Steve

That's already been ruled on once.

A recent lawsuit challenged the human-authorship requirement in the context of works purportedly “authored” by AI. In June 2022, Stephen Thaler sued the Copyright Office for denying his application to register a visual artwork that he claims was authored “autonomously” by an AI program called the Creativity Machine. Dr. Thaler argued that human authorship is not required by the Copyright Act. On August 18, 2023, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Copyright Office. The court held that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim,” reasoning that only human authors need copyright as an incentive to create works. Dr. Thaler has stated that he plans to appeal the decision.

Why would companies care about copyright of the output? The value is in the tool to create it. The whole issue to me revolves around the AI company profiting on it's service. A service built on a massive library of copyrighted works. It seems clear to me, a large portion of their revenue should go equally to the owners of the works in their database.

This is an interesting idea. Absolutely worth looking into. But I wouldn't approve it to use on active cases until the false positive rate was below 1:1000.

There are a lot of things I don't like about academia's traditions.

Having references and sources is a must. Putting them on screen during a presentation is not.
The presentation is not the authoritative final version of the research for others to reference. It's the quick entertaining version. It's the advertisement for the paper. The paper needs the citations. The presentation just needs to entertain and entice. A presentation is a kind of performance. A one person play of sorts. Audience members don't stop a play in the middle to check sources, or ask questions. Q&A comes after the presentation is finished. You can have a separate slide deck, of only charts and graphics with corresponding numbers that you hand out to the audience specifically for questions. But that's not part of the presentation.

Or at least it should be that way.

I would push back on 7 and 8, and say footnotes shouldn't be part of your slides at all. Those are for documentation and reference materials you hand out, not the slides during the presentation. Avoid any incentive to look at something other than the screen.

I would double down on 9. Presentation flow is absolutely number one. Looks don't matter much at all. I only use simple black text on white backgrounds, inverting it for impact. Nothing fancier.

I just assumed 5 and 6. If you ever have to go back to a previous slide, I just thought you made a mistake and forgot something. Planing to do that is just kind of insane. And yeah, people with poor eyesight should be able to read it from standing against the back wall.

You're still just thinking of how everyone currently uses them. Which I said was the wrong way. None of the uses you mentioned has anything to do with the presentation it's self. You know, the part where you're lecturing in front of a group of people. Knowing how to make a slide deck is all the difference in how useful they are.

What I suggested, flat out, can not be used for anything you said. You might have 70+ slides for a 10min presentation. But it works great during the presentation itself. (What it's supposed to be for). My style guide works for emphasizing points, entertaining and maintaining attention, so people remember more and don't need to reference as much later. It makes the actual presentation better. Not just something to replace notes or reference materials for later. If you're designing your slide deck to actually hand out for people to read, it'll be rubbish for the actual presentation.

That's because most people don't know how to make them. When your presenter is basically reading the slides to everyone and making a few comments, they're doing it wrong.

1. No text slide should be on the screen for more than 4 seconds. (2-3 is better) And it must be fully readable in that time.
2. Charts, graphs, and images can be up for as long as needed, but the only text should label specific parts.
3. Don't use fancy transitions or pretty backgrounds for anything.
4. Breaking the above rules is okay once or twice, if you have a very specific reason for that specific slide.

Are you genuinely asking? Because I thought all these jokes were made when it was first unveiled 5 years ago?

Depicting someone isn't a problem. The only harm comes from actual fraud. Tying to pass a fake as real.

Nobody will think George Carlin made a new special for Youtube. The video in fact explains how that's not the case. It'll be very hard to show any actual harm caused by it, beyond some morbid bad taste.

Wouldn't normal fraud laws apply quite well. I'm not sure AI materially changes that kind of thing. Perhaps the scale of it? You could easily rack up 1000 charges an hour. I think a couple millennia of consecutive prison sentences is enough.

That statements literally means [she want's to] [because she can].
As in, the ability is driving the desire.

But that's not how it works. We're able to do lots of things we don't want to.
The desire might not come from anything identifiable. The existence of desire is it's self the reason. The ability isn't the reason.

Does that make sense? It's a nuanced difference for sure. But an important one logically.

Hiring someone in Texas is different than hiring someone from Texas.

OMG Stop! You're too funny! It's like I'm in middle school!