The model does not need to see drawings of a horse to produce a picture of a horse. It needs to see pictures of horses, sure, but those could be photographs, drawings, whatever. As a human, you also would not be able to draw a picture of a horse without ever seeing a horse, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Also, how do you know that you’ve had it explained to you well? Unless you’ve attempted to apply the knowledge, you can only tell if you’ve had it explained convincingly

I rigged a bot to just say "Hi Microsoft employees! Hope you are having a great day!" once ever minute over and over for the rest of eternity

[removed]

I've had it explained to me quite well. The AI isn't drawing or painting anything. It's extrapolating. If you didn't feed all of those drawings of a horse into it to spit back out, you wouldn't be able to ask it for a horse and it would draw a horse.

There are a lot of you who are wistfully telling yourselves bullshit to side step the fact that you're nothing but thieves asking a computer to do your work for you like a monkey.

You and these AI promoters aren't creating art.

Personally, I'm staying right away from AI.

but if all art is derivative where'd that come from? Can we say that only the cave drawings are truly unique?

Good clarification. I’ll edit to reflect this fact

To clarify, this is not a court ruling. They’re citing court rulings, but the US Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

So, you can't name a regulation that decreases safety. Got it.

Also, news flash: Mushrooms and wild animals aren't bananas. And I'm quite sure even bananas don't contain a considerable amount Cesium-137.

>No reactor like that is currently operating.

Almost like those "unsafe" safety regulations are working as intended.

This sounds like you’re confused about how these models work. It’s not just a big database of art that the model is clipping pieces out of.

> However the presumption will be that AI 'assisted' art is not entitled to copyright either.

I would draw the exact opposite conclusion from the USCO correspondence. Note this:

> We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. That authorship is protected by copyright.

They’ve specifically said that everything about but the generated images themselves is copyrighted. Assuming that this decision holds up to further scrutiny (which, who knows), an assistive tool is one that combines non-copyrightable generated content with copyrightable human generated elements. With those kinds of tools, the fact that individual elements of the final work are not copyrightable would generally be academic.

Edit: phonetic typo

Web3 is a buzzword devoid of any real meaning.

Glad I moved away from Ubuntu. SMFH.

Bwahahaha! I was just thinking, finally! We're going to find out where Jimmy Hoffa is.

Also they straight up tell you when you sign up. But people don’t read.

lol, no it is not…web3 is complete an utter garbage

We didn’t “produce revenue” in the NOC, but routinely solved multi million dollar outages before they happened, or after the lack of an IT department at the customer end caused an outage.

It was hard to get a raise, you only got yourself promoted out of it.

But you were the first person they called. I had three screens and 2 laptops and the all of a sudden I’d have 20+ IMs asking about this or that outage while I’m working to solve it.

Everyone wanted personal updates along with the actual updates and expected it right fucking now.

Meanwhile I’ve got Suzy on the line who I’ve asked repeatedly to check if her desktop is even plugged in while I trouble shoot a fiber break and a bad router or NAS who’s disk broke and is now filling up cloud storage.

I will never go back.

ctrl-f it: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

But in the case of AI, it's not skylines, it's art that people have made themselves that is being stolen. I say people who don't understand this don't understand art because they don't know what it is to create something and have it stolen as if it were nothing.

Hack Da planet !!

Isn't most facial recognition software still trained on too many white faces and terrible at correctly identifying non-whites? If so... ugh, this is even worse than it seems.

They are going to paint themselves the victims here but IMO this should be viewed like any other major corporate data breach; which is a failure of their own security. If citizen data was stolen they should be held liable especially if it was unencrypted.

I'm not sure why Ransomware is even mentioned in the article besides to drum up additional sympathy and make it seem more menacing. It's not been a 'thing' since like 2018 for any serious organization who takes basic security precautions w\ endpoint software and backups.

I just shake my head.......two years running free on a network......sloppy and I heard it was Chinese threat actors.

What was the summary about?