Last year, I noted that OpenAI’s view on copyright is that it’s fine and dandy to copy, paste, and steal people’s work. OpenAI is far from alone. Anthropic, Google, and Meta all trot out the same tired old arguments: AI must be free to use copyrighted material under the legal doctrine of fair use so that they can deliver top-notch AI programs. Further, they all claim that if the US government doesn’t let them strip-mine the work of writers, artists, and musicians, someone else will do it instead, and won’t that be awful? Of course, the AI companies could just, you know, pay people for access to their work instead of stealing it under the cloak of improving AI, but that might slow down their leaders’ frantic dash to catch up with Elon Musk and become the world’s first trillionaire. Horrors! In the meantime, the median pay for a full-time writer, according to the Authors Guild, is just over a year. Artists? annually. And musicians? Those numbers are all on the high side, by the way. They’re for full-time professionals, and there are far more part-timers in these fields than people who make, or try to make, a living from being a creative. What? You think we’re rich? Please. For every Stephen King, Jeff Koons, or Taylor Swift, there are a thousand people whose names you’ll never know. And, as hard as these folks have it now, AI firms are determined that creative professionals will never see a penny from their work being used as the ore from which the companies will refine billions. Some people are standing up for their rights. Publishing companies such as the New York Times and Universal Music, as well as nonprofit organizations like the Independent Society of Musicians, are all fighting for creatives to be paid. Publishers, in particular, are not always aligned with writers and musicians, but at least they’re trying to force the AI giants to pay something. At least part of the US government is also standing up for copyright rights. “Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” the US Copyright Office declared in a recent report. Personally, I’d use a lot stronger language, but it’s something. Of course, President Donald Trump immediately fired the head of the Copyright Office. Her days were probably numbered anyway. Earlier, the office had declared that copyright should only be granted to AI-assisted works based on the “centrality of human creativity.” “Wait, wait,” I hear you saying, “why would that tick off Trump’s AI allies?” Oh, you see, while the AI giants want to use your work for free; they want their “works” protected. Remember the Chinese AI company DeepSeek, which scared the pants off OpenAI for a while? OpenAI claimed DeepSeek had “inappropriately distilled” its models. “We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology and will continue working closely with the US government to protect the most capable models being built here,” the company said. In short, OpenAI wants to have it both ways. The company wants to be free to Hoover down your work, but you can’t take its “creations.” OpenAI recently spelled out its preferred policy in a fawning letter to Trump’s Office of Science and Technology. In it, OpenAI says, “we must ensure that people have freedom of intelligence, by which we mean the freedom to access and benefit from AGI, protected from both autocratic powers that would take people’s freedoms away, and layers of laws and bureaucracy that would prevent our realizing them.” For laws and bureaucracy, read copyright and the right of people to be paid for their intellectual work. As with so many things in US government these days, we won’t be able to depend on government agencies to protect writers, artists, and musicians, with Trump firing any and all who disagree with him. Instead, we must rely on court rulings. In some cases, such as Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, the actual legal definition of copyright and fair use has found that wholesale copying of copyrighted material for AI training can constitute infringement, especially when it harms the market for the original works and is not sufficiently transformative. Hopefully, other lawsuits against companies like Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic will show that their AI outputs are unlawfully competing with original works. As lawsuits proceed and new regulations are debated, the relationship between AI and copyright law will continue to evolve. If it comes out the right way, AI can still be useful and profitable, even as the AI companies do their damnedest to avoid paying anyone for the work their large language modelsrun on. If the courts can’t hold the wall for true creativity, we may wind up drowning in pale imitations of it, with each successive wave farther from the real thing. This potential watering down of creativity is a lot like the erosion of independent thinking that science fiction writer Neal Stephenson noted recently: “I follow conversations among professional educators who all report the same phenomenon, which is that their students use ChatGPT for everything, and in consequence learn nothing. We may end up with at least one generation of people who are like the Eloi in H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine, in that they are mental weaklings utterly dependent on technologies that they don’t understand and that they could never rebuild from scratch were they to break down.” #copyright

