41–50 of 74 posts
Patents should be eradicated from this planet. China will outgrow US/EU/Japan because they have little enforcement for these things and execution matters, not ideas.
China’s relative growth rate has been slowing down over the last 30 year, making long term projections difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply don't understand how we managed to justify this patent and intellectual property mess in the capitalist system. Capitalism is all about competition and the right to choose the better product, whereas the current system encourages monopoly. I don't understand.
Because actual capitalism was co-opted a long time ago by large powerful corporations who don't like to lose and have the money to stifle human creativity and general societial progress by lobbying authorities to ensure they never lose.
Very interesting to read about the origins of patents. Not what I expected!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Patent_Statute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi#An_innova...
Any history of patent nerds out there for a hot take on TFA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first thought is that this perspective is conflating Capitalism with a Free Market. Free Markets are about competition and consumer rights. Capitalism - from what I've read - is about a minority having the decision making power with regards to capital allocation. So the USA has a free market system ran by capitalists. I would argue that IP laws can be favorable from the perspective of Capitalism but not the Free M…
Not even Marx uses that definition of capitalism. Capitalism, as defined by communists is about the "private ownership of the means of production". The term has now been widely adopted, even by its defenders, although we don't care specifically about the means of production, we defend property whenever it enhances the freedom of the human individual (an abstract individual, not any specific person). Intellectual "pro…
I might be lacking some nuance here, but "private ownership of the means of production" sounds equivalent to my statement about making decisions about capital allocation, in that the means of production is one form of capital. Not trying to be pedantic, just looking to understand the difference :)
Patents should be eradicated from this planet. China will outgrow US/EU/Japan because they have little enforcement for these things and execution matters, not ideas.
Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but this suggestion smells like an attempt at a patent-grab by someone who owns some AI tech. "You used my AI in the process of inventing something? Well, I guess your patent belongs to me now."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply don't understand how we managed to justify this patent and intellectual property mess in the capitalist system. Capitalism is all about competition and the right to choose the better product, whereas the current system encourages monopoly. I don't understand.
The big Isms don’t exist in the real world - every country is a mixed economy to a greater or lesser degree. IP is a bargain between state and author. The state agrees to let the author charge rent on their IP for a limited period of time, thus incentivizing the creation of that IP. In return, the public gets to enjoy that IP’s existence - and eventually enjoy it for free. How long should the limit be? Here lies the…
From what ive gathered it is no longer a system that can be used meaningfully by you or me, either to get a useful patent or to enforce an infringed one.
Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but this suggestion smells like an attempt at a patent-grab by someone who owns some AI tech. "You used my AI in the process of inventing something? Well, I guess your patent belongs to me now."
ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong to you
(edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong to you
That's a ridiculous idea. AI is a machine like anything else. If I use any other machine to produce a creative work, I own the rights to it. There is no reason for tensorflow to be treated differently. (edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)
1. AI is by far our least machine-like invention yet. Our ability to predict the choices a state of the art AI makes, or even reason about them, is extremely limited. As a relevant example, I would argue that AlphaGo's move 37 was creativity by the AI and not its creators, none of whom was a Go grandmaster.
2. AIs can iterate and output creative works extremely rapidly. If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach, it would allow them to amass a potential treasure trove of IP that would put everything that came before to shame. And if they then use this for litigation, then the future could be very gloomy for a while.