Show newer

@neil

Tagged you into the other thread where i explained it... let me know if you need help if you take a closer look.

@justin

@lucifargundam

We do and i spent some time fixing it so should run pretty fast now I hope.

@koyu

@smallcircles

Well mine is 100% working.. you can follow a user, and you get the accept back.. it even sends the create push to followers when new articles come out, so you get it in your feed.

Check it out here: @flear

If anyone comments, stars, or reshares an article on the fedi it shows on the static website as comments on that site..

Basically all the core features you need are there and working. Feel free to use it

@justin @h @neil

@timorl

> Are you seriously suggesting that race was not a (if not the!) political issue then? o.0 Not to mention it still is now.

Literally anything and everything can and is a politicial issue, then and now...

Science is a big political issue too with the right thinking the scientific community are liars and corrupt and with the left generally saying to follow the science as a mantra... Does that mean if someone calls me a "moderate scientist" that they are implying im politically moderate? Of course not

Racism was politicial, but calling a moderately racist white person as somehow meaning the same as a person with an overall political stance that is moderate is absolutely not the same.

MLK made it clear in two ways

1) he has never said or suggested he was talking about political moderates, on racist moderates 2) he has explicitly taken a centrist/moderate political opinon in what he has said and done time and time again.

@koyu sometime this weekend we should do a chat or something. Been meaning to catch up with ya.

@smallcircles

I'm just a bit jaded. I've been here since the earlier days of the fedi, I run one of the older server instances too.... the people have been so overwhelming toxic in this community since day one I have become jaded

@justin @h

@icedquinn Oh for sure.. the reason robots arent copyrightable isnt because they learned (stole) from people... its because it makes no sense for a machine to hold a copyright... and it also makes no sense for a human who didnt execute the creative process to get a copyright from a machine that did.

@icedquinn there is a valic argument (and many books written about it) how the law is not understandable by your average person... so no argument there is a valid point there... but we are wayyyyyy past that point.

@icedquinn its not about the fact that it copies from someone else... if it only learned from your collectiction of work and was creatively creating from itit wouldnt be enough... it would have to be enhancing specific works... If i do a painting of a face and it goes over it and adds more detail but it looks creatively like the original for example.

@icedquinn I dont think easy should be the goal.. correct should be the goal. Correct isnt always easy....

That said I think the ftc gets close-ish to something reasonable. But thats not enough for me, too simple.

@timorl He did **not** have a negative view of **political** moderates... he had mentioned criticisms of "White moderates" but they were moderate in the sense of the politicial spectrum.. he was talking about whites who were not vocal against racism while not actively being racist themselves... he was purely talking about a moderate stance on racism, not politics.

@icedquinn its not about design but if the creative element comes from you... I think they are struggling to define that but i think the examples are clear...

If you created a generative AI that trained off of your own work.. and you gave it your own work and the AI enahanced it to look nicer after your own style... pretty sure that would qualify.

@smallcircles

Thanks, i may just pop a link there to it if its useful but frankly id rather someone else do that so it doesnt look like self promotion. The fediverse is so toxic ive had admins loose their shit just for reaching out to resolve issues... Other people can handle the social side of the software.. ill build my tech, use it for myself, and open source if anyone else wants to take it.. ill add good instructions, but ill stay out of the threads.

Thanks, feel free to share it as you see fit. Also feel free to ask if i can help.

@justin @h

@icedquinn

Nope, in fact the explicitly say later that wouldnt be copy writable

It goes on to say:

If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.[26]

For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt [27]

from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.

@icedquinn

No, not ALL work by AI is copyrightable.. it is only copyrightable if the human "original mental conception" gave "form" to the work.

You can read the statement here:

federalregister.gov/documents/

Here is the relevant quote (its a long document and goes into more detail):

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24]

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.[25]

This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.

@icedquinn

No, not ALL work by AI is copyrightable.. it is only copyrightable if the human "original mental conception" gave "form" to the work.

You can read the statement here:

federalregister.gov/documents/

Here is the relevant quote (its a long document and goes into more detail):

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24]

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.[25]

This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.

@icedquinn

That was true until march 16th of this year... On match 16th it became possible for AI works to be copyrighted.

@freemo
scotus: :blobcatanime: you don't have any right to bodily autonomy as long as the CDC waves their hands
also scotus: :blobcatgoogly: shoet ppl
Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.