Es ging ihm nie um den Profit, er wollte einfach nur ins Fernsehen.

RIP Peter.

They really outdid themselves with that cover art :D

um C.L. zu zitieren: Haha, Nein.

this seems wrong.

https://xkcd.com/936

Die Entropie erhöhst du mit Länge, denn ein Zeichen ist ein Zeichen. Nur bei Wörterbuch Angriffen sind Zeichenklassen interessant.

Oops dann hab ich das glaub ich mit der anderen Office Suite verwechselt. Sorry.

Only Office ist kein FOSS.

Und Collaboraoffice ist halt auch nur LibreOffice bloß gehostet, wodurch die Kompatibilität zwischen Nextcloud und LO besonders gut sei.

Tjoa schade SPD. Damit seid ihr völlig bedeutungslos geworden, genauso wie die FDP.

CBS does plan to offer its own form of live fact-checking — but it will be online, rather than directly from the moderators, via its CBS News Confirmed Unit journalists in an online blog.

So the attention of the viewer is divided or they don’t even know that there is an online live fact check.

Sounds more than fishy

Yeah have a good one as well.

I would not be qualified to talk to Hirst or a dead painter. They would have to take it with the Copyright law.

Or that

Threshold of Originality.

In the case of someone saying I want a song that is ABAG, and they ask that it be written down because they cannot write it down themselves

Then we are again in a commissioner situation. The guy who commissioned a composer to write them a song according to their specifications.

In regards to your bucket of paint.

That’s an art installation which you can copyright. The resulting artwork on the canvas can’t be.

Gatekeeping? Nah, it’s not as it’s quite easy for AI Bros to pick up a pencil. Nobody, except disabilities, stops them.

And yeah AI slop has become so well that rabid people are accusing actual artists that their art was made by AI. But why is that? Certainly not because their previous art was trained on…

Fuck AI. It is used to replace actual humans and human creativity.

Let’s look at music. If a musician loses their arms and can no longer play an instrument, but instead dictates the chords to someone else to play, who is the artist? Who can claim ownership of the piece?

Then that musician becomes the composer who can copyright the sheet music. The one who plays the chords becomes the performing artist and can copyright the performance.

Spoken like someone who has never used an LLM before and thinks it magically produces exactly what you want on the first time, every time.

I have used LLMs extensively, several versions and types. I know how that shit works. And no I do not think that its results are deterministic and accurate.

Mine is that the tool is the LLM, and that when art is created with it, it should be open to copyright.

The LLM is the “artist” as it produces the image. And you can’t claim copyright for someone else.

In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work

What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?

Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn’t a sentient lifeform

It was an allegory. The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist. And since you can’t copyright something you didn’t made, well tough luck getting copyright on AI slop.

By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.

No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.

If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.

but its just a photocopy of the leaves, not the actual leaves. And to photograph something, you capture it according to your will. What will be the light situation, from which angle, at what focal length,… so many options.

You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art

so its literature, then?

The artist doesn’t copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting.

Sure, the artist doesn’t copyright a palette, or the shop does not hold ownership of pigments. But Companies do patent pigments.

If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.

If you commission an Art piece, with a detailed description of what it should display. The artist comes back to you with a draft, you tell them to adjust here and there, and you finally after several rounds of drafting got the commissioned art piece. Did you draw it?

Thats what LLMs do and nothing else.