Using a type of artificial intelligence known as deep learning, MIT researchers have discovered a class of compounds that can kill a drug-resistant bacterium that causes more than 10,000 deaths in the United States every year.
Healthy people with access to the surrounding world through the Internet is a giant net positive for a country
Certainly, if that was all the public domain was, it’d be great! But it’s much worse than that. It allows people to freely take and profit off the art of others without paying dividends. It allows larger companies to steal and copy designs of small, new companies and under cut them even more readily and easily than they already do.
There’s plenty of downsides that you’re not considering.
Private just makes more money and also you can do ridiculous shit like blow up your own rocket, destroying a landing pad in the process and ignore environmental and labor laws.
Yeah, so the actual law is that if you didn’t do any work and just gave ChatGPT or Midjourney a prompt and it shat out a picture and then brag to the copyright office in your application that you didn’t do diddly squat, the work effectively had no human authors. If, instead, you build a new machine learning model, tune it for your specific problem, analyze the results, and furthermore, break new ground understanding how it solved your problem, and then you write the paper, in fact, you have tons of ownership over the work.
The fact people can’t tell the difference between the two and are actually upvoting you kind of says a lot about how little most people understand this stuff.
Would you also agree it’s rude to imply that this group of researchers, who actually advanced the state of the art in machine learning, are just a bunch of ChatGPT jockeys who don’t deserve credit for their work?
Great; so this is all public domain knowledge since it was created with AI according to current law, right?
Personally I think all medicine should be public domain
Everything should.
Medicine. Internet. Waste disposal.
All utilities, phone, electricity, sewage, road and rail.
But actually looking at these, pretty much all protocols and standards are already open.
So you want to reduce innovation and cause creators to not get properly paid for their work? Great idea
No, because paying for your medicin and Internet is something your government/country SHOULD do.
Healthy people with access to the surrounding world through the Internet is a giant net positive for a country.
But ofc we have to think of the poor billionaires first.
Certainly, if that was all the public domain was, it’d be great! But it’s much worse than that. It allows people to freely take and profit off the art of others without paying dividends. It allows larger companies to steal and copy designs of small, new companies and under cut them even more readily and easily than they already do.
There’s plenty of downsides that you’re not considering.
I don’t know if you commented on the wrong thing, but I argued that medicin and Internet (and similar) should be paid by the country (taxes).
lol “innovation” what is this 1925?
how innovative are the cars being produced because they look the same.
half those medicines are publicly funded
the Internet is publicly funded.
this belief of private sector innovation is not as true as they sell it to be.
This. Public institutions do a way better job and are more efficient at most things compared to private companies. It’s just a fact.
Private just makes more money and also you can do ridiculous shit like blow up your own rocket, destroying a landing pad in the process and ignore environmental and labor laws.
So you’re just going to ignore the even worse creative theft that would happen under such laws towards artistic talents.
There’d be much less in the way of tv shows or animations.
why do you think that??
Yeah, so the actual law is that if you didn’t do any work and just gave ChatGPT or Midjourney a prompt and it shat out a picture and then brag to the copyright office in your application that you didn’t do diddly squat, the work effectively had no human authors. If, instead, you build a new machine learning model, tune it for your specific problem, analyze the results, and furthermore, break new ground understanding how it solved your problem, and then you write the paper, in fact, you have tons of ownership over the work.
The fact people can’t tell the difference between the two and are actually upvoting you kind of says a lot about how little most people understand this stuff.
I’m just downvoting you for being a smarmy prick. Not because your comment is inaccurate.
Would you also agree it’s rude to imply that this group of researchers, who actually advanced the state of the art in machine learning, are just a bunch of ChatGPT jockeys who don’t deserve credit for their work?
I hope you’re at least consistent and downvoted yourself, then.
Same :/
Removed by mod
I think those rulings have only applied to creative works. We’ll see.
This 100% is classified as a creative work. That’s why drugs are able to be patented in the first place.
Depends, what was the training set / knowledge base?
deleted by creator