Posted on : May 21, 2025 By Tech World Times Business  Rate this post The autocratic leadership style is a way in which a leader holds significant decision-making authority in the industry. The leader under this leadership style expects stringent compliance from the subordinates. The autocratic leader takes the majority of the decisions independently, without seeking any sort of input from the team. This approach is heavily criticized by the majority of the people. However, there are some advantages. Keeping this scenario under consideration, we are presenting to you some reasons why an autocratic style can drive results and efficiency. It Makes The Processes Efficient Autocratic leaders can make quick decisions. Numerous studies say bad decisions are better than no decisions. This is because you at least reach some sort of conclusion. It plays an imperative role in avoiding delays due to the extended decision-making process. It is specifically beneficial in time-sensitive situations. There is a clear Hierarchy and Decision-Making Authority The decision-making authority and clear hierarchy in autocratic leadership assist in communicating and setting clear objectives and expectations. This plays a vital role in reducing confusion among team members. The Leader Is Accountable For Everything This leadership style makes the leader accountable for every decision because other people are not allowed to participate. This improves responsibility and transparency in the organization. It also Allows To Maintain The Order In a situation of chaos and crisis, autocratic leaders can restore stability and order rapidly by making decisions with full authority. Autocratic Leaders Have Expertise In Their Domain Autocratic leaders have expertise in their domain. They can make informed decisions that are based on their knowledge and experience. It can serve as an asset to the company. This Style Is Effective In Emergencies Autocratic leadership outshines during emergencies. This is the point where quick action is required to be taken. At this point, decisions are made without any lengthy meeting leading to time wastage. This also Ensures Consistency Autocratic leaders guarantee that decisions are consistent with the company’s goal and vision. This helps to maintain a steady course. It helps to Main Focus Autocratic leaders help keep attention on the company’s important objectives. This decreases the risk of diverging priorities and distractions. It Assists In Effective Risk Management Autocratic leaders are risk averse. This prevents ill-considered or impulsive decisions that perhaps arise because of democratic environments. It Promotes Decisiveness The autocratic leadership style can foster a decisive mindset within the team. This makes them habitual in making quick decisions when required. Conclusion: In some situations, an autocratic leadership style is extremely beneficial. For example, in sports or military operations decisions are required to be taken on shorter notice. There is no time to take opinions from other people. But in other cases, it is the complete opposite. It is perhaps not suitable for all organizational cultures and situations. Leaders are required to balance the advantages of clear decision-making with possible drawbacks of lesser employee involvement and decreased motivation. A good leader is required to adapt their style based on the requirements of their team and the demands of the situation.  Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com #why #autocratic #leadership #can #drive

OpinionMay 14, 20254 min readScience Tells Us the U.S. Is Heading toward a DictatorshipThe red flags abound—political research tells us the U.S. is becoming an autocracyBy Dan Vergano President Donald Trump delivers address to a joint session of Congress, split image seen from watching television, March 4, 2025. Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty ImagesAs president, Donald Trump pretty much checks all the warning boxes for an autocrat. Last September Scientific American warned of Trump’s “nonsensical conspiracy fantasies,” that he “ignores the climate crisis” and has fondness for “unqualified ideologues,” whom he would appoint should he become president again. It’s now May and sadly, that all checks out.The U.S. is in a bad place, and scholars warn, looks to be headed for worse.Worse even than Trump’s relentless attacks on science have been his administration’s assaults on the law. His officials have illegally fired federal workers, impounded congressional appropriations and seized people off the street for deportations to foreign prisons, threatening the same for all U.S. citizens. “The depth and breadth of this administration’s disregard for civil liberties, political pluralism, the separation of powers and legal constraints of all kinds mark it as an authoritarian regime,” law professor David Pozen of the Columbia University School of Law told the New York Times in April.