Well, they describe education as a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet", and I wouldn't have thought not being bothered to police the use of university computing resources for file-sharing could be said to be all *that* devoted. Sounds like it might be fair use they're after to me.
A poem is the whole deal, whereas lyrics are only a part of a package, and one which few are likely to be willing to pay for separately. ISTR Serge Gainsbourg's estate was ahead of the curve on this - its lawyers were getting his lyrics taken off websites years ago. Only a matter of time before the others caught up.
I reckon AIs saddled with anything like the 3 Laws would have a lot of trouble competing in a Darwinian (or Lamarckian) sense with more ethically flexible entities. And I say far-fetched because I see these things as being *so* flexible. How do you raise/design/whatever something to be deferential to beings it's clearly superior to? How do you limit the ethical choices of something that can reconfigure itself and effectively *evolve*?
Didn't find that FTL effect the thing uses to take over the universe very plausible. FTL implies (backwards) time travel AFAIK, which opens up more cans of worms than most people can deal with. The Three Laws of Robotics have always seemed like wishful thinking to me, too. Human intelligence seems to be modular, and the whole point of an AI would surely be that it could reconfigure its hard- and software intellectual resources on the fly depending on the problems it was faced with. Trying to impose ethically standardised behavioural restraints on something like that (artificial emotions?) sounds pretty far-fetched. The things will likely evolve out of corporate/military projects, and will have human components at first (some things are harder to automate than others).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they describe education as a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet", and I wouldn't have thought not being bothered to police the use of university computing resources for file-sharing could be said to be all *that* devoted. Sounds like it might be fair use they're after to me.
A poem is the whole deal, whereas lyrics are only a part of a package, and one which few are likely to be willing to pay for separately. ISTR Serge Gainsbourg's estate was ahead of the curve on this - its lawyers were getting his lyrics taken off websites years ago. Only a matter of time before the others caught up.
I reckon AIs saddled with anything like the 3 Laws would have a lot of trouble competing in a Darwinian (or Lamarckian) sense with more ethically flexible entities. And I say far-fetched because I see these things as being *so* flexible. How do you raise/design/whatever something to be deferential to beings it's clearly superior to? How do you limit the ethical choices of something that can reconfigure itself and effectively *evolve*?
Didn't find that FTL effect the thing uses to take over the universe very plausible. FTL implies (backwards) time travel AFAIK, which opens up more cans of worms than most people can deal with. The Three Laws of Robotics have always seemed like wishful thinking to me, too. Human intelligence seems to be modular, and the whole point of an AI would surely be that it could reconfigure its hard- and software intellectual resources on the fly depending on the problems it was faced with. Trying to impose ethically standardised behavioural restraints on something like that (artificial emotions?) sounds pretty far-fetched. The things will likely evolve out of corporate/military projects, and will have human components at first (some things are harder to automate than others).
Hope I die before I get old.