A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.

"In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said."

Thaler was appealing this, and his appeal was denied.

Here's another perspective on Prosecraft being taken offline. It goes into the actual use case of the program, and it is indicative about what AI makers are getting wrong about making art.

Researchers Alex Hanna and Emily M. Bender call on businesses not to succumb to this artificial “intelligence” hype.

"The chatbot gave wildly different answers to the same math problem, with one version of ChatGPT even refusing to show how it came to its conclusion."

It's getting worse. And because it's a black box model they don't know why. The computer science professor here likens it to how human students make mistakes... but human students make mistakes because they don't have perfect recall, mishear things being told to them, are tired and/or not paying attention... A bunch of reason that basically relate to having a human body that needs food, rest and water. A thing a computer does not have.

The only reason ChatGPT should be getting math wrong is that it's getting inputs that are wrong, but without view into it they can't figure out where it's getting it wrong and who told it the wrong info.

This is an article by Cat Valente during the Twitter Migration, discussing the cycle of enschittification and the history of social media.

We found it very perceptive and helpful when leaving Twitter, and I think people leaving Reddit may feel the same.