I wonder what the acceptable collisions/delivery needs to be for it to match last mile truck safety level (ie UPS trucks are big and run into things with non-zero frequency)
I'm sure there's a surprisingly high frequency of "acceptable" collisions if the bar is matching truck-inflicted property damage and injuries. Much like with replacing human drivers with computers, though, merely matching the cost and harms of the existing system is far from enough. Entrenched systems benefit from familiarity with the associated costs and risks, and from any structures built to mitigate them. New solutions have to be much better to gain acceptance.
Fortunately, automated systems can meet that higher threshold so long as we actually aim for it. If you aim for the lower "beats existing systems by some measures" bar then you make stupid decisions and tradeoffs like rushing to market or leaving out more capable sensors. We ought to try to make new technologies as good as possible. Sometimes the market will bet against that, but that's a tide that engineers should fight back against. Trucks kill too many people, and if drones kill half as many that's still unacceptable. We can do better.
> merely matching the cost and harms of the existing system is far from enough
The new system needs to be better but that doesn’t necessarily mean safer.
For delivery, that could mean cheaper and faster and more convenient.
Autonomous vehicles are a special case because those accidents tend to cause death and serious injury. As long as delivery drones can avoid killing multiple people per year, they are probably fine to compete on other metrics.
People are more accepting when there's a person who can be punished. There's also the fact that society generally expects cars/trucks hitting things. A drone impact might be a more minor impact, but it's possible for it to hit things that are more shocking to the public if they get hit.
Throwing up hands and saying: internalizing the externalized cost is "ridiculously expensive" is not proof it doesn't work.
The examples of the a la carte exercise brands referenced (SoulCycle, etc) are quite ineffective arguments -- those are successful businesses with loyal, high retention users because they provide specific, high value products to the users.
Revenue is how businesses and even no-profits survive. You can be idealistic about it all you want, but if there is no cash flow, those websites will go away.
Non-Euclidean geometry (geometric axioms in which one postulate is rejected such that the 3 angles of a triangle are not exactly 180 degrees) was considered a meaningless word game and fundamental mistruth.
Later, non-Euclidean geometry was actually essential to modern physics.
It's intellectually sketchy to judge future value by the present.
Might as well fund someone researching whether quantum theory run on little gnomes, if there is no serious path to verification after 50 years, why not quantum gnomes?
On this topic (parallel postulate), it took ~2000 years from Euclid and then 3 people all came to the same conclusion independently within ~10-20 years.
Is it so weird? See Multiple discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery and Zeitgeist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist namely that there might, or might not, be objective knowledge out there describing properly an objective World but we as a specie do chip at it with itself over time. When a new discovery in any field is made it propagates through our social network and tools we have for it, e.g. cafes, scientific journal, Web. As soon as something is discovered most of us connected enough get the new tool or perspective, update our Worldview and chip it at it again. IMHO this way it seems pretty normal that things hitherto unknown, no matter for how long, become knowable to seemingly independent discovers.
> We should stop funding research into prime numbers. They're stupid and useless. Who cares about them, if they will never be used for anything? Number theory should be stopped, you may as well research gnomes.
I imagine this is what you would have sounded like 100 years ago.
You may be understating how much 15 orders of magnitude are.
The only truly exponential technological progress we’ve ever had, transistors, only scaled by ~5 orders of magnitude in feature size. Thermal engines went from maybe 0.1% to ~50%, less than 3 orders of magnitude, in about 200 years. There’s very fundamental physical laws that suggest that engines are done, and transistor scaling as we have known it for 30 years is also done. Perhaps very clever things might give us 5 more orders of magnitude? E.g. truly 3D integration somehow? Then we’re still 5 orders of magnitude off from our target. I can’t think of any technology that ever improved by more than 10^6, perhaps 10^9 if you count some derivative number (like “number of transistors on chip”, rather than actual size), and that’s from literally zero to today. Not from already-pretty-advanced to Death Star scale.
Another perspective is that, to get to those kinetic energies, we need accelerators as large as the solar system. Possibly the galaxy, I can’t quite remember. Will you concede that galaxy-wide objects are so far from current reality that there’s no point seriously talking about them?
Are you seriously insinuating that string physics are asking for this collider you alone entirely made up? As if people who actually do study string theory are too stupid to know primary school math and this criticism is somehow high-brow and novel?
Not to mention you entirely missed the point of what I said. There is research into the most niche, useless fields imaginable, because not every endeavor taken by every human being needs to be profitable or applicable. Sometimes people are just really good at making jigsaws or want to make a stinky chemical or get fascinated with properties of prime numbers.
