Lichess has a series of puzzles you can try where underpromotion is the theme (which is unfortunately a major giveaway to solving these puzzles, since they otherwise be rather hard to solve)
In May earlier this year, the New York Times had a similar article about AI not replacing radiologists:
https://archive.is/cw1Zt
It has similar insights, and good comments from doctors and from Hinton:
“It can augment, assist and quantify, but I am not in a place where I give up interpretive conclusions to the technology.”
“Five years from now, it will be malpractice not to use A.I.,” he said. “But it will be humans and A.I. working together.”
Dr. Hinton agrees. In retrospect, he believes he spoke too broadly in 2016, he said in an email. He didn’t make clear that he was speaking purely about image analysis, and was wrong on timing but not the direction, he added.
And even more to enforce it if granted. You can have all the patents in the world but with without being able to file against infringing parties they’re just documents.
If what is behind the patent is granted free to use, what’s to enforce? How would I infringe on “free to use for everybody “? I believe OP’s idea is to file the patents defensively to block others from filing stupid patents as in TFA.
The last person in usually gets the best deal, in that they can get preference and push everyone else (previous investors, founders, and employees) down. If things goes south, they get their money out before anyone else.
Why don't early investors put clauses in their investment to protect themselves against being screwed over by later investors? It seems like an obvious thing to ask for if you're giving someone a lot of money, so I'm assuming there must be a very good reason it's not done.
Early investors (the main ones at least) usually get pro-rate rights - which means you can invest in later rounds to maintain your ownership percentage (i.e a later round dilutes your ownership, so you invest a bit until the ownership stays the same).
But the pref stack always favors later investors, partly because that's just the way it's always been, and if you try to change that now no one will take your money, and later investors will not want to invest in a company unless they get the senior liquidity pref.
Isn’t everyone “the last” at the moment they are taking participation in the round? If someone thinks they’re gonna get preferential treatment in Series C or D, and then comes someone in E with preferential treatement, then
Having been on the program committee for some of these conferences, this issue of limiting number of submissions was being discussed long before GenAI. Specifically, there was talk of a few highly prolific security researchers that submitted 15-20 papers to these conferences each cycle, with pretty good quality too.
I'd also add (4) be incredibly curious about lots of things; (5) surround yourself with other smart, curious, and committed people who have a culture of critiquing ideas; and (6) devote a lot of time to deep thinking.
(8) be good in counting things,
(h) be consistent in your thinking,
(10) have a good memory,
(11) be good in counting things,
(12) refrain from making silly comments
I'd say it's worse than that. This new policy of vetting will be extremely high cost in terms of time, money, and lost opportunities for students and universities, while also be rather useless in practice. Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? What threats will actually be caught by this approach?
This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater.
But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.
> At IBM, where he worked from 1952 to 1993, Garwin was a key contributor or a facilitator on some of the most important products and breakthroughs of his era, including magnetic resonance imaging, touchscreen monitors, laser printers, and the Cooley-Tukey fast Fourier transform algorithm.
>
> And all that was after he did the thing for which he is most famous. At age 23 and at the behest of Edward Teller, Garwin designed the very first working hydrogen bomb...
> "and the Cooley-Tukey fast Fourier transform algorithm"
Supposedly, at Garwin's scheming, one of the creators wasn't aware the immediate application of the algorithms they were optimizing was nuclear weapons,
> "Tukey reportedly came up with the idea during a meeting of President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee discussing ways to detect nuclear-weapon tests in the Soviet Union by employing seismometers located outside the country. These sensors would generate seismological time series. However, analysis of this data would require fast algorithms for computing DFTs due to the number of sensors and length of time. This task was critical for the ratification of the proposed nuclear test ban so that any violations could be detected without need to visit Soviet facilities.[4][5] Another participant at that meeting, Richard Garwin of IBM, recognized the potential of the method and put Tukey in touch with Cooley. However, Garwin made sure that Cooley did not know the original purpose. Instead, Cooley was told that this was needed to determine periodicities of the spin orientations in a 3-D crystal of helium-3."
I expect at the time the distinction was irrelevant.
I also don't think it's necessary to be critical about the wording above. Perhaps "was related to nuclear weapons" reads better? But it's not exactly ambiguous, especially after reading the quoted passage.
I understand. However, in the climate of the nuclear arms race, I think that all projects having anything to do with nuclear physics were likely to be kept under tight wraps.
The comment I replied to seems to be taking a snarky tone toward a comment that was interesting and furthering the actual topic of the post. By highlighting that it didn't take a stance:
> one of the creators wasn't aware the immediate application of the algorithms they were optimizing was nuclear weapons
Even your reply to me seems to only allow interpreting "application ... was nuclear weapons" to mean "building" or "developing" instead of "detecting" when to me it simply means "in the domain of." And certainly you agree that detection is in the space of nuclear weapons?
The obvious reason detection technology falls under the same secrecy umbrella as weapons design is because one leads quite quickly to the other if you start to think about why it might be developed.
As a native speaker I disagree with the unnecessarily narrow interpretation. It may be the simpler conclusion to reach but with the accompanying material it is obviously not the intent.
https://lichess.org/training/underPromotion