing is that there is a difference between the ends of that spectrum.
The solution is to recognize that ease of observation interacts with expectation of privacy and legislate what can be done at each point on the spectrum. I have no expectation that someone won't take a picture with me in the background while I'm in public, but I would find it jarring to be filmed at every public location I went, have that video indexed to my name in a database, and have all my behaviors tagged. You write the law so that the latter thing is illegal and the former thing isn't. When there's a dispute about what's illegal, you have it resolved by the courts like every other law.
>Making observations at scale is categorically different than manual observations.
No it isn't. It's evidenced by the fact that you will need to decide some exact scale at which surveillance becomes illegal and under which it is legal
>When there's a dispute about what's illegal, you have it resolved by the courts like every other law.
Okay, but what ought they resolve to? That is what we are debating.
> need to decide some exact scale at which surveillance becomes illegal and under which it is legal
Surveillance of specified individuals should be allowed, but just random surveillance of the public should be declared illegal except for very particular events and purposes (e.g. searching people for entry to a music gig). If there is public surveillance in an area, it should be made clear with signs etc unless it's for the express purpose of locating specified individuals (e.g. tracking a criminal's movements on public transport).
No, you are simply wrong but ignorance of scaling properties is the spirit of the day.
I suspect in the future a word will evolve for the stupidity of believing if a person can walk 3 miles in an hour then that scales to walking 500 miles in a week.
No, JFK consulted extensively with the engineers beforehand. The end of the decade timeframe first came from a NASA study published February 7, 1961. Kennedy's budget had actually rejected the initial proposal from Webb to fund the moon program for an end of the decade moon mission just a few weeks prior to Gagarin's flight. A new proposal was put together and presented May 8, 1961 for Johnson by James Webb, Abe Hyatt, and Robert Seaman which pushed for a moon landing by end of decade. Von Braun was even more aggressive, telling Kennedy that it could be done by 1968.
The British won out over the Spanish because they realized they didn't need enormous warships to win naval battles. The Spanish weren't ignoring the need for a navy--they miscalculated and misallocated resources.
The irony is that the commenters saying we must go back to the moon are more like the Spanish: sticking to a sentimental 1960s vision of human-based space exploration despite evidence clearly favoring robotics and remote control.
Your example does not support your argument. Unlike heart surgery, there hasn't been a major shift in what we could do if we went back, and more exploration probably won't change the commercial or military prospects of the moon.
Of course, there is a giant shift in what we could do. We can build far more reliable rockets. We have incredible progresses in materials science, in our understanding of the moon's geology. Likewise, we established the presence of water.
We have more advanced solar panels, better batteries, we have a lot of recent research on modular, safe nuclear reactors that could probably lead more easily to moon-ready reactors. We have better batteries. Not only that, but we have better high power semiconductor gear that could lead to high orbit solar power stations over the poles feeding a polar base via microwaves.
We have decades of accumulated knowledge of human physiology under zero gravity.
We are way more prepared to have a permanent presence on the moon today that we could possibly have in the 70s because of those advancements.
Yes, taking Space-X out of it is stupid. SLS is a joke. Boeing idem. On this part of the problem people have my complete agreement. But the moon is a worthwhile goal because we cannot turn our backs to space.
I agree that we have all those things, but what do we do with them? What's the end benefit?
I'm not asking rhetorically, and if the answer is that the knock-off effects of doing this will provide a ton of technology that will help the rest of Earth eat, live and pursue happiness then I think that's a pretty kick-ass answer. But is that where you were going?
So what would the actual mission be if we went back, taking into account all these advances? Gather more rocks? Build a permanent base to... gather more rocks?
I love space exploration too, but its expensive, and we should focus on areas that have the best scientific or economic payoff. Sending humans back to the moon just isn't the best use of resources.
I'm leaning toward this being top-notch satire, but I can't be entirely sure---and that's a good thing.
> Without those standards, the profession would lose its weight, its dignity. If becoming a doctor were simply a matter of competence and compassion, we’d all be wearing name tags and making $60,000 a year.
Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from fundamentalist ravings, so says Poe.
But this comment has me solidly believing it's satire: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43495692. Not that I can't believe someone would really think that way, just that the odds of them being an actual psychopath who doesn't see what they're saying seem lower than the odds of a non-psychopathic person taking the opportunity to make a joke.
> This is very similar to the minor fraud of an academic publishing an overstated / incorrect result to stay competitive with others doing the same.
I completely disagree.
For one, academic standards of publishing are not at all the same as the standards for in-house software development. In academia, a published result is typically regarded as a finished product, even if the result is not exhaustive. You cannot push a fix to the paper later; an entirely new paper has to be written and accepted. And this is for good reason: the paper represents a time-stamp of progress in the field that others can build off of. In the sciences, projects can range from 6 months to years, so a literature polluted with half-baked results is a big impediment to planning and resource allocation.
A better comparison for academic publishing would be a major collaborative open source project like the Linux kernel. Any change has to be thoroughly justified and vetted before it is merged because mistakes cause other people problems and wasted time/effort. Do whatever you like with your own hobbyist project, but if you plan for it to be adopted and integrated into the wider software ecosystem, your code quality needs to be higher and you need to have your interfaces speced out. That's the analogy for academic publishing.
The problems in modern academic publishing are almost entirely caused by the perverse incentives of measuring academic status by publication record (number of publications and impact factor). Lowering publishing standards so academics can play this game better is solving the wrong problem. Standards should be even higher.
Historically, the formation of most large states was not a voluntary merger of smaller states for the benefit of all but the conquest of smaller states by larger states.