Chris Jamroz is effectively the CEO and Edward J Wegel is the founder. Just some interesting public info i came across. Neat.

We have effectively always had an audit and accountability process for our agencies in the US, and I’d be willing to bet the same is true for you in Germany. The problem is that this is absolutely not that–it’s just raw oligarchic capture-- and the actual aforementioned historical processes are naturally slow, meticulous, complex, and not readily reported on because they provide little clickbait. If you haven’t already, I recommend you actually investigate into the internal review mechanisms that exist in your country.

I think this is a gross oversimplification of the issues, but that’s a big part of the problem. Currently, the problems facing both the DNC and the country are very complex and one very large and diverse side has to present ultimate complex solutions to complex problems to an electorate that collectively can barely tie its shoes, and the other just handwaves over this complexity, others a whole punch of folks, and says they’ll “fix” it by pushing the bad mean “others” out.

Government actually DID work for a huge swathe of people in subtle, often taken for granted ways. It had vast room for improvement, but nevertheless was better than the alternative of simply not existing. The VA is a good example of this. But when you try to explain that to folks, they just glaze over. Another example is I’ve had discussions with multiple people now who were convinced that Harris just “never even had any policy” despite this being objectively untrue and very easily refuted.

This is all to say, no, “people” don’t know or see shit. The average voters is wildly uninformed, uninformable, and cannot engage in anything beyond magical thinking. Long term solution is to make politics at the individual level more engaging with their day to day and increase general competence and access to true information. No idea what the short term solution is–as the saying goes, you can’t use reason to convince someone out of a stupid fucking opinion.

I grew up in Milwaukee before moving to Boston. No, Boston is not even remotely the most racist city in America.

Yea, she’s just a comms person with no actual competencies or practical function. That said, her office number is public info on CBP’s site.

Seems like the CBP staff involved in this very clearly illegal deportation should be named and shamed. Boston is not the city to be pulling this shit in.

Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn’t mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected–it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it’s effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.

The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.

Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).

The CO didn’t say AI generated works were copyrightable. In fact, the second part of the report very much affirmed their earlier decisions that AI generated content is necessarily not protected under copyright. What you are probably referring to is the discussion the Office presented about joint works style pieces–that is, where a human performed additional creative contributions to the AI generated material. In that case, the portions such that they were generated by the human contributor are protected under copyright as expected. Further, they made very clear that what constitutes creative contribution and thus gets coverage is determined on a case by case basis. None of this is all that surprising, nor does it refute the rule that AI generated material, having been authored by something other than a human, is not afforded any copyright protection whatsoever.

For sure. I personally think our current IP laws are well equipped to handle AI generated content, even if there are many other situations where they require a significant overhaul. And the person you responded to is really only sort of maybe half correct. Those advocating for, e.g., there to be some sort of copyright infringement in training AI aren’t going to bat for current IP laws-- they’re advocating for altogether new IP laws effectively thar would effectively further assetize and allow even more rent seeking in intangibles. Artists would absolutely not come out ahead on this and it’s ludicrous to think so. Publishing platforms would make creators sign those rights away and large corporations would be the only ones financially capable of acting in this new IP landscape. The compromise also likely would be attaching a property right in the model outputs and so it would actually become far more practical to leverage AI generated material at commercial scale since the publisher could enforce IP rights on the product.

The real solution to this particular issue is require all models that out materials to the public at large be open source and all outputs distributed at large be marked as generated by AI and thus being effectively in the public domain.

AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.

He was VP. His espoused policy was effectively supporting Harris’. If you look at his record in MN and actually listen to his statements, his native policy positions become pretty clear. I don’t know when your day was, but people have been as politically illiterate as you since the fucking oongaboonga times.

Pretty active and critical of the administrations actions. People just don’t read anything but headlines and then only actually integrate into memory the negative ones conforming to their preferred world view.

Yes, he is a piece of shit who deserves an invite to the mario party along with the rest of them.

It could of course go up to the scotus and effectively a new right be legislated from the bench, but it is unlikely and the nature of these models in combination with what is considered a copy under the rubric copyright in the US has operated effectively forever means that merely training and deploying a model is almost certainly not copyright infringement. This is pretty common consensus among IP attorneys.

That said, a lot of other very obvious infringement in coming out in discovery in many of these cases. Like torrenting all the training data. THAT is absolutely an infringement but is effectively unrelated to the question of whether lawfully accessed content being used as training data retroactively makes its access unlawful (it really almost certainly doesn’t).

Even in your latter paragraph, it wouldn’t be an infringement. Assuming the art was lawfully accessed in the first place, like by clicking a link to a publicly shared portfolio, no copy is being encoded into the model. There is currently no intellectual property right invoked merely by training a model-- if people want there to be, and it isn’t an unreasonable thing to want (though I don’t agree it’s good policy), then a new type of intellectual property right will need to be created.

What’s actually baffling to me is that these pieces presumably are all effectively public domain as they’re authored by AI. And they’re clearly digital in nature, so wtf are people actually buying?

I really think this is wrong. These moves arguably harm large business even more than small ones because the complex supply chains that go into most large corporations’ goods are getting totally fucked by these tarrifs and the supplier agreements locking them probably more often than not do not give them a clear out for situations where the dumbest motherfuckers in the country elected their chief dumb motherfucker into the highest seat.

Regardless, the ones most hurt by this are consumers, and especially those without the means and/or ability accommodate this fuckery.

And I think staying home was stupid. But at the end of the day, i actually don’t care much about Harris losing…Trump winning is what I’m upset with. And sure, there are strategic and comms failings by the Harris campaign that made room for they eventuality, but fundamentally the metastasized cancer is personified by the large number of people who specifically elected this piece of shit. I refuse to absolve voters of culpability for their fucking votes and that’s where the ultimate responsibility lies.

I think the voters who voted for Trump are probably at least 90% to blame for Trump being elected by voters into office?

Couple it with privatizing the national weather service so there will effectively be no warnings, and most of FL is gonna be dead anyhow.

If he loses, I think we see the fractures in the republican party really start to cascade even more than they have since the last election. It’ll still be a stewpot of regressive, reactionary, fascist fellating bullshit, but their goose stepping will be out of sync.

Meanwhile, a collapse of the Republican part opens the door for a likewise restructuring of the Democratic party, which has for decades now been a big tent party for people who aren’t braindead, but is otherwise pretty ideideologically disparate. And before you wah wah wah FPTP, keep in mind that all RCV initiatives in the US have arisen out of Democratic party affiliated groups.