I could honestly use a setup playing the role of personal assistant so I don’t over schedule and stretch myself too thin on stuff. A few of my friends have created very effective setups for just that, but I have lacked the bandwidth to figure out how to replicate for quite a while now…because of aforementioned need for a scheduling helper. :(
Apple has a trademark in computing technologies because apples are not typically associated with computers. GPT, as a technical term related to the model and architecture, is pretty natural associated with ML products, so it really should never get a trademark grant for being merely descriptive.
Removed by mod
Nah, you gotta understand how fucking stupid, selfish, and god damned myopic our public in the aggregate is here. A completely mismanaged war of bald aggression that resulted in the double tap murder of 150 school children isn’t sufficient to rile them–but paying 50 cents more a gallon at the pump and they’ll declare a motherfucking fatwa.
Just noticed your reply and want to correct this. Anyhropic settled, the 1.5bil was not a judgment against them. Specifically, this covered the literal pirating of the training corpus. It had absolutely nothing to do with the way training on the data handled the training data–they literally torrented an enormous portion of their training corpus.
Anthropoc DID try to argue that because they used the pirated material for training a model, it was fair use. The judge correctly decided that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Again, this is not about the models encoding data, it is literally just about the fact that these silly fucks torrented vast portions of their training corpus like college students building a porn library on college broadband.
Anthropic pirating books for their training corpus resulted in the biggest copyright settlement in history–well over a billion. That is still being quibbled over i believe, but they settled because they were likely to pay out more if the case went forward. So I’m not really sure where you’re coming from that infringement via torrenting does not result in monstrously large liability.
This is wildly wrong in so many ways.
Copyright is an intellectual property right, firmly grounded in property law doctrine–you are probably thinking of trademark, which is rooted in consumer protection law, or likeness rights which have their roots in privacy law.
The copyrightability of AI generated content gets to where the nexus of creativity happens. Effectively, image generators (modern ones–i actually don’t think DABUS is a diffusion model) are operated like a commissioned work. The user gives detailed instruction on par with what you might see in a commissioned work, and the creative event occurs when the “contractor” interprets that into the work. The copyright may be assigned or it may be licensed, in any case, the initial copyright holder is the contractor–or in our case, the model. Now, it is well established that only humans can have sua sponte property rights, including intellectual property right. Those can be assigned, licensed, etc., but they must first inher to a human and so an AI system literally has no copyright to assign, were it even able to engage in a contractual agreement to transfer said rights. As a result, no, there is no copyright in AI generated content and without a significant change in law there is unlikely to ever be any.
If he had sought to register the copyright under purely his own name, he would have been committing a fraud on the copyright office. This wasn’t explicitly established at the time of his suit, but it has been very explicitly the case now for over a year. When registering copyright you must declare any AI-generated components. Failure, or refusal, to do so constitutes a fraud on the office and such fraud is sanctionable up to revoking the copyright in the work in its entirety, even if the AI-gen component was only partial. This is really important to note with software copyright and the kind of litigation we’re likely to see wrt piracy in the future (i.e., defendant claims plaintiffs did not declare vibe coded components and thus committed a fraud on the office and should be sanctioned with full revocation of the right as a signal to other would-be claimants).
Every generation literally doesn’t is the point? I do think the framing is bad, but the generational decrease, as a cohort, in attention spans, technical literacy, and skills competency has been a major worry for over a decade now. Computer science educators were sounding the alarm on this in the mid and late teens, for example.
I don’t disagree, but doesn’t change the fact it makes it even more challenging to potty train. But, yeah, our daycare workers make barely anything and it’s still around 40k/yr here for full time daycare at a good but average daycare. It’s nuts.
Also, it’s very difficult to get daycare to stick it out with you and once a child is in the 3-4 range, it becomes exponentially more difficult to modify bathroom habits. They will literally shit themselves just because you ask them to use a toilet at this stage.
When our kid had just turned 3, we had started making really solid progress finally. He was good with pee, starting to (slowly) get the hang of pooping, and would actually request to go to the bathroom before bedtime if he felt he needed to. Then daycare basically said they wouldn’t deal with poopy training underwear anymore and bring him back with diapers, and all progress was lost. Now, nearly a year later, it feels like we’re still clawing our way back to where we were.
LUCE absolutely does not support folks open carrying, or carrying at all, as backdrop to ICE events. Hell, as a policy, they do not even want people using whistles because it “escalates” and creates “chaos.” That said, what LUCE DOES do is extraordinarily important and why I still organize with them even if I think their timidity wrt the above items is totally misguided.
Brookline, where he lived and was shot, is very safe relative to the surrounding city and the state as a whole, which are already the safest in the country. It is definitely a really strange shooting (albeit, but necessarily some crazy conspiracy–but I can’t imagine this isn’t targeted).
I would have to look into the actual patent and file wrapper, but presumably it didn’t cover just any rounding of rectangular corners, but as you said, a defined range.
Where bad patents get through prosecution, they are problematic, be they design patents or utility patents, but design patents in general are not even a blip on the radar of what needs to be fixed in our IP system imo. As a general rule of thumb, they are in fact fairly narrow. Meanwhile, pharma patents very much need focused and thoughtful revisions, and IP around software needs to be reworked from the ground up basically, creating special rules for patents and dropping the legislatively declared copyright framework entirely. The problem is that reporting on IP is fucking awful so people say things like “ohmyglob this design patents doesn’t even have real claims” even though that’s literally how they are structured and enforcing the right requires a pretty intensive investigation of the drawings and line patterns therein.
But, sure, I’ll give that maybe Apple’s design patent in this case was overly broad. I’m not particularly interested in defending Apple’s IP.
Design patents effectively work like brand protection. They literally only protect new aesthetics and ornamentation. The reality is that the iPhone did start the trend of rounded corner rectangular touchscreen phones. When it first came out, it was a fairly novel form factor for a phone. It didn’t prevent other form factors from being released. Like, the fact that it is now so ubiquitous that we take for granted smartphones look this way is a testament to its success. And, actually, plenty of phones did right angle screen corners. Design Patents are extraordinarily narrow things and, among the many issues with the current USPTO and the US IP system in general, it is probably the absolutely least problematic piece.
What is described in the second point is literally how Design Patent claims work. They don’t work the same way as utility patents. Anyway, yea, people not knowing how patents actually work aside, leadership at the USPTO is currently fucked.
I thought that was weird, too, but that’s not what they’re arguing actually. Their argument is that these were pirated for personal use by various people on the company network over a course of years and that the IP address is not sufficient to identify the appropriate defendant (not Meta). Accordingly, they argue the case should be dropped because tje pleading does not, and cannot from what has been provided, identify a correct defendant. At first blush, it isn’t an unreasonable argument. It would be like suing a university for detecting porn torrents on its network over a number of years (and alleging that the relatively small number of torrents were for AI research/training data).
Ah, gotcha. Appreciate the clarifications!
This already happened. Back in February, Musk/SpaceX got the contact to “modernize” ATC.
Convert it into a museum dedicated to memorializing and studying America’s greatest failings and violations.
Effectively China is the only major market where AI generated outputs are granted copyright. And even then, it’s a hard maybe. This makes zero sense to me as a business move.