My personal theory based on nothing more than the vibe of the thing is that it comes from the Malay/Indonesian word ‘kecap’ (which is pronounced almost identically to “ketchup”), the word for sweet soy sauce. This is soy sauce that is thickened and sweetened with palm sugar, and I could see European cooks attempting to replicate it based on the vague descriptions given by sailors, and ending up with ketchup.
Perhaps the same way that Github works when you host your web page there. I.e. A revocable, limited license, where you retain full ownership, and only grant them permission to host and serve your content + a limited set of other uses, and you dictate external licensing?
Yes, but this is the perfect circle of slop: generate an ai landing page, throw it into cloudflare drop, ai adopts it, start all over again. For genuine, professional content, I would assume, almost no one uses cloudflare drop, as they already have something in place to test and quickly host some page. Moreover, I expect that scammers and phishing campaigns will have a use for it to quickly up some landing page without leaving a large footprint.
Can this be a necessary legal framing for technical purposes, to allow converting of pictures to different resolutions, or adapt the content to mobile views, and such things?
Hoarding massive amounts of data for the success of machine learning algorithms was a thing long before LLMs were a thing too. Remember the neural networks hype that kicked off around 2010? LLMs didn't even challenge the prevalent paradigms of deep learning: "Most of the value of deep learning is where you can get a lot of data" or "Data is the new oil".
This is more-or-less standard boilerplate from _long_ before the current AI training even existed. It basically means “we can do anything we like with it, now and at any time in the future, including selling it and passing these rights on to anyone else we chose, but don't take ownership so we can't be held responsible for it”.
Officially it means they can legally do wat you want them to do (present the content to users, perhaps transforming it in various ways for some or all viewers), but of course it covers them being able to do far more than that.
If my company presented such user agreement I would be quickly reported by users to local Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, audited, fined, and ordered to change that.
I think this would be even challenged at the level of "Abusive clauses registry" that office maintains, so the agreement would be quickly overruled in court.
If no specific clause would be challenged, this is an example of "grossly violates the consumer's interests" rule.
How is big tech allowed to push this shit anywhere? How is this legal in civilized world?
Derivative works I understand. That would include transforming the content for some/all viewers. Making it mobile-friendly or otherwise reformatting for display, for instance, or adding affordances for accessibility, or for long content adding a generated summary.
Irrevocable and right-to-sublicense are the red flags for me. Nothing a company sells to us is irrevocable, but everything they take from us is expected to be.
Colin Percival (cperciva), upon being dismissed due to never having won a prestigious mathematical award such as a Putnam fellowship, revealing that he had in fact won a Putnam fellowship in 1999.
Considering the James Van Der Beek of Dawson's Creek fame is having to hold a fundraising auction of his memorabilia to fund his cancer treatment, cancer is expensive in the US.
actually a difference is also how many players along the supply chain siphon money out of the process. the more greed is allowed and acted on for the treatment, the more expensive it gets. introduce layers of insurances, hedgefonds, pension funds, lobbyism, ... it adds up to riddiculous amounts far beyond the original R&D/infrastructure/treatment costs.
And also downsides, e.g. many treatments just aren't available, and many others would never have had their discovery funded without the market-based system existing.
Governments can (and do) directly fund medical research including drug discovery. This is in part because governments of even just middling competence have an incentive to keep their workforce (which also includes their military) healthy.
This… is a think that people believe, but it’s not as simple as that. Most basic research is universities, all over the place. Many drugs are developed in Europe. A lot of medical machinery is developed and made in Europe (Siemens, Philips and Roche are huge in this space). Like most things, med tech is fairly globalised.
And let's not forget that a substantial amount of medical research performed in the USA is not market-based but rather publicly funded through the NIH.
> This… is a think that people believe, but it’s not as simple as that.
This is a thing people believe because pharmaceutical companies keep repeating it. And to be fair, they're not entirely wrong in that getting a drug/treatment from the lab to the pharmacy is incredibly expensive because most drugs don't work and clinical trials are super expensive.
It does seem to me that a better system would be to split out the research/development and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals into the lab development (scientists), the clinical trials (should be government funded) and the manufacturing (this could easily be done via contract).
Which the US had a situation exactly like that until very recently: development labs, often at Universities, with scientists paid for by grants (some private, but the majority being public, government grants), with clinical trials overseen by government agencies like the National Institute for Health (NIH), and winning research eventually being tech transferred for cheap to Pharmaceutical companies to manufacture, distribute, and market.
The companies have the biggest PR arms, so took the most credit for a system that had been balanced on a lot of government funding in the earlier, riskier stages. Eventually the marketing got so unbalanced people didn't realize how much the system was more complex than the marketing and voted for people that decided it was a "free market" idea to smash the government funding for the hard parts of science.
> Which the US had a situation exactly like that until very recently: development labs, often at Universities, with scientists paid for by grants (some private, but the majority being public, government grants), with clinical trials overseen by government agencies like the National Institute for Health (NIH), and winning research eventually being tech transferred for cheap to Pharmaceutical companies to manufacture, distribute, and market.
Yeah, this isn't a particularly new idea. Like, most of the risk in pharma is on testing, and there's so much waste in spinning up plants for drugs that may not even succeed in Phase III. So I'd like to split that out.
> It does seem to me that a better system would be to split out the research/development and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals into the lab development (scientists), the clinical trials (should be government funded) and the manufacturing (this could easily be done via contract).
The market is there to risk money in the world of imperfect information trying to predict what would be good to pursue. That is one of the hardest parts of the process, but it's not even made your list.
Exactly. This was entirely deliberate as I (personally) believe that market signals are profoundly useless in healthcare. Like, there's no free market in life or death, nobody will quibble over cash when they're in pain so I'm not sure how a market is supposed to work.
Fundamentally, the incentives of society and private companies are misaligned with respect to healthcare. Society wants a cheap, simple treatment that basically works forever (like sterilising vaccines). However, because of how the patent system works, companies want a treatment that is recurring, and can easily be patented multiple times.
Because of this, so much money goes into lifestyle treatments for the rich world, and not enough into re-using things that can't be patented. I think this is a giant waste of resources, hence my suggestions above.
This doesn't make any sense. If you make a thing, the price you set for selling that thing in a country has little to do with where you happen to be living when you made that thing.
It's a lot more expensive in the US. Three years of ribociclib is US$100k here in Argentina, which dwarfs the usual costs of things like chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection. (All of which is normally paid for either by a health plan or by the public hospital system.) In the US, if you have to go through all of that, I think the cost is going to be at least an order of magnitude higher.
reply