Sandbar_Trekker

It’s worth pointing out that, unfortunately, it looks like using LLMs for SEO is the best option that websites have today and is likely here to stay.

Louis Rossman - I’m #1 on google thanks to AI BULL💩 - the modern internet is a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uKZ84zwJI0

From reading the article and watching the video, it didn’t sound like they were refusing the option of having a union. It was more that they wanted to have an official vote on the matter, and didn’t want to be pressured into a decision on the spot:

[W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate.

I wonder what the results would have looked like if they added questions to see the difference in acceptance between banning smartphones vs banning dumb phones.

You’re cutting out the important context with that quote:

Occasionally I’ll have it write more substantial code for me, usually for bug fixes, and occasionally for small features. I find it does a pretty decent job here, but I keep it on manual mode and often ask it to write the code in a different way, or take a different approach.

That doesn’t sound like someone who’s just blindly copying and pasting whatever an LLM told them to do. I agree there’s absolutely a risk with using LLM generated code that could cause some copyright issues. But the way he’s using it sounds like it minimizes that risk.

The Licensing Problem It doesn’t sound like the way the dev is using the LLM would make this a high risk issue. He’s mostly using it for testing/brainstorming/pseudo code rather than generating code to use directly.

The title of this post is incredibly misleading and I can tell you didn’t read how it’s actually being used. The dev mostly isn’t using the LLM for code generation. There wouldn’t be any “potentially unattributed plagiarism landmines” to worry about.

Edit: The dev does use the code in some cases, see below.

I think you meant LLM tools?
If you’re meaning all AI tools then that also includes anything ML related. Accessibility tools such as Speech to Text models, Text to Speech models. Research tools such as those used to virtually unravel and read heavily damaged or incredibly fragile ancient scrolls, tools to help detect exoplanets, or tools for discovering cures to diseases. And more.

By taking on the meme generator, Saflor may hit a wall if the court finds that his arguments apply to any meme generator and a finding in his favor could risk undercutting the entire meme ecosystem, Goldman said.

This will definitely be an interesting case to watch unfold. In my opinion it could definitely be a win if websites that run any kind of meme generator are forced to pay the official artist to have their template on their site.

This doesn’t really seem fitting to this sub, but I guess this is tech related news because they have multiple websites?

In most countries, the output of a single prompt will not be copyrightable. However, once someone starts arranging the output into something more, then copyright can be applied.

Overall, it depends on the country, but in some they are asking their legislators for clarification. Many are trying to apply pre-existing copyright laws to LLMs.

The U.S. Copyright Office wrote up a report about this and included a list of how other countries are handling it.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

Certainly looks interesting, but I have to mention that I’m not a fan of the Discord Rich Presence feature. The directory access that this typically requires immediately bumps up any flatpak to a medium risk category.

Granted I’m definitely one of those users that does not care to share my current status to all other users as to what I’m watching/listening to at every moment.

That article completely practically skips over the section in the report that says that copyright can be applied by compilation to an overall work. See section II - F: “Modifying or Arranging AI-Generated Content”

Or you can also just skip to the conclusion of the actual report itself:

As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

Edit: The article you linked does mention that the works can be copyrighted as a whole, but it does not mention this in the conclusion.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office, it absolutely can, but it depends on how much control the user exerts on the final product.

If a single prompt was used and they copy pasted the entire thing, then yes, as you have said, it is not copyrightable.

However, if multiple prompts were used and the end result is compiled/arranged with enough direction by the end user, then it can be copyrighted by compilation.

Generating content with AI is often an initial or intermediate step, and human authorship may be added in the final product. As explained in the AI Registration Guidance, “a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’”¹²⁶ A human may also “modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.”¹²⁷

As several commenters noted, human authors should be able to claim copyright if they select, coordinate, and arrange AI-generated material in a creative way.¹²⁸ This would provide protection for the output as a whole (although not the AI-generated material alone).¹²⁹ A relatively common scenario in registration applications is the combination of human-authored text with AI-generated images. In one early case, for instance, the Office found that the selection and arrangement of AI-generated images with human-authored text in a comic book were protectable as a compilation.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

A copay is the amount that you pay for certain healthcare expenses. The rest is paid for by your insurance company.

knowingly, intentionally continue to fund neo-Nazis in Sweden.

Am I understanding you correctly that you’re accusing anyone who continues to use Mullvad as someone who supports neo-Nazis in Sweden?

Looks like someone is already asking them for clarification in this thread here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2929

Maybe the banner will be updated to more closely match what Defnulls said. Unless that banner changes it’s certainly not a stretch to say that “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed.”

If that’s supposed to be the correct interpretation, why does the top of the site now state, “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed. View change”?

I’m wondering if there’s some grace period for projects to migrate, or if they just start locking projects down immediately after their community votes to ban something.

It’s a little hard to argue that when the top of the site now says, “Cryptocurrency projects are no longer allowed. View change”.

For “AI editing”, I don’t have much of a problem if a model was trained to tweak the settings in something like Darktable to achieve a good baseline to start with. However, for contributing to research like this, I draw the line when models start generating their own pixels and overwriting the original image.

Hopefully iNaturalist and other similar groups start to look at the metadata of submitted images to help warn/educate end users about this problem. That would at least help with the AI literacy issue. Those metadata tags are already being placed there by the most popularly used tools.