errors mine alone chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk Statistician DAMTP Cambridge, residing Bethesda, MD: AT CU.com please find my attempt to celebrate my greatest personal privilege: to visit women empowered Bangladesh 15 times from 2007 during last 13 years of life of Fazle Abed. From 2012 we discussed AbedMOOC and 2015 onwards at his 80th birthday AbedAI. Back in 2001, Abed 65th birthday hosted by Steve Jobs in Silicon Valley changed both of these human genii's life work. Even today I dont spend time exploring America AI with any engineers or practitioners of health or education, food or safety or finance, who dont want to know what they (we humans all) owe to Steve J. By 2003 Jobs' pixar, Nvidia, and Hopkins radiologists started replacing coding of binary by coding of pixels - welcome to AI century 2]
2026:Christmas comes early to Ai Youth - Nvidia GTC-DC Nov 30 to Dec 2
Pretraining proposal Gemini (model UYKB: Layer 6 AI+Media)
7-Layer Intelligence Discourse GTC D.C. adds 2 layers to Jensen 5-layer AI Cake!
Because the D.C. summit sits in the heart of the nation’s capital at the Ronald Reagan Building, Jensen Huang’s team is prepping a narrative explicitly tailored to reindustrialization, national security, and state-backed compute. [1, 2]
  • Layer 1 (Nature's Energy) & Layer 2 (Machine Brainpower): The central conversation focuses on the Vertically Integrated Sovereign AI Factory. Nvidia will address the West's current power grid constraints, pushing for multi-gigawatt computing nodes tied directly to protected modular nuclear baseloads or sovereign energy fields to fuel the upcoming Vera Rubin chip architecture deployment. [1]
  • Layer 3 (Sovereign Data Infrastructure): This is the crown jewel of the D.C. agenda. Nvidia is moving rapidly away from selling chips solely to hyper-scalers (like Microsoft or Amazon) to marketing Layer 3 "Sovereign AI" packages directly to federal agencies, the Department of Defense, and international allies. The talk centers on how nations can utilize Nvidia hardware to train national models on state-owned text, military telemetry, and geographic data without leaking information to corporate data monopolies. [1]
  • Layer 5 (Civic Applications) & Layer 7 (The Deterministic Truth Layer): The D.C. floor will showcase heavy-industry integrations. A major thread is how federal systems can use AI Digital Twins and Quantum-resistant encryption to safeguard public infrastructure against adversarial cyber warfare. By pairing generative logic with hardcoded physics modeling, Nvidia wants to show the Pentagon that its models can function as an un-hallucinated layer of deterministic truth. [1, 2, 3]
The Direct Line: Berlin Crisis (October) to Washington D.C. (December)
The D.C. summit will act as the direct remedy and strategic response to the systemic frictions exposed weeks prior at the Berlin GTC. The two events are deeply intertwined across the 7 layers: [1]
[ GTC BERLIN • OCTOBER 2026 ]                     [ GTC WASHINGTON D.C. • DEC 2026 ]
       "The Crisis Echo"                                 "The Sovereign Fix"

               |                                                  |
• Severe European Layer 1 energy shortages.      • Unveiling federal multi-gigawatt grids.
• Layer 3 splintering (EU Data Act friction).    • Hardcoded Layer 3 Allied AI networks.
• Debate over relying on U.S. cloud giants.     • Bypassing public clouds via local edge nodes.
  1. The Energy Realignment (Layer 1): In Berlin, Jensen Huang will confront the grim reality of Europe’s highly fragmented, expensive, and legally constrained green grids. The "Berlin Crisis" refers to the continent's inability to spin up gigawatt-scale data factories fast enough to match the U.S. or China. When Huang lands in D.C., he will use the European shortfall to pressure Congress to fast-track defense-grade energy allocations for American compute clusters. [1, 2]
  2. The Sovereignty Conflict (Layer 3 & 4): Berlin will highlight severe regulatory friction over European data sovereignty and the EU Data Act. European public broadcasters and governments are terrified of routing their localized data through American corporate monopolies. Washington GTC will capitalize on this by formalizing a blueprint for "Allied AI" networks—demonstrating how Europe and the U.S. can exchange open-weight models securely across borders while maintaining local, sovereign hardware boundaries. [1]
  3. The Physical AI Transition (Layer 5): While Berlin will focus heavily on Germany’s specialized precision engineering and factory-floor robotics, the D.C. summit will elevate those industrial applications to a geopolitical scale. The discussions in Washington will center on deploying those exact autonomous robotics playbooks into automated naval shipyards, military logistics pipelines, and aerospace satellite defense systems. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Would you like to drill down into the specific Department of Defense T4NG contract vehicles Nvidia partners are mobilizing for the D.C. event, or examine the open-weight software microservices (NIMs) being deployed to appease European sovereignty regulations in Berlin? [1, 2, 3]



