Not if a person's life is considered their property. If the concept of property is re-defined to include non-tangible concepts, like time, health, wellbeing, etc. then it probably defeats a lot of arguments against "we should only have property rights and not worker's rights"
I'd like to know what fundamentally distinguishes property rights such that successful attempts to re-define them produces a significantly different outcome.
If you look at who enforces property rights vs. who enforces workers rights, a re-definition of property would absolutely radical. Like, imagine if local cops had a framework for enforcing OSHA-style labor rules on the basis of worker injuries constituting a property rights violation of the employee. Imagine if your boss didn't pressure you to work overtime because it could result in them being arrested. Imagine if the time required for you to wait at the DMV was a potential violation of the 4th amendment. The world would be so different lol.
Would such a strategy produce a significantly different outcome when property rights can encompass non-tangible concepts like time, ideas, digital goods, data, attention, and "value"?
MDISC optical disks can hold up to 100GB and are designed to last 100 years. Whatever solution you choose, consider this storage medium as providing a "future-proof" capability. A useful script for these backups: https://github.com/RobertScheibe/mdisk_backup
If AI companies in the US are penalized for this, then the effect on copyright holders will only be slowed until foriegn AI companies overtake them. In such cases the legal recourse will be much slower and significantly limited.
Access to copyrighted materials might make for slightly better-trained models the way that access to more powerful GPUs does. But I don't think it will accelerate foundational advances in the underlying technology. If anything, maybe having to compete under tight constraints means AI companies will have to innovate more, rather than merely push scale.
The problem is that regardless of any innovations, scale still matters. If you figure out the technique to, say, make a model that is significantly better given N parameters - where N is just large enough to be the perfect fit for the amount of training data that you have access to - then someone else with access to more data will use the same technique to make a model with >N parameters, and it will be better than yours.
Gee, perhaps we should not have done this in the first place. 'Foreigners might copy the irresponsible thing we did so we have do more of it' is not the most brilliant argument.
Curiously, HP seems to embrace these Pro APUs more than any other brand, and yet they've never enabled a core feature of Pro APUs - ECC error reporting.
Great innovations coming out of the open source keyboard community. Integrated pointing devices are the next frontier IMO and VIK makes that much more feasible for the community.
Not if a person's life is considered their property. If the concept of property is re-defined to include non-tangible concepts, like time, health, wellbeing, etc. then it probably defeats a lot of arguments against "we should only have property rights and not worker's rights"
I'd like to know what fundamentally distinguishes property rights such that successful attempts to re-define them produces a significantly different outcome.
If you look at who enforces property rights vs. who enforces workers rights, a re-definition of property would absolutely radical. Like, imagine if local cops had a framework for enforcing OSHA-style labor rules on the basis of worker injuries constituting a property rights violation of the employee. Imagine if your boss didn't pressure you to work overtime because it could result in them being arrested. Imagine if the time required for you to wait at the DMV was a potential violation of the 4th amendment. The world would be so different lol.
reply