Posts by bridgebuilder 10 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jul 2021
>Why would people suddenly flock to them now?
Because the non-cloudy products are getting worse.
Teams regularly hogging 100% CPU on a decently specced machine? Ah well, lots of people have been complaining for a year but apparently this is not really a priority for MS to fix. Or MS is not capable of fixing it.
>why didn't the guy claim to have invented them himself?
This.
The whole discussion is moot since the operator of the AI can easily submit all those auto-generated "inventions" under their own name.
Prohibiting AI-submitted patents might be a good idea for various reasons but it certainly does not solve the issue of the patent system being flooded with auto-generated applications.
As the saying goes, a cyber attacker only has to be successful once whereas people trying to defend against attacks have to be successful every time. As more and more countries become dependent on their IT infrastructure just to function as countries, more and more countries become vulnerable to Keystone-like events (and worse). Consequently, the appetite for mutual non-cyberaggression pacts will increase (with pacts covering both active attacks and passive attacks in the sense of letting ransomware gangs use the own territory as an operating base).
The hard part is to figure out who to negotiate with ... it won't be enough to assemble the big powers round the table in a recap of 80s nuclear disarmament talks
Icon because the overall geostrategic situation is surprisingly similar.
Not quite.
As has been pointed out, most of the standardisation work is done by experts who are paid by their organisation (often from a standards lobbying budget) but are not paid by ISO. The same applies, incidentally, for the sister organisations IEC and ITU as well as the ISO/IEC JTC1 where a lot of the IT-related standards have their home (AI is subcommittee 42 ... someone read their Hitchhiker's Guide, apparently, but I digress.)
The budgets of ISO, IEC and ITU are used for administration purposes. A lot of admin work is involved in managing approval processes among the national bodies, creating new committees, managing workspaces etc. I am sure there is waste, just like in any bureaucratic organisation, but the comparison with Nominet is rather unfair.
The argument for making standards freely available is solid. This means that ISO, IEC and ITU budgets will need to be funded solely by national body contributions, which in turn means that national bodies need to raise additional income (often this is a government grant). Maybe it is indeed time to do just that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