Before AI lifted off in late 2000s 3 underacknowlefgen Happenings: 1 steve jobs hosted Fazle Abed's 65 th birthday party silicon valley 2001; .jensen hunag and steve jobs went from coding binary to cosinf pixels; Fazle abed clarified that paulo freire culture celebrated poorest asian womens ebd poverty networking miracle -- largest NGO, providing education, health services, microcredit and livelihood creation programmes for a significant part of the population of Bangladesh. What lies behind this huge success, Caroline Hartnell asked Fazle Abed, founder of BRAC and still very much at the helm. Questioning everything they do and being prepared to tackle whatever is needed to make their programmes successful are certainly part of the secret behind the success of this extraordinarily entrepreneurial organization. The secret of success? Asked what lies behind BRAC’s phenomenal success, the first thing Fazle Abed mentions is determination: ‘We were determined to bring about changes in the lives of poor people.’ The second thing is thinking in national terms: ‘We always had a national goal; we never thought in terms of working in a small area. We thought, all right, if we work with the poorest people in this community, who’s going to work with the poorest people in that other community? So we felt that whatever we do, we should try and replicate it throughout the nation if we can.’ The third thing he mentions is inspiration. ‘We always thought nationally, worked locally, and looked for inspiration globally. We were inspired by Paolo Freire’s work on the pedagogy of the oppressed, which he came out with in 1972. It was wonderful to have a thinker who was thinking about poor people and how they can become actors in history and not just passive recipients of other people’s aid. He made us realize that poor people are human beings and can do things for themselves, and it’s our duty to empower them so they can analyse their own situation, see how exploitation works in society, and see what they need to do to escape these exploitative processes.’ Finally, he says, ‘one needs to have not only ambition but also the ability to do the work. The organization must be competent to take on national tasks. That confidence we got from the campaign for oral rehydration, to cut down diarrhoeal mortality, in the 1980s. That involved going to every household in rural Bangladesh, 13 million households, and it took ten years to do it. Then we became a little more ambitious. We thought that if we can go to every household, then we can cover the whole country with everything we do.
..
NB any errors below are mine alone chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk but mathematically we are in a time when order of magnitude ignorance can sink any nation however big. Pretrain to question everything as earth's data is reality's judge
Its time to stop blaming 2/3 of humans who are Asian for their consciously open minds and love of education.

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

 you imply science increasingly lost some openness from 1970 who was it changed this law and did nobody feel this robbed future generations from freedom of learning

