throw74774

Chinese spending has increased too.

Earlier you said “people contribute without any monetary incentives”, and now you are admitting that they do need monetary incentives because there is no UBI.

Which is the truth?

Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today?

You aren’t being honest.

Today we’re allowed to fund our own software and use it as we please for private purposes or to license it to others. Today there is no law forcing us to give it away.

This isn’t what you are proposing.

Earlier you said:

In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity.

Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees.

Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?

Probably not:

https://theconversation.com/chinas-military-might-is-much-cl...

Who would decide what to fund?

where people contribute without any monetary incentives.

First of all you added in the word ‘monetary’, to straw-man the position.

Secondly, even if we run with your straw-man, I see little evidence this is true. Most successful projects are either corporately funded or begging for corporate funding. You see article after article here bemoaning the lack of funding for open source.

Why should just LLMs be funded that way and not all software?

All jobs are artificially kept, as would UBI be. They are all artifacts of the law.

Money is a way to allocate resources, and technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute.

Do you think LLMs are a natural phenomenon?

How do you propose that LLMs are paid for?

What do you mean they aren’t paying their fair share? You just said they bought the rights.

Also it seems like you are saying we should just pre-judge cases without using the courts. Basically just end the rule of law. Not sure that’s a good plan.

You cannot extend anyone’s work if you have no food or resources.

It dismantled the most sophisticated network that that know about.

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

Why won’t the police be supplied with countermeasures and drones of their own?

Not necessarily. There are health disadvantages that come from being taller, and also from having higher caloric intake. It could be that we’re adapted to less food, and when we have more we get both taller and less healthy on average.

If this were true, people would have died of scurvy at random as opposed to only when forced into a restricted diet at sea.

Dunno - touch devices are already very popular for music editing and production. No reason they shouldn’t be for video too.

The same argument could be made about platforms that allow alternative app stores, and those that don’t.

Both are available for people to choose from.

Why does DHH consider choice to be good in once instance and bad ad in the other?

Benevolence isn’t enough. They also have to be really smart, competent, and motivated.

Every democracy has this.

Sounds like they’re going to make it into a portal.

I like the idea that parts of the ‘should’ be free and open, but I’m curious how the people who work on these things would have time to do so if not paid.

Are you suggesting that they should be paid by the government - I.e. out of taxes?

Or are you simply saying if it’s part of the web, people should work on it for free - basically like open source? Even in this case, I don’t see where the money for infrastructure and power comes from.

Maybe I’m missing another alternative.