LLM's are definitely the sort of thing people in general mean when they say "AI".
The act of using "an AI" to generate a license restricting the use of AI can have many motivations, but an obvious one is the simple "use their own weapons against them" principle.
There were plenty of top tier Covid vaccines created in Europe, and a Danish pharmaceutical is currently crushing the US weight loss market: your jingoism is deluding you.
Who said anything about where I think this AI would be developed?
US is possible. So is China. So is Europe. Not necessarily in that order. Japan might have an outside chance if certain things line up a certain way.
If Europe and the US make AI research overly cumbersome, I’m sure there are plenty of countries that will offer sweetheart deals to the best teams looking for a new home.
Since value is only defined by what people are willing to pay for it, and lacking any extra common rules, these acts of copying simply signal not accepting the demanded price: so the value claimed by the owner was not the actual value, thus they have lost only their self-deception about the value.
You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.
No, you can't. Property exists. You can replace the word intellectual with "personal," "private," "public," etc. But removing it does not work. Property is not a legal fiction. Who the property belongs to is.
Yes, but the association of that laptop with yourself as an owner is an abstract idea. Many mammals do not have such ideas of ownership as an exclusive right, though many will defend territory, mates, and offspring.
It can not be understated how foundational exclusive property rights are to modern society and technological advancement. Since at least the Magna Carta it’s considered a human right. The US Declaration of Independence almost enumerated property as an inalienable right in place of the pursuit of happiness.
How could I have forgotten: the idea of personal property is also essential to Jewish law, predating the Magna Carta by another 2,000 years. That’s at least 3,000 years of at least a portion of humans placing value on private property.
I updated my earlier comment to point out much earlier property laws. As best I can tell, copyright laws are around 500 years old, and about 230 in America. They were always written to give the creator a limited monopoly, unlike property, which is in perpetuity. Personal property is typically not considered to have the wide public value or cultural impact that ideas have.
There’s definitely a deep philosophical discussion to be had here about what value governments provide in return for your tax dollars on property that in reality they allow you to do certain things with, insofar as any human can claim to own any piece of this planet. In the end, it usually boils down to paying for them to defend it from invaders and anyone trying to take it from you, so think about the tax like a protection fee that entitles you to call up guys with guns to make whoever is trying to break that government’s rules about what you can and cannot do with that property you pay tax on stop. Consider US military strength (perceived and actual, as far as we can even measure that) vs rest of world, same with property values and wages in the US vs other places.
> Consider US military strength (perceived and actual, as far as we can even measure that) vs rest of world, same with property values and wages in the US vs other places.
While I agree with your comment, I think the last part is only partly true. The military strength of a country doesn't necessarily correlate with the property values and prices - it is enough to compare, say, Switzerland or the Netherlands with Russia or China. Rather, it is an intricate next of various factors that constantly change.
I’d highly recommend reading the 1840 banger * What Is Property? or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government* by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon of Property is theft! fame.
Posting to HN is not like writing a finalized spec or publishing an academic paper. It’s ok to ignore complicated edge cases and speak in generalities. Nobody expects commenters to 100% cover every issue with every post.
I ask because there were released US NIH emails discussing a base sequence not close to any in natural sequences, and concern it was in fact synthesized under the "gain of function" funding provided to Wuhan from the NIH.
> I ask because there were released US NIH emails discussing a base sequence not close to any in natural sequences
If you are seriously asking, you'll have to be much more specific about which exact sequence is being alleged as impossible; there have simply been too many unsound claims about something mysterious in the initial isolates for me to be able to guess what particular claim you want disproven.
If it's the furin site specifically that's supposedly unnatural, then that's simply false, and you can easily find debunkings of this if you just search for "furin site debunk". As an example, here's a recent paper about a very similar furin site (parts of it being identical to the canonical covid-19 site) found in a corona virus from wild bats captured in 2021: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X2... this is simply put explicit observation of this "unnatural feature" found in nature.
Please do not drag in unrelated, tangential threads, especially flame-bait material like this. Regardless of what you believe about the original topic, dragging this into totally unrelated threads only creates problems and is a disruptive behavior.
I mean, the parent of the person you're responded to made what is an increasingly shaky claim that COVID-19 was due to "natural spillover". I don't necessarily think it's wrong that that comment shouldn't be allowed to pass without challenge. I'm not sure we're ever going to know the real origins of COVID-19.
You asking a Replika AI for evidence against natural spillover does not amount to making the basic science "an increasingly shaky claim".
Also, try to use less double negations in your writing "I don't necessarily think it's wrong that that comment shouldn't be allowed to pass without challenge." is an atrocious construction.
It's not theft, Microsoft has a license to use them! OpenAI can't turn off the machines, can't turn off hardware access to the models or weights, and can't turn off the license either. They can sue, but they'd most likely lose, and go out of business beforehand anyway.
That's only because the key players have no reason to compete.
They don't want to run a developer/enterprise ChatGPT platform.
Google cares about Search, Apple about Siri, Meta about VR/Ads. But those three are interesting heavily in their own LLMs which at some point may better OpenAI.
The act of using "an AI" to generate a license restricting the use of AI can have many motivations, but an obvious one is the simple "use their own weapons against them" principle.