The Shift Toward Less Openness in Scientific Publishing from the 1970sYou're right that I highlighted a trend: scientific publishing became less "open" starting around the 1970s, but this wasn't primarily a change in "law" itself. Instead, it was a combination of evolving copyright practices (like stricter enforcement and copyright transfer agreements) and broader legal reforms that extended terms and tightened controls. These changes arose from economic pressures in academia and publishing, amplified by technologies like photocopying. The core issue? Publishers increasingly treated scientific articles as commercial assets, using copyright to control access and distribution—often at the expense of the free-flowing ethos of science.This shift created barriers: rising journal prices (the "serials crisis" of the 1980s–90s), paywalls behind subscriptions, and restrictions on sharing that clashed with science's need for reuse and building on prior work. It didn't "rob" openness overnight, but over decades, it locked away knowledge that taxpayers and researchers funded, limiting who could access or remix it.Who "Changed" This? Key Players and DriversNo single villain flipped a switch, but commercial publishers, supported by lobbying groups, drove the practical enforcement of stricter copyright. Laws provided the framework, but publishers exploited it. Here's the breakdown:
Era & Change
Key Drivers/Advocates
What Happened
1970s: Rise of Commercial Control
Commercial publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) entering from trade books; learned societies losing ground.
Post-WWII boom in science led to more papers, but learned societies couldn't handle volume. Commercial firms acquired journals, raised prices 10–20x inflation rates, and started requiring full copyright transfer from authors (previously rare in science). Photocopying exploded, so publishers sued libraries (e.g., Williams & Wilkins v. US, 1975—publishers lost, but it sparked CCC).
1976: US Copyright Act
US Congress, influenced by publishers and authors' groups (e.g., Authors Guild).
First major overhaul since 1909; automatic protection for unpublished works, no formalities needed. Extended terms to life + 50 years (from 28 + 28 renewable). Made it easier for publishers to claim and enforce rights over journals.
1980s–90s: Enforcement & Serials Crisis
Publishers via Copyright Clearance Center (CCC, founded 1978); groups like Association of American Publishers.
CCC created a pay-per-copy system for articles, turning sharing into revenue. Subscriptions soared (e.g., 300% price hikes 1980–2000), forcing libraries to cut access. Publishers lobbied against "piracy" like interlibrary loans.
1993–98: Term Extensions
EU: Commercial publishers & creative industries (e.g., via GESAC). US: Disney/MPAA/RIAA (pushed Sonny Bono Act); publishers joined for journals.
EU harmonized to life + 70 years (Directive 93/98/EEC). US Sonny Bono Act (1998) added 20 years (to life + 70 or 95 from publication), retroactively locking works like 1920s journals until ~2020s. Often called "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for Disney's influence, but scientific publishers benefited by extending control over archives.
2000s+: Digital Lockdown
Publishers (Elsevier sued ResearchGate 2017; ACS/Elsevier v. Sci-Hub ongoing).
DMCA (1998) added anti-circumvention rules, blocking digital sharing. Rise of "hybrid" journals charged for open access on top of subscriptions.
Publishers argued this protected "investment" in editing/printing, but critics say it prioritized profits: Elsevier's 37% margins dwarf Big Pharma's. Authors signed transfers for prestige, not cash—yet lost reuse rights.Did Nobody Notice? Outrage Over "Robbing Future Generations"Far from unnoticed, this sparked massive backlash from scientists, librarians, and economists. Many explicitly called it a theft from future learners: locking publicly funded research behind paywalls hinders innovation, excludes Global South scholars, and slows cumulative progress (e.g., data mining old papers for AI breakthroughs). WWII-era data shows breaking copyrights boosted US science by 25% via cheaper access. Here's the outcry:
  • Open Access Movement (1990s–now): Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) declared: "Copyright should not restrict access to knowledge." Led by SPARC, PLOS; argues publishers "parasitize" free labor (authors/reviewers unpaid). Result: 50%+ of new papers open access by 2023.
  • Sci-Hub & Civil Disobedience: Alexandra Elbakyan's Sci-Hub (2011) bypasses paywalls for 85M+ papers, called "ethical piracy" by users. Publishers sue, but it's "civil disobedience" to reclaim science. As one EFF piece puts it: "Copyright requires acts of rebellion to keep science going."
  • Academic & Policy Pushback:
    • 2002 Akerlof et al. letter to Congress: Extensions "rob future generations."
    • 2012 Finch Report (UK): Urged open access to avoid "knowledge divide."
    • EU's 2022 study: Copyright hinders reuse; calls for TDM exceptions.
    • 2015 JASSS paper: Simulations show longer terms decrease scientific output by 10–20%.
  • Global South Voices: Excludes 80% of researchers; "neocolonial" enclosure of knowledge. Plan S (2018, 24+ countries) mandates open access by 2021.
Publishers counter: "We invest in quality." But evidence shows openness accelerates science (e.g., COVID preprints sped vaccines). The fight continues—2025's EU reforms aim to force more reuse rights. Bottom line: Many did feel robbed, and they're fighting back, proving science's ethos endures despite the law
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)