And the article is from the MIT Technology Review. So The article talking about Doudna and Charpentier happens to be associated with their competitor. And CRISPR is a multi billion dollar thing in human medicine alone today. I dont know, but id like to hear this story from a more neutral source.
The real problem is that regulation is not designed to maximize human survival. As in lowest friction, lowest cost, maximum safety. Its designed to maximize votes from some corrupted politican.
With that we have costs of around a billion $ per new medication. And that results in pharma having no choice but to sell at insane prices to recoup these costs and not go bankrupt.
Iam very much for doing science and chemistry at home and it is possible to make some medications at a very tiny fraction of the costs, _IF_ you are a chemist and have the knowledge and training. But the idea that a random joe who has no idea about what he is doing, is going to do complex organic chemistry in his kitchen successful then purify the results by recrystallization and chromatography and then test them with NMR and other methods. Is able to interpret the results, take all saftey precautions, and so on. Yeah I think i would have quite some respect for that random joe if he does all that and then takes that pill and even more if it actually works. I mean it CAN be done but please damn, if someone does this, educate yourself about chemistry first and make sure you understand the risks, there is alot that can go wrong!
In FFmpeg a few months ago people complained about sustainability
One solution suggested was a consulting company and employment. The other was donations through SPI and funding work and maintenance with that money. (these are obviously not exclusive nor conflicting)
We do have FFlabs that employs FFmpeg developers for consulting since several years and we also use SPI for many years.
It has always been difficult though to convince people to ask for money for development work from SPI. On top of that some people are quite aggressive if things are suggested to be done differently from how they envision it.
Now recently we where potentially offered a minimum 150k€ grant from the sovereign tech fund. Obviously this being FOSS a shitstorm of complaints started (from a small number of very loud people), people asked for it to be rejected because it was only 2 weeks time, people objected to it being through SPI, one person predicted that money discussions about the work on the mailing list would be a disaster prior to this now the same person tried to turn it into a disaster and doxed the developer who worked on making STF through SPI possible. Also SPI was working quite hard themselfs and with 0 payment to make it possible
We had to do a quick vote to verify that the overwhelming majority was in favor of moving forward with attempting to get the grant through SPI in February.
Will we get the grant? We dont know yet. I imagine if the STF reads our mailing list discussions, then probably not
Next problem was, that while many complained about financial sustainability, few actually added any proposal to the wiki to receive a part of the grant and only 2 developers actually submitted the needed SoW, iam being one, and really i only submitted SoWs so we can reach the minimum of 150k€.
One guy on the wiki wanted to wait till the vote end before writing the SoW but then never did. Another never replied, yet another added an entry to the wiki after the deadline and also never submitted a SoW not even after the deadline.
And the overwhelming majority of developers also reject offers for employment/work as they basically already have enough work and money and not enough time.
Money is one thing needed for sustainability, but its also not the only aspect. Both when people already have work they are not unhappy enough with or when there are things in a FOSS project they are unhappy with then money alone is not enough.
These AI tools cannot do things. They create text (or images or code or what-have-you) in response to prompts. And that's it!
Yes and then we put their text in E-mails, feed their SQL to databases, feed their JS, Python, C and so on to compilers and run the excutables. Just ask yourself, if one with even just sub human intelligence AND the ability to talk to 7 billion people would not succeed in having one take arbitrary code and execute it.
I think its certain that there is and will be no barrier between a system like chatGPT and arbitrary code execution.
The question is
Regulation and law will be ineffective and quite possibly make it worse as it would affect only some nations and some people. Try to avoid spam, greed, war,
the largest integer factored by a general method in a real physical system by now is 249919 (18-bit).
This one can be done with pencil and paper or a pocket calculator
sqrt(249919) = 499.91899 then round to next integer
sqrt(500*500 - 249919) = 9
your factors are 500 + 9 and 500 - 9 or 249919 = 509 * 491
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.