With GenAI maturing, it will be trivial to create movies, plays, books that never existed before. It’s like the digital printing press, in the hands of the masses. Hopefully it brings the deathknell to copyright, but it will probably usher in even more draconian copyright laws.
notfromhere
joined 1 year ago
Computers work with 1s and 0s. We have decided as a society that certain combinations of those equate to being copywritable. This ruling seems to be saying the result of a calculation cannot be copywritable? Wouldn’t creative tools like movie editor or photoeditor disagree? So then is the ruling actually saying these specific values used in this instance are not copywritable, changing the health to 100 for e.g., because there is no human creativity in the result of that value?
So if a programmer used an original work of art to define the state of health in the actual code, and verified the value matches the 1s and 0s that represent that work of art (thus it only ever comes down to boolean check in the logic side, and the value of the variable is never set to something simple like 0 to 100, it was using a huge amount of RAM and a very slow comparator operator.
Yea, I went there.
I’m not explaining it properly. Imagine instead of 100 hp, there is apple bananas. That isn’t really a mathematic representation in the same way that the cheat code can change. It would be a copyrighted work of art. It wouldn’t be trivial to build an hp system to do this (in fact it would be a large undertaking), but I am not asking about practicality, just what the law would find.
I mean what if you didn’t use 20/100 for the value, you used a symbol (in the code as the value). Would it still apply?
What if the health values are human creations like special symbols or works of creative art?
Would you say it’s ant-antarctic?
Just make a repo containing only changes, no original source, with instructions anyone can use to create their own version with community changes applied?
Do you know where the chart came from (presumably the statista article author)? I didn’t see it in the report, and I didn’t match the numbers so wasn’t really sure.
I can’t tell, is the flaming skull headed towards earth and we’re seeing the reflection in the astronauts’s visor, or is the astronaut’s skull ablaze (in which case does he have a small head?)
Site note - did we just stop including prompts because they are super secret?
Not that I am disagreeing individual waste is a big part of it, I am not convinced this chart adequately demonstrates that. Is the per capita from the chart after they remove non-individual waste from the total? If not then the per capita includes things like commercial or industrial waste and it’s not really reflecting an individual waste perspective.
Why would it have a chunk missing after all this time? If it did could we even tell? Whatever it was isn’t still in the area so being far away may not mean much. Circular orbit is probably biggest reason it’s likely not Mars, although it could have evened out relatively recently.
This simulation shows the Mars sized object merging with Earth so there goes that theory.
Both Llama 3.1 8B and 70B also answered the book doesn’t exist.