Skip to main content

Home/ GAVNet Collaborative Curation/ Group items tagged software

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Steve Bosserman

The idea of intellectual property is nonsensical and pernicious - Samir Chopra | Aeon E... - 0 views

  • A general term is useful only if it subsumes related concepts in such a way that semantic value is added. If our comprehension is not increased by our chosen generalised term, then we shouldn’t use it. A common claim such as ‘they stole my intellectual property’ is singularly uninformative, since the general term ‘intellectual property’ obscures more than it illuminates. If copyright infringement is alleged, we try to identify the copyrightable concrete expression, the nature of the infringement and so on. If patent infringement is alleged, we check another set of conditions (does the ‘new’ invention replicate the design of the older one?), and so on for trademarks (does the offending symbol substantially and misleadingly resemble the protected trademark?) and trade secrets (did the enterprise attempt to keep supposedly protected information secret?) The use of the general term ‘intellectual property’ tells us precisely nothing.
  • Property is a legally constructed, historically contingent, social fact. It is founded on economic and social imperatives to distribute and manage material resources – and, thus, wealth and power. As the preface to a legal textbook puts it, legal systems of property ‘confer benefits and impose burdens’ on owners and nonowners respectively. Law defines property. It circumscribes the conditions under which legal subjects may acquire, and properly use and dispose of their property and that of others. It makes concrete the ‘natural right’ of holding property. Different sets of rules create systems with varying allocations of power for owners and others. Some grants of property rights lock in, preserve and reinforce existing relations of race, class or gender, stratifying society and creating new, entrenched, propertied classes. Law makes property part of our socially constructed reality, reconfigurable if social needs change.
  • ‘Property’ is a legal term with overwhelming emotive, expressive and rhetorical impact. It is regarded as the foundation of a culture and as the foundation of an economic system. It pervades our moral sense, our normative order. It has ideological weight and propaganda value. To use the term ‘intellectual property’ is to partake of property’s expressive impact in an economic and political order constructed by property’s legal rights. It is to suggest that if property is at play, then it can be stolen, and therefore must be protected with the same zeal that the homeowner guards her home against invaders and thieves.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • What about the common objection that without ‘intellectual property’ the proverbial starving artist would be at the mercy of giant corporations, who have existing market share and first-mover advantage? It is important to disaggregate the necessity and desirability of the protections of the various legal regimes of copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets from that of the language of ‘intellectual property’. Current copyright, patent, trade-secret and trademark law do not need to be completely rejected. Their aims are rather more modest: the reconfiguration of legal rules and protections in an economy and culture in which the nature of creative goods and how they are made, used, shared, modified and distributed has changed. Such advocacy is not against, for instance, copyright protections. Indeed, in the domain of free and open-source software, it is copyright law – through the use of artfully configured software licences that do not restrain users in the way that traditional proprietary software licences do – that protects developers and users. And neither do copyright reformers argue that plagiarists be somehow rewarded; they do not advocate that anyone should be able to take a copyrighted work, put their name on it, and sell it.
  • This public domain is ours to draw upon for future use. The granting of temporary leases to various landlords to extract monopoly rent should be recognised for what it is: a limited privilege for our benefit. The use of ‘intellectual property’ is a rhetorical move by one partner in this conversation, the one owning the supposed ‘property right’. There is no need for us to play along, to confuse one kind of property with another or, for that matter, to even consider the latter kind of object any kind of property at all. Doing so will not dismantle the elaborate structures of rules we have built in order to incentivise artistic and scientific work. Rather, it will make it possible for that work to continue.
Steve Bosserman

Facial recognition software recognized a Chinese fugitive in a crowd of 60,000 people - 1 views

  • Unfortunately, AI can’t recognize all types of people equally. An MIT study called Gender Shades showed how some AI can fail to distinguish, or even recognize, brown faces.
Bill Fulkerson

http://www.crypto.com/papers/blaze-govtreform-20171129.pdf - 0 views

  •  
    I offer three specific recommendations: * Paperless DRE voting machines should be immediately phased out from US elections in favor of systems, such as precinct-counted optical scan ballots, that leave a direct artifact of the voter's choice. * Statistical "risk limiting audits" should be used after every election to detect software failures and attacks. * Additional resources, infrastructure, and training should be made available to state and local voting officials to help them more effectively defend their systems against increasingly sophisticated adversaries.
Steve Bosserman

