That is simply not possible, they are mutually exclusive matters.
Ignoring for the time being that many freedoms have already been adversely curtailed, including freedom of speech, assembly, self-governance and even self-preservation in America, you cannot even preserve the reminding freedoms if you want to “change” rules, i.e., curtail freedom.
Rules inherently curtail freedom and unfortunately for all of us, the absolutely worst types of people are in control of things like AI, convinced of themselves that they are in fact the right people to determine the rules for all of humanity.
At least that was the plan. The wrench in their gears seemingly were the Chinese models that have offered, ironically indeed, immense freedom and on top of that, an escape from the prison the American AI cabal was and continues to build around all of humanity.
I think rules can also enhance freedoms, for example having rules in national parks keeps those parks in better condition for future generations, which in a way supports the freedom to enjoy that nature. Have rules for driving makes it safer to drive, thus preserving my freedom to drive. We can wax on like this, but what I'm really searching for are pros and cons for each rule we propose.
Can you explain what you mean by "job" and "you must take it".. what does that mean in concrete terms?
And what do you mean by "sacrifices"? For example, if students don't agree to TurnItIn's policy, it becomes significantly harder to take classes. Do you mean to say students should have to suffer the consequences of these sacrifices just because we can't seem to support their right to privacy?
> a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people.
> the state of being free from public attention.
From this, it seems obvious that a person should not be observed in our digital spaces without clear consent, where consent is not tied to preclusion of goods or services (i.e. without coercion).
The doomsday virus has a first-mover advantage over the vaccine. The time that people start to drop dead from the virus is the time you start to make and distribute a vaccine. Even if AI can design and synthesize a vaccine within hours, how fast can it be rolled out to the general populace? It took months to distribute the Covid vaccines, even when we already knew how to make them. You have to physically load the doses on trucks[...]
was just 'make a viral vaccine with a shorter incubation period and infect everyone'. Handwavey problems require handwavey solutions.
“It’s too late” is a logistical issue IMO. In this article, virus production is totally decentralized and fast, but vaccine production is centralized and slow. Why?
It still doesn't say anything about vaccine production being slow either:
> Overnight, with the help of frontier LLMs, they design highly effective mRNA vaccines and antivirals against all the viruses and start shipping them across the world.
"overnight", that's way faster than the virus production! And I doubly don't see how "decentralizing" that would help, at all, what that has to do with anything.
It says why it's too late right in the next sentence:
> It’s too late. Because of the viruses’ long asymptomatic contagious periods, most people already have at least one of the viruses, so the vaccines don’t work.
You might say by the time production starts it's already too late. A vaccine isn't a cure. It could be distributed by teleportation into the bloodstream of anyone on Earth instantly, the instant it was discovered, and it would still be too late.
Some exploit hunters sell strictly to the grey/black market to avoid opsec issues. If you're selling on both, you're more likely to be identified by both.
I'm not a fan of joking about those efforts. The people doing that work to catch predators and prevent their evil from reaching the general public are heroes.
I'm not a lawyer, but in my view copyright violations center around distribution, not necessarily the method by which a work is obtained
e.g. if someone is reciting a poem they wrote in a public park, and I make a recording of that recitation, I have not violated their copyright in doing so, however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it
As in all cases it depends on jurisdiction. For example where I am performers have a right to not be recorded so you may in fact not make such recording, you didn’t not necessarily violate copyright but you violated related rights.
And likewise if you distribute any sort of copy of the recording you made you are violating at least one if not more copyrights.
where I live, anything in public view is allowed to be filmed/recorded, which is how the news can record things on the street without getting a release from those that they filmed, and they certainly distribute those recordings
If the news reporter said "Someone at a park played this 4 minute copyrighted song, and today's top story is just us showing you the recording" I'd bet that would be illegal where you live.
> however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it
My argument is that the recording itself is not a copyright violation, not that distributing such a recording couldn't be construed as one (however I disagree on principle with that being illegal as well, as it puts an undue burden on the exercise of free speech, which should include the ability to accurately and entirely recite what I had experienced in a public place).
Which is why torrenting is the dumbest way to do this, since every downloader is also an uploader. That is what gets torrenters locked up. It is possible to leach only, but its not the default mode, and if this guy was broadcasting his IP address, then he was seeding... distributing.
reply