.

@beeple Reminder: Whitelist Registration for Proof of Conference is Now Open! A surprise awaits on the Ethereum blockchain... beeple-collect.xyz

@TheusIxion @doodles

dress-o-tron

Want to know more about the brains behind Me4U? We've got you covered! Head over to our website to meet our amazing team and learn about our mission and vision. It's a chance to get to know us better and see what fuels our passion.

@ednewtonrex A Creators AI Bill of Rights should include: Consent, Control, and Compensation! me4u.ai/creators/rights

'Training data' isn't the right phrase for what's used to train generative AI models - it dehumanises what is, in reality, human creative output. This isn't data - it's books, artwork, music, and more. Calling it data makes it sound like it's just a low-value, anonymous input to the model. It's not. It's creative output that people have poured time and effort into, without which the model wouldn't work. It may be better to refer to it as 'training media'. Even if just to remind people that this isn't 1s and 0s - it's people's creative work.

@Kelly_McKernan @ednewtonrex Exactly! OpenAI allows websites to provide a "no-follow" tag, but they don't do that for actual human creators. Talk about getting things backwards.

@ednewtonrex Great point. When training our models, we've taken to calling it AHC - Authentic Human Creativity. Because the world needed another TLA - Three Letter Acronym.

@auren @cartainc And they make buying from them a huge PITA. I have to sit through multiple sales pitches before I can get their year-end discount. Oy.

i love @cartainc but starting to see a lot of startups move off of Carta because they charge $$$$. anyone else seeing this?

@ednewtonrex Agreed! If the economic structures we create in the age of AI exclude the human creative geniuses that trained the AI, we will do a massive disservice to our society and to human creativity.

Increasingly thinking it would be a good thing if more people working in generative AI had a professional background in content creation. I think your views on training on content without consent are affected by really understanding what it's like to put artistic output out there, to rely on royalty checks (often very small), and to see people training on *your* work without consent.

@CindyBiSV Only if they want to survive.

Founders are not babies, They can take the adult conversations and tough feedback, Right?

@TaylorGreene @byronling1 Congrats Taylor!

We’re delighted to announce the close of $108m of new capital to continue investing in breakthrough seed and pre-seed companies. @byronling1 & I spoke to TechCrunch about the fund, our strategy, and lessons learned from a decade in the NYC ecosystem. techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/twe… (1/2)

@sadinsch @powerbottomdad1 @elonmusk It would be without government subsidies.

@powerbottomdad1 @elonmusk Tesla is not a non-profit

This letter about OpenAI was just sent to me. These seem like concerns worth investigating. gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e4…

@Altimor Can you stay for 2 days and fix the "let's upgrade Zoom now that your meeting is getting started" feature?

I'm gonna take a job at zoom On day 1, fix the log in required before *every single meeting* And quit right after

@lindayaX Who exactly do you mean when you say "we"?

X’s point of view has always been very clear that discrimination by everyone should STOP across the board -- I think that's something we can and should all agree on. When it comes to this platform -- X has also been extremely clear about our efforts to combat antisemitism and discrimination. There's no place for it anywhere in the world -- it's ugly and wrong. Full stop.

@ianbremmer You are correct that there is a real risk of China's influencer here. But I'd rather see this than them getting their "news" from Fox and Newsmax.

we’re doomed

Yes! Very well said Ed. As AI helps take humanity to the next level, we cannot allow the creative geniuses who trained the AI to be pushed to the edges. I applaud you for not only staking out the right position, but for being so true to your convictions to leave and call attention to this.

I’ve resigned from my role leading the Audio team at Stability AI, because I don’t agree with the company’s opinion that training generative AI models on copyrighted works is ‘fair use’. First off, I want to say that there are lots of people at Stability who are deeply thoughtful about these issues. I’m proud that we were able to launch a state-of-the-art AI music generation product trained on licensed training data, sharing the revenue from the model with rights-holders. I’m grateful to my many colleagues who worked on this with me and who supported our team, and particularly to Emad for giving us the opportunity to build and ship it. I’m thankful for my time at Stability, and in many ways I think they take a more nuanced view on this topic than some of their competitors. But, despite this, I wasn’t able to change the prevailing opinion on fair use at the company. This was made clear when the US Copyright Office recently invited public comments on generative AI and copyright, and Stability was one of many AI companies to respond. Stability’s 23-page submission included this on its opening page: “We believe that Al development is an acceptable, transformative, and socially-beneficial use of existing content that is protected by fair use”. For those unfamiliar with ‘fair use’, this claims that training an AI model on copyrighted works doesn’t infringe the copyright in those works, so it can be done without permission, and without payment. This is a position that is fairly standard across many of the large generative AI companies, and other big tech companies building these models — it’s far from a view that is unique to Stability. But it’s a position I disagree with. I disagree because one of the factors affecting whether the act of copying is fair use, according to Congress, is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. Today’s generative AI models can clearly be used to create works that compete with the copyrighted works they are trained on. So I don’t see how using copyrighted works to train generative AI models of this nature can be considered fair use. But setting aside the fair use argument for a moment — since ‘fair use’ wasn’t designed with generative AI in mind — training generative AI models in this way is, to me, wrong. Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable in a society that has set up the economics of the creative arts such that creators rely on copyright. To be clear, I’m a supporter of generative AI. It will have many benefits — that’s why I’ve worked on it for 13 years. But I can only support generative AI that doesn’t exploit creators by training models — which may replace them — on their work without permission. I’m sure I’m not the only person inside these generative AI companies who doesn’t think the claim of ‘fair use’ is fair to creators. I hope others will speak up, either internally or in public, so that companies realise that exploiting creators can’t be the long-term solution in generative AI.

@EvaWBos Where's the "I like that you said it, but I hate that it's true" button?

Being a female founder means learning what implicit bias means.

@Roshan_Rinaldi Mopping up crack related crime.

Meanwhile,... in New York City:

@ianbremmer At least he already knows his way around the Capitol building.

can't wait to see his committee assignments

@douglaswils @KSPrior @joe_rigney This is what fitting your neck for a millstone looks like.

@KSPrior @joe_rigney Yes, we agree on accountability commensurate with the level of culpability. We agree on the principle. Good so far. But in this particular instance, your understanding of the events is coming from someone who covered it up for a couple of years.

Since it’s #NoQuarterNovember, I’d just like to state my unqualified endorsement of womb-like compassion.

@matttebbe Recovering Evangelical - 3 decades in and still pulling out thorns I didn't realize were there

If you once identified as a conservative or evangelical christian but don't anymore which descriptions or identities do you most identify with? 1. Exvangelical 2. Post-evangelical 3. Christian 4. Spiritual but not religious 5. Christ-follower 6. Progressive Christian 7. Other