Lengths just have to be reasonable, comparable to time in production (median of salaried employee-hours / median # of employees over the period) of the average item in a class. The vast majority of the private value is captured well within that time. It also keeps people honest and discourages rentseeking that isn't tied to labor.
Ownership of intellectual property still matters, but right to copy&modify shouldn't last that long. It isn't hard to imagine another system of IP rights that provide value to the creator but not to the expense of society. Disney used public domain to build it's foundation then pulled up the ladder. Disney's market cap is lower than the damage longer copyright has caused, it's already been trillions, hundreds of trillions looking into the near future.
Exactly. Governments that seem to have good intentions are enabling the self destruction of public data. I'm glad we have projects like AA to right this wrong.
Spotify's library has direct value in training ML models.
The value is in people controlling data. Any company with a data mote will always have an advantage, this damages the free and fair market on which capitalism is built.
Spotify has removed millions of songs over the years, so while the value to you, may be tiny, the value to the public is much larger than the marginal increase in risk to the project as a whole.
It should be under AA since it follows AA philosophy and benefits from AA's branding and brings more interested preservationinst parties who may be unaware of AA. Your strategy is the first step in divide and conquer, AA's is too big to fail
Ironically LLMs solve the MxN problem he's complaining about. He wants to get rid of the problem entirely, but fails to see the value of pointless differences.
It's the same kind of hubris that asks why we don't all speak one language. In the future we will all speak one language and we will all speak either our own or a DSL shared by only a few others, in America we will all speak English, in Japan even the torists will all speak Japanese. Very few will know English, but some will know it better than anyone.
It's one of the US's (or some future world government) greatest future public utilities for sure.
Right now it's ruining it's own content by overoptimizing for engagement slop. Making the creators dumber and consumers poorer, limiting ad growth in the long term.
17 years on, no value created, trillions extracted and used for stock buybacks. Destabilizing the economy, raising borrowing costs and making the feds print print print. In the 90s there were 8000+ publicly listed companies doing real business. Now there are ~3600, 10 years from now there will be at most 1000.
Gambling and endless consolidation feel good for monkey brains. Governments are supposed to step in, but we have a heckin' Cheeto in the White House.
In this case "finding a way to blame them" means a direct anonymous survey and some large percent saying "Yes I am actively sabotaging our companies the AI rollout"
> Gen Z workers are so fearful AI will take their job they’re intentionally sabotaging their company’s AI rollout
What is "sabotage"?
> The sabotage entails entering proprietary information into public AI tools, or using unapproved AI tools. Some employees report outright refusing to use AI tools. Others have even admitted to tampering with performance reviews or intentionally generating low-output work to make AI appear less effective.
Wow, so "sabotage" means using "AI tools" (LLMs?) in a way management doesn't want; or using AI tools other than the ones management mandates; or not using any AI tools at all!
How fearful are the members of Gen Z surveyed? The journalistic report of a commercial report of a commissioned study that is not available for review … doesn't say. But how many Gen Z members "admit" to "sabotaging" their employers' "AI" strategy in the defined way? Of those surveyed in the dubious study: a minority of
> 44%[.]
Were those surveyed asked directly if they were literally "sabotaging" AI rollouts? Again, the report of a commercial report of a commissioned and unavailable study doesn't say. But I doubt it.
And the journalism's coming from Fortune doesn't exactly help its credibility.
There was a small period, yes, where the internet was less regulated because the government didn't want to stomp out a new technology and let another country get an advantage. Now that the US has the advantage they are only harming their citizens by leaving it unregulated. Less people engage in a behavior if it's illegal and uniformly enforced.
Wagering was commonly legal, but generally illegal since 1541 Henry VIII banned for laborers & servants.
Ownership of intellectual property still matters, but right to copy&modify shouldn't last that long. It isn't hard to imagine another system of IP rights that provide value to the creator but not to the expense of society. Disney used public domain to build it's foundation then pulled up the ladder. Disney's market cap is lower than the damage longer copyright has caused, it's already been trillions, hundreds of trillions looking into the near future.
reply