<https://thehill.com/policy/international/5205954-french-scie...>

"Korean Scientist With Green Card Detained for a Week and Denied Access to His Lawyer"

<https://www.commondreams.org/news/korean-legal-resident-deta...>

"A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone"

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkan...>

"Russian scientist working at Harvard detained by ICE after being stopped at Logan Airport"

<https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/russian-scientist-wo...>

"Chinese American researchers targeted at US border"

<https://concernedscientists.org/2023/03/chinese-american-res...>

These are just cases that make the news. There is a very real possibility of being detained, having devices confiscated, or being refused entry if you are an outspoken critic of the president.

> This comment is devoid of data.

So is yours...

The ultimate problem with your first point---that tariffs boost domestic industry---is that the time horizon for reshoring manufacturing and domestic supply chains is longer than the expected lifetime of these tariffs. Trump is a second term president, there isn't broad consensus or even majority support for the tarrifs, and there is a great deal of opposition from business owners: all signs the tariffs are not for long. Who wants to invest in an expensive factory and workforce when the only thing guaranteeing your competitiveness is the remaining years of Trump? It's actually much worse than this, of course, because the tariffs are being used primarily as diplomatic leverage rather than economic policy, so they change frequently and unpredictably.

There are also serious downsides to the Trump tariffs that don't exist for traditional tariffs that are predictable and operate on a long time horizon. These tariffs create price shocks to domestic industry and retailers, which tend to disproportionately hurt smaller businesses and those with slimmer profit margins. They've also damaged the US's reputation with long-term partners, particularly Canada and the EU, which are now exploring competing trade deals with China and are figuring out how to extract themselves from dependence on US arms and tech companies, two major exports.

The effect of these tariffs is not going to be short-term pain for long-term gain. A great deal of US economic competitiveness comes from investments in diplomatic and military partnerships that have now been undermined. These tariffs will spur reciprocal tariffs from other nations and will accelerate the remodeling of the global economy away from US exports, trading competitive US exports for uncompetitive and commodified domestic industry.

Historically, the formation of most large states was not a voluntary merger of smaller states for the benefit of all but the conquest of smaller states by larger states.

1) *All major players open source their unobfuscated training data.*

a) The evidence so far shows that every major AI company engaged in intentional and historically unprecedented copyright violation to obtain their training data.

b) LLMs have now poisoined future data for any new players. This is a massive negative externality, and we shouldn't accept this externality as a moat locking out future players from competition.

2) *Levy a 20% royalty on all future genAI revenue to authors and artists who appear in the dataset and exempt genAI from future copywright violations.*

a) The current copyright model is bad for both authors and AI companies. It's hard for authors to collect from violations, and it's expensive and tedious for AI companies to comply with innumerable individual copyrights. Simplify the regime for everyone, and properly reward the people whose work is the foundation of these models.

b) The specifics can be worked out, but, among other things, the royalty should be proprotional to the token count of a work, not just number of works.

The solution is to recognize that ease of observation interacts with expectation of privacy and legislate what can be done at each point on the spectrum. I have no expectation that someone won't take a picture with me in the background while I'm in public, but I would find it jarring to be filmed at every public location I went, have that video indexed to my name in a database, and have all my behaviors tagged. You write the law so that the latter thing is illegal and the former thing isn't. When there's a dispute about what's illegal, you have it resolved by the courts like every other law.

The irony is that the commenters saying we must go back to the moon are more like the Spanish: sticking to a sentimental 1960s vision of human-based space exploration despite evidence clearly favoring robotics and remote control.

I love space exploration too, but its expensive, and we should focus on areas that have the best scientific or economic payoff. Sending humans back to the moon just isn't the best use of resources.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45319633

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

> Without those standards, the profession would lose its weight, its dignity. If becoming a doctor were simply a matter of competence and compassion, we’d all be wearing name tags and making $60,000 a year.

I completely disagree.

For one, academic standards of publishing are not at all the same as the standards for in-house software development. In academia, a published result is typically regarded as a finished product, even if the result is not exhaustive. You cannot push a fix to the paper later; an entirely new paper has to be written and accepted. And this is for good reason: the paper represents a time-stamp of progress in the field that others can build off of. In the sciences, projects can range from 6 months to years, so a literature polluted with half-baked results is a big impediment to planning and resource allocation.

A better comparison for academic publishing would be a major collaborative open source project like the Linux kernel. Any change has to be thoroughly justified and vetted before it is merged because mistakes cause other people problems and wasted time/effort. Do whatever you like with your own hobbyist project, but if you plan for it to be adopted and integrated into the wider software ecosystem, your code quality needs to be higher and you need to have your interfaces speced out. That's the analogy for academic publishing.

The problems in modern academic publishing are almost entirely caused by the perverse incentives of measuring academic status by publication record (number of publications and impact factor). Lowering publishing standards so academics can play this game better is solving the wrong problem. Standards should be even higher.

> The biographical questionnaire Snow referred to as the “first phase” was an unsupervised questionnaire candidates were expected to take at home. You can take a replica copy here. Questions were chosen and weighted bizarrely, with candidates able to answer “A” to all but one question to get through. Some of the most heavily weighted questions were “The high school subject in which I received my lowest grades was:” (correct answer: science, worth 15 points) and “The college subject in which I received my lowest grades was:” (correct answer: history, for another 15 points).

I guess the US is about to invade Cuba.

[0] https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/5/31...