Scanning through some online sites and noticed something I had not considered in the AI field. The utilization of Proprietary Standards! What I noticed was the Prohibition by owners for the use of their proprietary standards to be used in the training database of any AI without prior consent! WOW! That covers a LOT of territory! Much of my engineering work consisted of adhering to various standards. And each of those standards is owned by the body that empanels them! To Prohibit the use of those various and many standards by an AI is mind boggling! Or, if not prohibited, licensed in some way that includes periodic updates as the various standards are appended and updated. For example, the NFPA fire codes which includes the National Electrical Code (NEC). I had to have on hand the latest yearly "Code" book to abide by in designing any works that required Electricity. I convinced our Project Engineering Manager to subscribe to the full NFPA standards which included all updates to their standard as soon as approved and released. Which, since I had requested it, I became the "Owner" of and it became my task to keep updated by inserting/removing the pertinent sheets in the dozen or so large binders which the standards were housed in. Almost every month I would receive a package of revised/new/updated/deleted standards additions and corrections to be inserted into the binders. And that was just one standard. Let's see, I regularly used the Hercules Corporate Standards, NFPA/NEC, American Institute of Steel Construction, American Society of Testing Materials, Architectual Standards, Instrument Society of America, etc. ad infinitum! That is a lot of proprietary information to tabulate and keep up to date... And the lack of standardization leads to chaos...

 

Do you think the AI guys care about any prohibition by owners for the use of their proprietary standards? They don't and have the money to just ignore the rules.

 

Scanning through some online sites and noticed something I had not considered in the AI field. The utilization of Proprietary Standards! What I noticed was the Prohibition by owners for the use of their proprietary standards to be used in the training database of any AI without prior consent!

Sounds really unethical

 

Do you think the AI guys care about any prohibition by owners for the use of their proprietary standards? They don't and have the money to just ignore the rules.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...iant-anthropic-authors-settlement-1236362550/

 

If you ask google AI a technical question based on the requirements in an electrical Standard, you might be surprised at the level of information provided.

But it might be a different matter, describing a constructional arrangement – and asking if it is compliant with the Standard’s requirements; or what changes would be required to achieve compliance.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...iant-anthropic-authors-settlement-1236362550/

The settlement was reached shortly after the court issued a ruling largely siding with Anthropic on the issue of fair use, which allows creators to build upon copyrighted works without a license. AI companies have scraped creative works across the internet without consent of compensation to creators under their belief that they’re on solid legal ground because of the legal doctrine.

They have the money to just ignore the rules and plenty to settle when it's to their legal advantage.

 

Sounds really unethical

There are lots of standards out there and not just engineering standards. There are, as well, editorial standards covering the verbiage, form, and structure of written works for example. These standards have been developed over many years of consistent application and their usage is often legally required in many cases, especially with engineering standards for public works. Not only are we legally required to abide by them but the organization that writes them expends considerable time and money keeping them current and publishing them for those legally required to use them. For then, it's like putting money in the bank. It's their money! They earned it through diligent work acts and they own it but make it available (at a cost) for others to use. Many decades ago, my father went to Russia as a consulting engineer. It seems that bolts from one manufacturer would not fit nuts made by another manufacturer in the plant building "farm tractors" (actually military tanks and other war material). It was due to the utter lack of engineering standards implemented and followed in Russian manufacturing. The existence of standards is completely necessary and the development and application of those standards is expensive so the developers are and should be very protective of them. Think of it as a patent. It's theirs and if you want to use it, you have to pay a fee to grant you the right to use it. And yes, it is legally protected by our courts.

 

Although the Standards are copyrighted, those published by the IECEE (and CENELEC) are for the most part compiled and updated by committees. I’m sure the same is true for UL Standards.

Those committees are made up of technical experts from industry, by and large giving their time for free (although paid for by their employers).

Much of the funding for the IECEE (and CENELEC) operations comes from the sale of published Standards – if this revenue stream is lost due to AI, it could significantly impact their operations.