And then, sometimes, those turn out to be the fundamental underpinnings of an entire generation of economic and military strategy. You can't often know what spurs what in that sense.
I didn’t make it up, it’s a well known talking point around string theory. I think it was first mentioned by a practicing string theorist. Of course it’s not a novel critique, but I’ve read about putting data centers in space on this website, so I think it’s worth trying to teach people how to do these sort of Fermi problems quickly.
I did indeed miss your point, it was well hidden under a lot of sarcasm. I think it is of course completely valid. People should be free to research what they want, and I’m sure string theory must be beautiful mathematics.
But if your goal is unifying QM and GR, and/or achieving a theory of everything (as is for most theoretical physicists), then me and a growing fraction of physicists think that it’s not a promising avenue. I’m not advocating for only working on “useful” things, because such a theory is not likely to yield much profit to anyone in the foreseeable future anyway. But if you state that a unifying theory is your goal and seek funding for that goal, then string theory should move to the backstage. The mathematics department would rightfully be happy to house you otherwise.
>Non-Euclidean geometry (geometric axioms in which one postulate is rejected such that the 3 angles of a triangle are not exactly 180 degrees) was considered a meaningless word game and fundamental mistruth.
This is just a lie though. Non-Euclidean geometry is a mathematical model of how distances behave on non-linear spaces. Nobody ever believed it to be a "fundamental mistruth", even suggesting it would look ridiculous. It would be akin to denying linear algebra, even the meaning is unclear.
That the physical reality of space is not linear was a shocking revelation, since all human experience and basically every experiment done up until that point indicated otherwise.
"Lobachevsky [mathematician contemporary of Gauss, who claimed parallel postulate was unnecessary] was relentlessly criticized, mocked, and rejected by the academic world. His new “imaginary” geometry represented the “shamelessness of false new inventions”"
Further, many claimed premature success in finding logical contridictions in geometry lacking parallel (Euclid's 5th) postulate; which meant they believed a 4-postulate geometry to be fundamentally false.
you are mixing up gambling spend vs whole industry spend. If string theory was a small handful of people making up a small m*nority of physics departments like non-euclidea geometry research was that would be fine. Its huge swaths of most physics departments and a huge suck on research funding. For that kind of spend you better show results because you are in production phase at that point not lotto ticket moonshit phase. If we are buying lotto tickets with the money bey lots of different lotto tickets not a whole bunch of one lotto ticket
As a percentage of theoretical physicists it is probably significant though. A Better question is how much love/money/attention is going into rival theories ?
It is basically this. People arguing for string theory have no concept of how to maximize return with uncertainty. The thing had 50 years of substantial funding and substantial mindshare and pushed us nowhere. Any rational person with basic risk understanding would know at this point its a fail and we are in the not knowing what to pursue phase so we should be supporting small investments in dicerse options &ntil something promising happens then we can concentrate funding there &ntil that times out or gices us the understanding to achieve something new and great. The lifecycle of increasingly aupporting string theory s=ould have turned 2 to 3 decades ago instead of just recently. We lost atleast 20 and more like 30 years of progress we didnt have because a bunch of very smart people captured the physics funding aparatus to enrich thselves.
Is this a typo? I see a lot of words being censored these days and I assumed it's because of some algorithms and visibility. That shouldn't be the case here tho..
Yeah, even just trying chart a course on a ship across a reasonable distance will cause you to need to reevaluate some "obvious" things (like "what path is the shortest between these two ports" being a curve rather than a line).
The legit criticism with a legit recommended change is even better.
A time and technological gap always exists between theory and a plan for experimental confirmation. Some gaps are fairly short. String theory's gap is undoubtedly long, not for lack of resources.
This gap justifies tapering the allocation of attention and research resources (funding, students, etc), which got lopsided following the strong marketing campaign driven by Greene.
I tend to agree. Science funding is unfortunately a limited resource, and I would like to see different approaches explored in more detail, which unfortunately would imply less (but not zero) funding to string theory. Not zero, because we also don’t want the competence built up in string theory groups to die out completely, in case that remains our best lead.
To borrow a compsci analogy, we tried the depth-first search going in the string theory direction, maybe it’s time to switch to breadth-first for a while, to see if there are any viable and useful theories with less distance from the ones we have today. Maybe it doesn’t have to be a "theory of everything" either, we can initially settle for a "theory of more".
