For Amusement Purposes Only.
Changeling poet, musician and writer, born on the 13th floor. Left of counter-clockwise and right of the white rabbit, all twilight and sunrises, forever the inside outsider.
Seeks out and follows creative and brilliant minds. And crows. Occasional shadow librarian.
#music #poetry #politics #LGBTQ+ #magick #fiction #imagination #tech
You’ve got one on kbin too - @some_guy - a racist, bigoted fascist who likes to obsessively troll people and try to dox them.
It took me a moment to determine whether or not you were the same person, but unlike him, you can speak in complete sentences. As such, I thought I’d give you and @someguy3 a heads up that your good names are being dragged through the mud.
It looks like the key in the ruling here was that the AI created the work without the participation of a human artist. Thaler tried to let his AI, “The Creativity Machine” register the copyright, and then claim that he owned it under the work for hire clause.
The case was ridiculous, to be honest. It was clearly designed as an attempt to give corporations building these AI’s the copyrights to the work they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists. What’s clever here is that they were also trying to sideline the human operators of AI prompts. If the AI, and not the human prompting it, owns the copyright, then the company that owns that AI owns the copyright - even if the human operator doesn’t work for them.
You can see how open this interpretation would be to abuse by corporate owners of AI, and why Thaler brought the case, which was clearly designed to set a precedent that would allow any media company with an AI to cut out human content creators entirely.
The ruling is excellent, and I’m glad Judge Howell saw the nuances and the long term effects of her decision. I was particularly happy to see this part:
In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.
This protects a wide swath of artists who are doing incredible AI assisted work, without granting media companies a stranglehold on the output of the new technology.
I have to admit, Barbie becoming a Chinese feminist icon was not on my 2023 bingo card. Anyone taking bets on when we’re gonna get a kpop version of this classic?
A fine namesake, passed down through the generations, a mark of greatness none could have foretold, for his would be the seed that gave birth to a dynasty, and in 40054, Lord Syntax, Emperor of the Error, takes arms as Twelfth Commander of the Line against the Googlish heretics and their daemonic servers.
chainsword revs
My personal ones for corporate use:
Never use I when you can use we.
Even if you’re the only one working on a project, never refer to it as yours. Always refer to it as ours.
Don’t apologize, present solutions.
Don’t say “read my fucking email again you goddamn illiterate moron”, say “As previously noted in our communications…”
Actually Kbin is great for tracking shitheads, which is why I’m able to call this guy out. Downvotes are visible on the activity tab of each post and comment, and this troll loves downvote spam - as you can see, he downvoted my comment above. He’s the kind that will stalk your account and downvote everything to try and get your attention.
In general, 99.9% of the community here is awesome, and there’s a lot of support between users here. It’s actually the best experience I’ve had online in many years (and I’ve been online since the early 90s). One of my goals in calling out the trolls when they decide to target me is to keep the community enjoyable, as I’m quite certain I’m not their only intended victim.