dathinab

18 ms·

241.
by dathinab 8mo ago
which means nothing because no one believes there are legal consequences if they don't and there are a lot of ways to doge it even if there where a reliable government in place like especially if they do what they have been doing recen
242.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> Humans can't claim ownership, but they are still liable for the product of their bot. sure, but that is completely unrelated to this discussion which is about AI using code as input to produce similar code as output not about AI b
243.
by dathinab 8mo ago
that is a very good formulation of what I have been trying to say but also probably not fully right as far as I understand they avoid the decision of weather an AI can produce creative work by saying that the neither the AI nor it's ow
244.
by dathinab 8mo ago
iff it went through the full clean room rewrite just using AI then no, it's de-facto public domain (but also it probably didn't do so) iff it is a complete new implementation with completely different internal then it could also s
245.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> "We still have no legal conclusion on whether AI model generated code, that is trained on all publicly available source (irrespective of type of license), is legal or not." it depends on the country you are in but overall in
246.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> how does that work AI can't claim ownership, humans can't either as they haven't produced it. If there is guaranteed no one which can claim ownership it often seen as being in the public domain. In general it is irreleva
247.
by dathinab 8mo ago
the author speaks about code which is syntactically completely different but semantically does the same i.e. a re-implementation which can either - be still derived work, i.e. seen as you just obfuscating a copyright violation - be a new wo
248.
by dathinab 8mo ago
IMHO/IMHU AI can't claim authorship and as such can't copyright their work. This doesn't prevent any form of automatic copyrighting by production of derivative code or similar. It just prevent anyone from claiming owners
249.
by dathinab 8mo ago
The argument that a rewrite is a copyright violation because they are familiar with the code base is not fully sound. "Insider Knowledge" is not relevant for copyright law. That is more in the space of patent law then copyright la
250.
by dathinab 8mo ago
it's about copyrighted content so yes it applies to fully AI-generated code as much as to "AI art". like with AI assisted art it doesn't apply to AI assisted coding and yes if everything is fully AI generate there is no
251.
by dathinab 8mo ago
AI usage doesn't remove copyright, it just doesn't gain any new copyright by itself so a AI based transformation of a copyrighted input is as much a potential copyright violation as a non AI based transformation. It's just th
252.
by dathinab 8mo ago
most likely counts as AI-assisted art, which is copyrightable with you as the owner like most things copyright there is a gray area there but in most cases it's either pretty clear and courts would most likely rule in your (copyright h
253.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> slapping an overlay of someone looking incredulous over someone else's video is considered it really isn't, you actually have to provide enough relevant commentary for it to be transformative it just looks like that because -
254.
by dathinab 8mo ago
Long standing well known issue, no copyright (in many countries) and (in some countries) non patentable, too. Through this isn't true for AI assisted art. And the gray area is very wide and very legal unclear (gray area between human a
255.
by dathinab 8mo ago
they should have made it a auto editing script s/Microslob/Macroslob/gi that would be honest as there isn't anything micro about that slob anymore
256.
by dathinab 8mo ago
yesn't my argument was more about becoming a billionaire by creating bringing a company to a level of success where they dominate their area of business. I.e. not getting there by "fame" or "pure luck" (lets say you
257.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> [..] requires an account holder to _indicate_ [..] i.e. this doesn't require age verification at all just a user profile age property > [..] interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following _categories_ pertains
258.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> many are willing to see him trample there is little surprising about it Trump is pushing in the direction of an Oligarchie, billionaires would be the future oligarchs. So even iff a billionaire is no-okay with this development, if they
259.
by dathinab 8mo ago
It gets more complicated when commit signing, the widely broken web of trust (for the signing key) and similar are involved. And not all devs want or need anonymity on github. In general just because information is publicly accessible in so
260.
by dathinab 8mo ago
As a side note unsolicited advertisement of this kind is illegal in Europe. And them claiming "they didn't know" can be dismissed given that many dev on GH have location information set. It also in general doesn't change
261.
by dathinab 8mo ago
I think the term you are looking for is "negligence". But not in the causal sense of the word but in the legal "the company didn't folly the legal required base line of acting with due diligence". In general compani
262.
by dathinab 8mo ago
yes, but in that cases we are on the "this (should) involve a criminal investigation" level not on a "Google Safe Search" doesn't trust you level
263.
by dathinab 8mo ago
they didn't "just" take down the site, they took down the whole domain Even google safe search isn't blocking you site per-se, it just adds a very annoying "this site is not safe" dialog you can "somehow&q
264.
by dathinab 8mo ago
because google safe browsing is only supposed to display a "not safe to browse" warning when using chrome browsers (and maybe some other browsers) wich you can (theoretically) dismiss(1) it's not meant to have any other conse
265.
by dathinab 8mo ago
The problem isn't Google Safe Search backlisting the side (I mean that also is a problem, but a very different one). The problem is the vanity domain registrar Radix using that as a reason to _put the whole domain on hold, including al
266.
by dathinab 8mo ago
many somewhat intellectual(1), but evil(2), people love to play make pretend of just "summarizing the rational", "playing devil advocate", "just pointing out facts" to endorse their word view while having &quot
267.
by dathinab 8mo ago
the problem with your source is, that it treats all crime as equal. Like 1x pick pocketing == 1x homicide. It also ignores tourist, which attacks crime but also mostly very "minor" crime stuff(in places with dynamics like London).
268.
by dathinab 8mo ago
Bold strategy :) I don't think this was their "strategy", but more like a "young people are sometimes clueless and fail to take care of necessary things with enough buffer ahead of time" situations. And that (studen
269.
by dathinab 8mo ago
> (I dunno, maybe those are all bots too.) I wish, but from personal experience I'm afraid quite a bunch of them are creepy old guys which have no idea how creepy they have become(1), because they are in a bubble with mostly only ot
270.
by dathinab 8mo ago
They are non-propagated/effectively hidden. If you don't "know about them from another source" you can't effectively find/access the information and you might not even know that there is something you really sh

More ›