The dislikes were great at telling me quickly if a tutorial was good or not.
Now you generally have to check the top comments to see if there's something wrong about the tutorial, but then YouTube started hiding those comments below ads/recommendations.
Now I just use GrayJay and I can quickly check comments for any video.
On Android, SherpaTTS pulls in a number of different Piper and Coqui voice models. They definitely sound a lot better than this.
Yeah, unfortunately, they're good at what they do. Hopefully a better service will come along, or archive.org improves their archival methods. It's also going to be hard to find a service that ignores requests to delete archived pages.
Obviously, scanning the content of messages and content is controversial, but Apple says it performs the scan on the device. Users can also turn the feature off in the settings. “Sensitive Content Warning uses on-device machine learning to analyze photos and videos. Because they're analyzed on your device, Apple doesn't receive an indication that nudity was detected and doesn't get access to the photos or videos as a result,” its website adds.
I'd rather these kind of systems be set up to run locally like this, even better that we are given control to disable it. For the ML model it's a balance between too many false positives and too many false negatives.
We probably should find a better archive service:
https://piefed.zip/c/youshouldknow/p/1201608/ysk-archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-this-blog-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.
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.
Looks like a lot of people are already connecting to this to check it out.
Direct link to the simulation for anyone curious:
https://nikolays.github.io/PGSimCity/