Only governments can safeguard the openness of the internet - Rufus Pollock | Aeon Ideas - 0 views

  • The internet’s low-cost transmission can just as easily create information empires and robber barons as it can digital democracy and information equality. The growing value of being able to mine and manipulate huge data-sets, to generate predictions about consumers’ behaviour and desires, creates a self-reinforcing spiral of network effects. Data begets more data, locked down behind each company’s walls where their proprietary algorithms can exploit it for profit.
  • Today, the equivalent gesture might be to turn away from private monopolies to fund innovation and creativity. What matters is who owns information, not just the infrastructure by which it is distributed. Digital technology must be combined with concrete actions that protect openness across the spectrum, from maps to medicines, from software to schools. Better that we do it through public institutions, instead of relying on mavericks and martyrs.
Steve Bosserman

There is no difference between computer art and human art | Aeon Ideas - 0 views

  • In industry, there is blunt-force algorithmic tension – ‘Efficiency, capitalism, commerce!’ versus ‘Robots are stealing our jobs!’ But for algorithmic art, the tension is subtler. Only 4 per cent of the work done in the United States economy requires ‘creativity at a median human level’, according to the consulting firm McKinsey and Company. So for computer art – which tries explicitly to zoom into this small piece of that vocational pie – it’s a question not of efficiency or equity, but of trust. Art requires emotional and phrenic investments, with the promised return of a shared slice of the human experience. When we view computer art, the pestering, creepy worry is: who’s on the other end of the line? Is it human? We might, then, worry that it’s not art at all.
  • But the honest-to-God truth, at the end of all of this, is that this whole notion is in some way a put-on: a distinction without a difference. ‘Computer art’ doesn’t really exist in an any more provocative sense than ‘paint art’ or ‘piano art’ does. The algorithmic software was written by a human, after all, using theories thought up by a human, using a computer built by a human, using specs written by a human, using materials gathered by a human, at a company staffed by humans, using tools built by a human, and so on. Computer art is human art – a subset rather than a distinction. It’s safe to release the tension.
Steve Bosserman

Which Industries Are Investing in Artificial Intelligence? - 0 views

  • The term artificial intelligence typically refers to automation of tasks by software that previously required human levels of intelligence to perform. While machine learning is sometimes used interchangeably with AI, machine learning is just one sub-category of artificial intelligence whereby a device learns from its access to a stream of data.When we talk about AI spending, we’re typically talking about investment that companies are making in building AI capabilities. While this may change in the future, McKinsey estimates that the vast majority of spending is done internally or as an investment, and very little of it is done purchasing artificial intelligence applications from other businesses.
  • 62% of AI spending in 2016 was for machine learning, twice as much as the second largest category computer vision. It’s worth noting that these categories are all types of “narrow” (or “weak”) forms of AI that use data to learn about and accomplish a specific narrowly defined task. Excluded from this report is “general” (or “strong”) artificial intelligence which is more akin to trying to create a thinking human brain.
  • The McKinsey survey mostly fits well as evidence supporting Cross’s framework that large profitable industries are the most fertile grounds of AI adoption. Not surprisingly, Technology is the industry with highest AI adoption and financial services also makes the top three as Cross would predict.Notably, automotive and assembly is the industry with the second highest rate of AI adoption in the McKinsey survey. This may be somewhat surprising as automotive isn’t necessarily an industry with the reputation for high margins. However, the use cases of AI for developing self-driving cars and cost savings using machine learning to improve manufacturing and procurement efficiencies are two potential drivers of this industry’s adoption.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • AI jobs are much more likely to be unfilled after 60 days compared to the typical job on Indeed, which is only unfilled a quarter of the time. As the demand for AI talent continues to grow faster than the supply, there is no indication this hiring cycle will become quicker anytime soon.
  • One thing we know for certain is that it is very expensive to attract AI talent, given that starting salaries for entry-level talent exceed $300,000. A good bet is that the companies that invest in AI are the ones with healthy enough profit margins that they can afford it.
1 - 20 of 29 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page