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.We should all be worried that the U.S. is headed toward an autocracy—government by one person—even without political science offering a warning. But scholarship on how nations descend into this unfortunate state, seen in places like Turkey and Hungary, might not surprise you with what it suggests about the U.S.“Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, the country has embarked on the slippery slope toward autocracy,” concludes political scientist Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa, in a May report in Politics & Policy. Rather than a coup, Trump’s attacks on law firms, universities, immigrants and others constitute “a more incremental form of democratic erosion,” he writes, one that follows a six-step theory of incremental autocratization based on research on the democratic backsliding seen worldwide in recent decades. The model arose in major part from the work of political scientist Marianne Kneuer of TU Dresden. She looked at the last quarter-century’s collapse in Venezuela, examining how states turn from democratic to autocratic in stages, as opposed to a sudden coup.The U.S. has already breached the first three steps of Stockemer’s theory. The first step is one of social turmoil; this originated with the Tea Party movement during the Obama administration. Marked by angry politics, backlash against minorities and immigrants, and distrust in institutions, the U.S. has in the last two decades changed from a “full” to a “flawed” democracy, according to the Economist’s global democracy index.The second step requires a “project of radical change,” like the populist movement of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in the 1990s, or in the U.S. case Trump’s MAGA movement, which defends white, male privileges and holds prime loyalty for many Republicans.The third step is a “decisive electoral victory,” applicable to Chavez in 1999 or Trump in 2024, the latter a vote that also brought Trump control of a subservient Congress.That leaves us at the edge of the fourth step, the dismantling of checks and balances on executive power.“If my theory is correct, the U.S. is still in this transition phase between democracy and autocracy,” says Stockemer, by e-mail. “If they move more in the direction of autocracy, we would see that the administration tries to defy more court orders.” One key part of the fourth step is the declaration of fabricated emergencies, such as the “red scare” of the McCarthy era, to trample checks and balances, such as the judiciary’s control of the legal system. In May, for example, the White House deputy chief of staff suggested Trump could unilaterally suspend habeas corpus, a legal remedy for unlawful detention that dates at least to the Magna Carta and is in the U.S. Constitution, to summarily round up immigrants. He cited an imaginary “invasion”—even though border crossings are at their lowest point in U.S, history, according to Trump’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency—as a reason. The courts would likely resist such a move, as the Supreme Court did under the Bush administration in 2008, and whether the Trump administration abides by judicial decisions will determine whether the fourth step has occurred.Warnings of the fifth step on the road to autocracy, securing long-term power, come in Trump’s musing of seeking an unconstitutional third term as president. The final step, the infringement of basic rights and freedoms, also is flashing warning signs, says Stockemer. These are already evident in executive orders that disengage the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council, remove transgender service members from the military and privilege Christianity. He predicts that attacks on minority voting rights in 2026 and 2028 would be an expected outcome of this step.A simpler “competitive authoritarianism” yardstick for measuring democratic collapse comes from political scientists Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt earlier this month. “We propose a simple metric: the cost of opposing the government,” they write in the New York Times. By that measure, they add, the U.S. has already crossed that line, ordering Department of Justice investigations into perceived political enemies, donors to the Democratic Party and news outlets ranging from CBS News to the Des Moines Register. “The administration’s authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice,” they added.The good news is that the slide into autocracy isn’t inevitable for the U.S. The courts may hold, Congress may start listening to protestors as Trump’s approval rating slides, and the Republican coalition, described as “Big Tech on one side, white nationalists on the other,” in the Boston Review, may fracture.Even so, the damage already done is real: “It is very easy to destroy something such as USAID, but it takes a long time to rebuild it both physically and also in a trust sense, both in America and abroad,” says Stockemer, noting the rapid plummet of Canadian attitudes toward the U.S., from positive to sharply negative. “I can tear down a house in a day, but it will take a year or longer to rebuild it.”This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American. #science #tells #heading #toward #dictatorship