You can get a year old Moto G for under $100. There's no reason it shouldn't last two years (or 25 months for easy math, $4 a month). And you can get an MVNO plan for $15 a month that covers all talk and text and 5GB data. $19.
Those are the actual costs of my phone plan. I've never once come close to the cap because I don't stream music/video on my phone. It's not a need. I can load all the websites I must access and look up maps everywhere I need to go. And it's a pre-paid plan. No credit check required.
People who are really struggling simply do not NEED to spend more than $20 for phone service.
The American Medical Association owns copyright to all the codes and their descriptions. They have an extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options and they strictly forbid training models with the codes.
The AMA (a nonprofit!) clears ~$300M/year revenue from the codes, which is the direct cost passed through to consumers, but the indirect costs are the byzantine nightmare of OP.
A code is not an artistic expression and so can't be copyrightable. The layout of a book of codes, for sure, but the information in it... might be protectable with other IPR but not copyright.
Does not stop people threatening you though.
This is my opinion only, not legal advice, and does not relate to my employment.
Databases are generally protected by copyright law as compilations. Under the Copyright Act, a compilation is defined as a "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17. U.S.C. § 101. The preexisting materials or data may be protected by copyright, or may be unprotectable facts or ideas (see the BitLaw discussion on unprotected ideas for more information).
(I did not use AI, but this appeared at the top of my search and I think the search engine used AI to generate it):
In the European Union, databases are protected under the Database Directive, which provides legal protection based on the originality of the selection or arrangement of their contents...Some countries offer additional protections for databases that do not meet the originality requirement, often through sui generis rights.
That means the organization and selection of data is copyrightable, and only if they are creative. If you write your own tags for the codes, and makes a compilation of them all, none of that will cover your database.
Also, I think the bitlaw interpretation is incorrect. “Sweat of the brow” doesn’t magically produce copyright protection, and they don’t mention that.
Taking their example, if you had a collections from quotes from presidents, and I got a bunch of similar collections, then made my own ultimate definitive collection based partially on your list, then there’s very little chance I’d be liable for violating your copyright. If I copied the list and typesetting verbatim, you’d have a better case.
Also, modern rulings about LLM training (the topic of this thread) certainly mean copyrights on compilations of facts don’t survive training + inference cycles.
Judging by Judge Alsup's ruling even if the codes were copyrighted it would most likely not be copyright infringement to train on them either, and as such even if they are copyrightable and they do own copyright on them it remains beyond their abilities to forbid training on them. (Also opinion, also not legal advice, I'm also not a lawyer and sort of doubt the person I'm responding to is).
If you buy the codes, yes. If you only license them (which is what the original comment claims is the only way to get them legally), and that license explicitly forbids training, that seems to be less clear-cut. I have no idea if such restrictions are legal or would hold up to challenge, but it's less clear than the case where you buy a book and can then do whatever you want with it.
My software is definitely not artistic expression. I signed over the rights to the software to my employer. These statements are not codependent in any way.
Copyright under US law does not require "artistic expression". One of the requirements is called "creativity", but it's very easy to meet. The key phrase is literally "some minimal degree of creativity".
The fundamental policy choice was to protect computer software under intellectual property law, with exclusive rights and market compensation. There were a number of ways that could have been done. Other jurisdictions toyed with new, software-specific laws. But in the end the call in the US was to bring it under existing copyright law with some tweaks to definitions and a small handful of software-specific rules.
A code in this sense is something different. It's a shorthand for a longer description of an object. It'd be like a hotel copyrighting the relationship between a room number and its physical location within the building, or copyrighting resistor colors.
In the US copyright just requires a level of originality. The bar isn't very high, but for example simple logos, like IBMs blue lines logo is not copyrightable.
There are examples of software code that is probably not copyrightable, but that's limited to very simple code that has only obvious implementations.
Our role as programmers being closer to artists than engineers does not make code closer to paintings than bridges. We do have highly repeatable patterns. Nearly every program can be essentially boiled down to some subset of CRUD + tranformation.
Even if it is art (I'm not convinced), the recent artificial scarcity on art is absurd. Some other thoughts to consider:
The work I know of, I'm not in USA only have an interest in copyright laws in general, is Feist v Rural Telephone (1991) -- which appears to mirror codes for health procedures quite closely; but not exactly.
There's old but more recent law from Practice Management v AMA (1997) supporting that AMA's codes can't be copyrightable as they're part of legislation.
Berne's Art 2(8), to which USA are signed, related to non-copyright of facts.
I'm afraid I'm not appraised of the full situation, however.
