Comment I already figured it out 10 years ago.... (Score 0) 95
AI's killer app is these node graph style 3d engines like my gameapi builder tool at https://meshpage.org/meshpage_...
Submission + - Technologies from the people who rejected artificial intelligence early... (meshpage.org)
tp_xyzzy writes: Artificial intelligence was rejected by many projects for various reasons. Copyright problems with database collection, Large teams required to build the databases from scratch, Ensuring quality of the content or team size and funding needed for AI learning process. But once rejected, what did the software developers develop instead of artificial intelligence? Our solution was to do "games", more accurately, "game engine development" and developing gltf rendering functionality and a toolbox for customizing the gamedev output easily with a tool called "GameApi Builder".
Comment copyright is stricter in europe... (Score 0) 39
...so any ideas of building AI technology in europe will have to deal with the issue that they cannot use pirate databases to teach their ai models...
Comment your nude pics are next... (Score 0) 155
once copyright owners can order censorship, next in line is nude pics/religious groups ordering censorship of the sex industry...
Comment their users are movie pirates? (Score 0) 68
not very good FOSS, if their user base consist of movie pirates mainly...
Submission + - Rendering elfs to web pages is now easier than ever 1
tp_xyzzy writes: Since xmas is closing in fast, and your web pages are still not having the perfect elf rendered with a 3d engine, this one guy from finland has a solution prepared for you: https://meshpage.org/ has cool way to convert your gltf elf 3d models to the html5 and within 5 minutes, get your xmas saved from disaster. (a ham will help too, but our tech can put it to your web page too)
ISPs Tell Supreme Court They Don't Want To Disconnect Users Accused of Piracy (arstechnica.com) 72
Joe_Dragon shares a report: Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks. While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access."
The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday. The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications' attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.
Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn't adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels. Cox won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn't guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury's finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.
The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday. The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications' attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.
Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn't adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels. Cox won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn't guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury's finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.
Comment I have better idea (Score 0) 29
the crowds could just use my technology....
Comment heh backpage,,, (Score 0) 59
bullet avoided. at least it wasnt meshpage.org
Comment marketing and business is the real problem (Score 0) 184
I think marketing area is to blame for lack of innovation in software. I spent 10 years getting technology ready and noone is using it/i got $6 worth of sales from 10 project. Clearly marketing fails to deliver the tech to customers... not a software development problem...
Comment Re:AI database collection has significant legal ri (Score 0) 85
> I'm not sure how that alone detects infringement
This is based on the same test that courts are using to detect infringement. Usually it just works the other way around, i.e. you remove the non-infringing material and leave infringement area only. But we've inverted the filtering process in the court's tool selection and got the result where only the valid non-infringing material are left untouched.
This inversion is warranted when you want to ensure that your product is non-infringing. The courts are trying to prove that infringement happened, and this isn't suitable for verifying product to be non-infringing. Thus inverted process is better while you're designing new products to the mass market.
Comment AI database collection has significant legal risks (Score 0) 85
Because legal landscape for AI database collection activity has significant risks in it, we decided to reject AI technology outright. The AI vendors need to understand that they had easier market entry, because professional authors are rejecting their area for copyright reasons. These legal rejections are dangerous, because while they reduce competition in the area, they also indicate that there are significant legal risks involved. Basically professional authors are voting with their feet and leaving the area to would-be criminals or people who can absorb 300,000 dollars damage awards,
We have developed easy way to execute a test for detecting copyright infringement in AI databases:
1) remove all content that was not properly licenced from original owner of the material
2) if your product still works, you're ok. If it doesn't work, you're infringing.
Basically the teaching phase of AI systems are all failing in this easy test.
Consiquences of this easy test for AI systems is that the content creation must happen before AI system creation. So all investment to content is still included in the resulting AI system, and there is clear causality relation between content creation and AI system creation.
This time-based causality is good way to ask for damage awards from courts.
Comment If AI fails, go with the web4 and 3d (Score 0) 73
If AI is overhyped, then pick the first non-AI technology that uses gpus? I just happen to have one ready at https://meshpage.org/
Comment Re:They're probably right. (Score 0) 42
> Either literally every artist, sculptor, musician, writer, and photographer since the dawn of their arts has been an infringer
How large companies where copyright following is important handle the issue with 2 different rules:
1) GLANCE, i.e. your engineers should turn away their eyes when your family shows off the competitor devices.
2) NO COMPETITOR DEVICE ALLOWED IN THE PREMISES, i.e. if your engineers purchase competitor device, it means immediately fire the engineer.
These rules together ensure that competitor features are not getting into your development pipeline. It's just how strictly your employees can enforce those two rules.
Comment If AI isn't good enough for you... (Score 0) 51
Then evaluating some other technologies are more appropriate. For example my https://meshpage.org/ has not received more than $6 investment from customers and $56 investment from spinoffs. (no, that's not millions or even thousands, it's plain $6).
Given the 10 year development history of the project, we expected slightly higher level of investments for our project. But guess not. Play with your AI sandboxes and hope for the best.
But guess we did serious problem by rejecting AI early in our project. The copyright issues with collecting terabytes of databases simply wasn't suitable for one-person project like ours.
Slashdot Top Deals
If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley
