If you get caught we've never met.

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.

This is a terrible idea that steers lemmy into being an echo chamber. Let admins use their own judgement.

I'm curious. How do you train such AI without being raided by the authorities?

Spez gambled that most mods would give up because they where power whores. He won because he was right.

Dude, chill. Even if you're right, having a meltdown on github doesn't help anybody. Go outside and take a breath.

I was playing a Souls game while checking some info from Fandom on my phone. Unbeknownst to me the site was eating all my mobile data because of a live twitch stream playing on a muted and invisible player. Fuck those fuckers.

Remember when android phones fitted in hands?

Here's a video of someone actually building something like that to play a chess match.

What I'd really like to have is a tool that lists blocked communities. That information is not as public as defederated instances.

Guess it’s time for another FPS hit…

Is it August already? Man, time flies.

There are two Linux paradigms that I consider stupid. One is the use of centralized software repositories managed by the distro instead of individual developer maintained installers. The other one is file system case sensibility. They already admitted defeat on the first one with the rise of containerised applications. I wonder how much longer they'll keep the charade on the second one.

You're putting too much importance into this matter. If this is distressing you should let it go and think about something else.

And those who want to review every single one manually can still do that.

But will they? This tool promotes blindly trusting another instance block list without due diligence from the admin.

I don't see how this is any different from adding another e-mail account on gmail.

Yes, but if you then downvoted the post it would still show a score of 10 in B and C instead of 9. This is the first of the two advantages I described. Even worse, if the post received 2 downvotes from ten different instances it would still show a score of 10 or 8 instead of -10.

special sauce they cooked it with let’s it run on the trashheap of a computer

It's called coding in VS C++ and using native Windows controls, a dying art form unfortunately. The price is losing cross-platform compatibility.

It's already there. Here's yours (use desktop mode if you're on mobile).

Only if you say it was written by an AI, that's the lesson here.

Under his tweet a lot of “verified” (=right wing) accounts plauded this and asked to fight employers who fired employees for having written something homophobic

Any examples of that?

they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists.

Has this been litigated yet?

Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore knew. They didn't mind going back to work if the negotiations stalled for a long time but when they discovered the strike was close to ending they realized it was stupid to take such a PR hit just to save a few days of shooting.

I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.

It seems that's not the case, no matter how much effort or time you expend on the prompts. This is from the Copyright Office:

The Office does not question Ms. Kashtanova’s contention that she expended significant time and effort working with Midjourney. But that effort does not make her the “author” of Midjourney images under copyright law. Courts have rejected the argument that “sweat of the brow” can be a basis for copyright protection in otherwise unprotectable material.18 The Office “will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work” because they “have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.”

Here's another key factor:

Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them. The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.

This only applies to an image generated with AI prompts that isn't significantly altered by an artist.

That sounds like a pyramid scheme.

If you generate something with AI and claim you created it yourself you can easily be asked to reproduce a similar works again.

Asked by whom exactly? The Copyright Office? Are they going to ask for prove from every artist that requests registration for a work?

If you say you did use AI you should be able to show how much effort you are putting into creating the images

Or you can lie in your request. From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

"As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office accepts the facts stated in the registration materials, unless they are contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the Office’s records."

Here's the Copyright Office's response for anyone interested.

It's hard to find a name because nowadays people often use terms like 'bigotry', 'hate speech' and 'bad faith' to refer to anything they don't like so they can shut down discussions.

this process and improves Lemmy’s capability to protect it’s users from spam and brigading

That assumes defederation only happens in those cases. You have an account from lemmy.world, so I guess you trust that instance. You know, the same instance that preemptively defederated from hexbear.net for political reasons. You see the problem?

Let's see...

They may create text which appears to human eyes like the result of thinking, reasoning, or understanding, but it is in fact anything but.

For generation of fictional text and images that's fine.

There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers

Like any other case of automation in the history of society.

[...] and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products

That sounds very subjective.

and allowing more erroneous outputs.

Large language models should not be used as a source of facts, that's why they all warn you about their limitations. LLMs are tools and should be used properly. A blow torch can get your balls burnt if used improperly.

That latter case likely wont be copyrightable

It is if you don't say it's AI generated or you lie about how much human input it required which would be impossible to prove false.

Bud light wasn't canceled, it was boycotted.

In practical terms? If you are going to generate content using AI either don't say it was AI generated or lie about how much human involvement it had. Also you can't use "this work was completely made by AI" as a hook.

Remember, AI generated work is in the public domain.

That hasn't been determined yet. A human prompt used by the AI to generate content might be enough to grant copyright. This case is about autonomous AI generated content.

It works for me.

Everything is a neo-nazi hand sign.

With the shit some governments pulled during the first rounds of vaccination you can't blame people for being skeptical.

because since some diffusion generation are deterministic

You are generalizing and using the word "some" at the same time.