And yet people are collectively paying $300M licensing these non-copyrightable codes? With that kind of money somebody must have looked into not paying for licensing
I’m sure it’s crossed the mind of many people in the industry. But it’s a comprehensive taxonomy of all diseases, medical conditions, causes, procedures and treatments. Starting from scratch would be much more expensive than just paying the licensing.
Here in California, Senate Bill 478 bans many junk fees, such as the mandatory "service fee" to buy a concert ticket. It's a stretch, but I could see an argument that if hospitals use a billing system that's incomprehensible without licensing an expensive codex, then the hospital is on the hook to provide the codex to you.
In that case its probably cheaper for most organisations just to pay the license fees than risk paying legal fees which would probably be more, even if they won.
Doesn't the AMA serve the medical industry? They don't have to make profits themselves. If a byzantine coding process raises medical treatment costs, they'll do it. Just like how they intentionally cap med school admissions to keep doctors in demand and inflate their salaries.
The AMA is functionally the trade union for doctors. They work to maximize the income of their members. Maintaining a shortage of doctors is one of their primary tools.
If this also helps the medical industry, it's an accidental side effect.
Any non-profit can always claim to inflate their expenditures up to (and above) their expenses and pay lavish bonuses to their employees, like you said.
Doesn't change what it basically is - aka Scamming the Public, and privatising the gains.
Reading between the lines, it seems like this is a threat made to bring AMA in line with the administration's policies around medically supporting transgender people.
I would expect that if (when) the AMA folds on the matter, concerns around the codes will be somehow forgotten
So you think the same Senate that is planning on gutting healthcare for millions of Americans is going to go after the AMA billing codes? Is this real life? They MIGHT demand some donations to the ballroom, but I doubt they care enough to even do that.
Ahh, here's the correct link and as I suspected, this has absolutely nothing to do with reducing healthcare costs for the average american. It is a direct attack on the AMA for advocating for supportive care for transgender citizens.
Anything related to healthcare (except some genuine minority of doctors and staff) is almost openly hostile to Americans.
I used to think American healthcare was in part expensive because Americans have poor health (e.g. high obesity).
Now I am beginning to think that Americans have poor health by design for the healthcare industry to be able to maximize their profits. Making some Americans healthy just seems to be a side product.
I will throw a story out here because I don't know where else to put it and want it off my chest (I will leave a lot out of this):
Daughter tried suicide a few weeks ago. "It was not a serious attempt," but obviously it is. We go to only local hospital; they don't have a pediatric unit, so ER basically just looks at her and aren't sure what to do because it's not like she's bleeding out. They clean the cuts and ask if I want county behavioral health involved. I'm in over my head and need help, so I say yes.
Behavioral health mobile response person comes out -- good guy, made me see something I hadn't prior -- because I've had her in therapy for half a year prior but we weren't really making much progress on anxiety/depression issues -- but he says we weren't going to get anywhere with therapy before drugs, that she was too far out, and in retrospect that was absolutely the right call. Anyway, he puts her on 72-hours mandatory hold. Here, this means the child must be transferred to a pediatric health facility with suicide watch and psychiatric services. This became a big problem.
Cincinnati Childrens Hospital had no beds (and I have ill will toward them anyway). Dayton had no beds. Charge nurse was calling people for hours and hours, and I joined in calling places (we stayed at hospital the whole time without sleeping), and it wasn't until 24 hours after admission we're finally transferred. My mom was/is a social worker for those with developmental disabilities, and spent about a decade working at long-term facilities for juveniles, where it was almost always court-ordered. I spent a fair bit of my time there for economic/childcare reasons while she was working -- awful place for the kids (not for me; I hung out in staff rooms and watched movies). Doors, by law, could not be locked, and they were terribly understaffed; violence and rape was expected. We had a second person from county behavioral come out, and once I realized the only kinds of places open to us, started pleading and insisting to have the hold lifted, but they refused. I wind up with one out-of-state option, and one in-state; both about an hour and a half away, and both the kinds of facilities I was terrified of. I later talked to other parents and was surprised to find time to find a facility, lack of beds, and travel time were all common issues between us. I went for visitation every day, and at least one adult would almost always come out of visitation crying, not realizing these places are poorly-staffed, unsafe prisons until they first visit and talk with their kid.
