greysphere

The fashion industry and pretty much the concept and existence of luxury brands are counter to this claim.

Hmm, I was notified today about Google settlement. We sold our app on Apple for the same period (2017-) in the same <1M range, and this is the first I've heard about the Apple settlement. The website said everything is over and by doing nothing and being part of the class I've waived my rights to everything, but seems odd given I wasn't notified. Is there anything I can do?

If I grew up under a rock, somehow became a self taught musician, and ended up authoring a song that had recognizable components from Happy Birthday, then even still the author of Happy Birthday, having established that melody so successfully in the public zeitgeist, reasonably should benefit.

This is so common the recording industry itself has established rules for sampling and licensing and covers and what not. Are there some folks out there abusing the system, for sure. But overall its goal is to maximize the value produced by the recording industry, which very much includes the people who 'got their first' who built foundations for future artists. To me, this all seems basically reasonable.

It takes work to create/identify/classify information, both in the economic and physics sense. That work should be allowed the same protections we do other forms of work.

Your example is one where nearly no work was done, thus it doesn't deserve much value. "Let a = the set of all songs" doesn't help me find new songs I like. A songwriter does that work. Another artist that takes and uses and resells that work (without consent), is stealing that work.

To me it's funny that nearly all the problem with the current team of AI generation would be solved if the model generators simply licensed the content they train on. "But that would cost too much" Ok, just use public domain work, "But that wouldn't be as good" Oh so you are saying the work has value, but you are unwilling to pay for it, and instead your scheme is to just take it. That seems like a good definition of stealing - not paying for something that has value.

It's more, 'this product is profiting from my labor without my consent (ie paying me).'

In music you aren't allowed to use the same notes, even if you played them on a trumpet with a swing beat, while the source was on the piano very staccato.

While we don't have the same vocabulary for art, it's not unreasonable to expect similar protections.

I can make you a list. Cinderella, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel, Game of Thrones... You could sell WB the 2090 rights to any one of these, except the ones that are going into the public domain (and those they already own of course). Look at that, the system is 'working'.

Your statement implies the source dataset's file sizes represent the amount of visual information in them. This is almost certainly not the case.

I agree the model quality expression model suggests both those resource distribution models would be maximal. My supposition though is resource distribution is going to be power-law-ish, which it doesn't have to be restricted like that, but seems a natural expectation.

And yes when the available resources are below the saturation point, more analysis will be necessary to determine what's optimal. A more advanced model would account for a variety of qualities, each with different importance and different Ks, suggest distributions for those and relate them to total available resources. My intuition, based on 'lots of distributions end up being gaussian' is that equality is maximal except when significantly resource constrained (ie some state like war or famine), or k for some particularly important quality is extremely high (which interestingly is another common narrative: Noah's Ark, the Manhattan Project, Armageddon, The Martian.)

Here's a simple model: people have a desirable quality that exists in some people and doesn't in others. This quality is randomly distributed among all people. To express the quality, a person must have access to some amount (K) of resources. How do we maximize the expression of this quality? We maximize the number of people with K or more resources. Assuming some power-lawish distribution of resources what coefficient of that curve accomplishes this? The answer is the flattest one, assuming the total amount of resources exceeds K*population.

This model is communicated at large in various forms, "meritocracy", "you can do anything if you put your mind to it", "inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", "every life is sacred" and so on. It's such a common model, it seems unsurprising that many people balk at a need for explanation. It's like asking 'explain from first principles why 2+2=4'.

After someone buys App2022 there's no reasonable way to sell them App2023 on most platforms, while both the platform and the customer expect updates.

Anecdotal, but our apps that used to have 0 ANRs for years, have all had them start sprinkling in despite node code changes from us. Maybe ANR reporting got more strict, or maybe it's something else...

By extension that should apply to startups too, no? And then children?

Somehow Wikipedia made it work. Seems like a similar effort could work here, of course with the additional challenge of being more-realtime. It may be a different goal than the other parts of Twitter content, but that doesn't make it impossible.

Might be some survivorship bias.

By (2) it seems like the price should be f(#followers).

