Here’s a video of someone actually building something like that to play a chess match.

You’re putting too much importance into this matter. If this is distressing you should let it go and think about something else.

Dude, chill. Even if you’re right, having a meltdown on github doesn’t help anybody. Go outside and take a breath.

What I’d really like to have is a tool that lists blocked communities. That information is not as public as defederated instances.

If he meant specific countries, why did he not say so?

The tweet from Musk that this article refers to is a response to another tweet that did mention specific countries, ie: Japan, US, China, Singapore, UK, Italy and South Korea. Half of them are primarily non white.

But sure, the guy who grew up in apartheid South Africa with a father who exploited black workers in an emerald mine and whose car company has repeatedly had problems with racism, the guy who once said that U.S. media and schools were racist against white and Asian people isn’t even a little bit racist.

He may very well be a racist, but this article makes a piss poor job to demonstrate the donation was influenced by racism.

That’s a leap of logic. You are saying that since the human population is not collapsing on a global scale, the decline of population of particular countries is not a problem at all and you somehow associate a donation made by Musk to address this issue with racism. Even the author of the article admits she doesn’t know exactly what the money is being used for:

The specificities of what Musk’s $10 million will accomplish remain unclear, beyond Bloomberg’s report that PWI will use it to research fertility, economic growth, and the future of the human population.

What Musk, and hopefully not you, is worried about is the decline in white people being born.

What’s the source of this claim? It certainly isn’t this article that doesn’t provide any proof besides wild speculations.

It works for me.

I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.

It seems that’s not the case, no matter how much effort or time you expend on the prompts. This is from the Copyright Office:

The Office does not question Ms. Kashtanova’s contention that she expended significant time and effort working with Midjourney. But that effort does not make her the “author” of Midjourney images under copyright law. Courts have rejected the argument that “sweat of the brow” can be a basis for copyright protection in otherwise unprotectable material.18 The Office “will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work” because they “have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.”

Here’s another key factor:

Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them. The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.

This only applies to an image generated with AI prompts that isn’t significantly altered by an artist.

Here’s the Copyright Office’s response for anyone interested.

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.

Remember, AI generated work is in the public domain.

That hasn’t been determined yet. A human prompt used by the AI to generate content might be enough to grant copyright. This case is about autonomous AI generated content.

If you generate something with AI and claim you created it yourself you can easily be asked to reproduce a similar works again.

Asked by whom exactly? The Copyright Office? Are they going to ask for prove from every artist that requests registration for a work?

If you say you did use AI you should be able to show how much effort you are putting into creating the images

Or you can lie in your request. From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

“As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office accepts the facts stated in the registration materials, unless they are contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the Office’s records.”

In practical terms? If you are going to generate content using AI either don’t say it was AI generated or lie about how much human involvement it had. Also you can’t use “this work was completely made by AI” as a hook.

That latter case likely wont be copyrightable

It is if you don’t say it’s AI generated or you lie about how much human input it required which would be impossible to prove false.

they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists.

Has this been litigated yet?

Only if you say it was written by an AI, that’s the lesson here.

because since some diffusion generation are deterministic

You are generalizing and using the word “some” at the same time.

Linux Hater’s Blog was half satire and half honest criticism.

This reminds me of the old linux hater’s blog post “At least we don’t have any viruses”.