Anyway, so the 72-hour clock starts only once daughter's transferred to this pediatric psych facility (she wound up staying for 5 days; this is a whole other issue where they had no social worker available to provide AMA paperwork, they claimed). -And this place is a long-term juvenile psych facility, so it tends to have a lot of kids who were sentenced by courts to be there; violent offenders, but it was a mix (daughter has a story about playing Uno with a kid experiencing "weed psychosis", which'd I'd never heard of before; interesting stuff). You know, so I'm going to bed every night, and I've got some wild nightmares I could share -- BUT everything turned out mostly fine. At one point, daughter witnessed staff slam a kid against the wall hard enough for him to bleed from the head, and didn't clean the blood off the wall; the toilet in her room didn't work and the room smelled like feces; they couldn't lock doors, and the facility was severely understaffed. A recipe for disaster, but it could have been a LOT worse than it was, though trauma is there nonetheless from the experience.
Now, the reason the county insisted on sending her to this hellhole is because it's the only way to unlock county behavioral services. You must first have committed an attempt to harm yourself or someone else, or be ordered by courts. I wrote at the beginning I was able to get a counselor before all this, but this took a lot of emails and phone calls, and the place I found with help required 2 hours on the road per visit. The person I got was new in the field and didn't specialize in pediatric; he was not a licensed psychologist nor psychiatrist, but he was the only person I could get and I was grateful for any assist. There were/are no available pediatric psychiatrists or psychologists EXCEPT through county behavioral; they have them all locked away from the market, basically.
The total bill for all this, by the way (uninsured, cash, including the ambulance) was $8,709.45. I didn't negotiate; I've planned for this, I took out $20k from broker on the first day I got to go home. Money isn't the issue; it's the non-availability of service which's the real problem here, for us. I was surprised to walk into county behavioral and be told while registering at front desk they don't accept self-pay; that they aren't set up for it. I've never run into this before, and it got a morbid chuckle out of me because this's been a heck of a roll of the dice up to now, specifically to get in county services, and now I'm told they don't offer anything for us.
I ask for the people who insisted on the 72-hour hold (and btw, the facility which held daughter prescribed nothing but an antihistamine, with trauma inflicted, though minor; worthless experience except to unlock services) to speak with me, and I get one of them. She talks to supervisor, and apparently nobody knows their own policies because they do, in fact, accept self-pay. I had to fill out a Medicaid form, which we don't qualify for. Now, the strange part about this is if you have insurance (and this is why they have you apply for Medicaid), they charge you on a sliding scale, but if you don't have any insurance and get rejected by Medicaid, they really don't have any system set up to bill you, so everything's free. The psychiatrist and counselor both are free; it's crazy, so I'll kick some money to food pantries while SNAP's cut off in the state due to federal shutdown, but it's like nobody's ever really thought through the systems we have for healthcare; it's inefficient and brittle from every angle, not just the providers/insurers screwing people over for capitalism angle; like a proof-of-concept someone slapped together over a weekend where everyone's spinning their wheels without a clue what to do, except it's something we've had for centuries and are spending $trillions/year on. -And every time the government provides new weapons or issues new mandates, it somehow seems to get worse.
(Things are going well now, btw; we got a real psychologist scheduled same-day, and first appointment with psychiatrist was 2-3 days after intake. She's doing better, but the journey here was straight Hell.)
It has been forever, what planet are you on? Their official policy would be to make any native american cure (upon which many of the medications we use from big pharma, are based on in origin) to be illegal. They would want all profit going through them, whether that is good for you or not.
It’s quite literally a cartel and it acts like one. They heavily restrict the supply of doctors, which means our medical costs are higher in favor of higher doctor salaries.
You could argue the lawmakers that granted copyright protections are openly hostile to Americans. Many fine people are saying that Congress values profits over people.
Google tells me that the AMA made about 468 million last year in revenue. If they made that much from the codes it seems like they wouldn't necessarily pass the IRS Public Support test. (Unless somehow this licensing counts as "public support."
I seem to remember this test is why the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation exist, but I could be mistaken.
Edit: Seems that the AMA is a 501c6, which is a different kind of non profit.
> extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options
The license is meaningless if training AI is considered fair use, and if you never agreed to the license.
They might be able to lean heavily on medical researchers and the like (who probably need a license for other uses), but when push comes to shove I suspect Google and OpenAI would win.
The bigger issue is software development, imo. eg the IT team at a hospital or the medical office can't build a tool to help coding efficiency or accuracy. Further, public resources/websites with code-related information get DMCA takedowns. It's a stranglehold on innovation/progress.
It's ~$1/person direct, but how much indirect cost? Things become inexpensive when automation and technological progress makes them so, and the code copyright and restriction is a major barrier to do that.
I have heard this also how some state law works. That it’s difficult to directly reference state law or relevant information which define the meaning of state law.