Yeah I wondered that or the bullet character too. The thing is we referenced other apps that used this exact formatting. But yeah, could just be a bug that was introduced at the beginning of the year that hopefully they can figure out and fix.

The website is a different group, but I'm a fan of their work too! Their forum is: http://forum.shuffleit.nl/

Starting around January, our app (Dominion[1]) has randomly had updates rejected (including one that _delisted the existing app_) because of our app description. We make some irrelevant changes and resubmit and, so far, it's been accepted each time. We've had the same description for over a year/10+ releases before.

The latest rejection:

>>> The app title or description does not accurately describe the app’s functionality. Issue details

We found an issue in the following area(s): Full description (en_US): “▪ Tutorial & Rules ” <<<

So we changed this to:

▪ In app Tutorial & Rules

And it passed. Every release is just a bucket of stress that we are going to lose N-days of revenue again for no obvious reason.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.templegate...

Well, I'm fairly certain one can claim ownership of works they create via algorithms, as the entire digital media space wouldn't exist. I don't think authoring or hosting an algorithm gives one carte blanche ownership over things other people create with that algorithm, but cynically I could see that happening if enough money is involved unfortunately, but hopefully not. It's not clear at all why AI would ever be considered the author and in fact all the sources I've found assert the opposite, that AI cannot be considered an author. So I still haven't seen anything preventing people from claiming copyright protections on works they create via AI.

>I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author

Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.

If one thing is known and the other is unknown then they are different. If they were the same, both would be known, or unknown.

We use ML for the AIs in our digital boardgame adaptations on Steam and phones. Our Race for the Galaxy AI is better than 97% of our players and our Dominion AI (still in beta) is at about the 75th percentile. Not only is it good at the games, it's super adaptable when a new expansion comes out or the designer adds errata for cards. Finally, it's been helpful with the design of new cards. A quick training session and we can put the cards in front of the designer and they can supplement their play testing. The AI has even found some 'exploits' that new card combos create that we can address before release.

Two systems that produce the same output for some set of inputs doesn't show the systems are the same. My phone can produce the same results as my brain for short arithmetic problems. My phone is not a brain.

The neuroscientists I know in the field would be among the first to tell you that our ability to model the brain is nearly non existent. In fact we don't even have a great model of a single neuron [1]. This statement doesn't invalidate the work folks are doing to try and reach that goal. Biology is hard.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model

Most machine learning is assigning weights in a chain of matrix multiplications and normalization functions.

There is no known experimentally verifyiable model of toddlers' brains, let alone one based on matrix multiplication and normalization. Developing such a model would be a noteworthy achievement.

Therefore these are different.

Gonna be a tough sell for verification emails.

Rectangle, lol, if only.

Serious question, what about Figma is unique to a cloud app over a desktop app with cloud features? Does it actually do some computations server side? Clearly the Adobes of the world haven't gone whole hog into online first/collaborative editing (and probably never will due to inertia), but one can imagine someone more nimble doing so without running in a browser.

Afaict the uniquely web thing about this product is the lack of install (and to be fair maybe that's a killer feature). Is that it or am I missing something.

If things go that way, the 'legit' models will continue dev, just using licensed content (along with public domain works). It will be more expensive for the end user, but that cost will shrink over time for general work. Tools that mimic working artist though might not be available (or will expensive). This all seems pretty ideal, so the pessimist in me guesses it's fairly unlikely.

"A lot of artists feel like they own their work."

I can almost hear the "would be a shame if something happened to it."

Imagine you built a house, and someone came a long and said "I bet you feel like you own that house."

Insanity.

I claim that claiming computer algorithms are inspired is a big stretch.

I claim humans can be inspired.

I don't claim to know how human inspiration happens, or if neurons have anything to do with it. (They may, but I make no claim). Not being able to describe the process by which human inspiration happens doesn't invalidate either of my claims.

If there is a satisfactory non-bit based explanation to how computer algorithms achieve inspiration, I would accept that to. We have the advantage with computers, that their activity is conveniently summarized by their programs which are represented in bits, so expecting an explanation in that form I think is reasonable.

The defense if the claim of human inspiration is (1) we have that word for the concept (2) we have thousands of years of thought, philosophy and literature giving support and definition to the concept.