IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, March 26, 2024

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> A bit more candid language about language.

> https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/betrayal

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> A chage of heart on our image

> https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/nomoreai

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> very good wishes,

schestowitz[TR2]

Thanks, we'll link to those later.

schestowitz[TR2]

I try hard to avoid all CG crap (it's not AI, it's CG), but it's not always trivial to spot it.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-cybershow.uk | Words Betray Us

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-cybershow.uk | Rethinking AI images on The Cybershow

>> http://techrights.org/n/2024/03/24/Diaspora_is_Dying_It_Also_Killed_One_of_its_Cofounders.shtml

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> This belongs in some of the sites that are keeping lists of the deaths

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> Do you know of any others that can be added in the next update?

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

> Did you ever hear Ray Dassen's cause of death?

schestowitz[TR2]

I don't even know who that is.

schestowitz[TR2]

MinceR in IRC has long referred to Debian as DEADIAN.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Techrights — Diaspora is Dying. It Also 'Killed' One of its Cofounders.

*jacobk (~quassel@nm9nu8gvkax2u.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 05:03

*Disconnected (Network is unreachable).

Mar 26 06:19

*Now talking on #techbytes

Mar 26 06:20

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 08:47

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/nomoreai/">Rethinking AI images on The Cybershow</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

<p>Doubts emerged late last year after Helen battled with many of the generative platforms to get less racist and gendered cultural assumptions. We even had some ideas for an episode about baked bias, but other podcasters picked up on that and did a fine job of investigating and explicating. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

<p> Though, maybe more is still to be said. With time I've noticed the "guardrails" are staring to close in like a pack of dogs. The tools seem ever less willing to output edgy ideas critical of corporate gangsters. That feels like a direct impingement on visual art culture. Much like most of the now enshitified internet there seems to be an built-in aversion to humour, and for that matter to

schestowitz[TR2]

hope, love or faith in the future of humaity. The "five giant websites filled with screenshots of text from the other four" are devoid of anything human. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

<p> Like the companies that make them, commercial AI tools seem to have blind-spots around irony, juxtaposition and irreverence. They have no chutzpah. Perhaps we are just bumping into the limits of machine creativity in its current iteration. Or maybe there's a "directing mind", biasing output toward tepid, mediocre "acceptability". That's not us! </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/plasma-6-review-second.html">Plasma 6 second review - Not bad, but more work is needed</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

<p>A couple of weeks ago, I tested Plasma 6 for the first time. Long story short, the test was somewhat of a dud. While the desktop environment delivered, the underlying test platform, KDE neon, did not. I was not able to install the distro on an AMD-powered laptop, due to errors in the installation wizard itself, and consequently, I had to limit my review to just the impressions from

schestowitz[TR2]

a virtual machine setup. C'est la Tux. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

<p> Now, there's a new image of the KDE neon User Edition available, so perhaps I will be so lucky, lucky lucky, or something. All right, time to repeat the test. My IdeaPad 3 machine, AMD processor and integrated graphics. If this turns out fine, in the third review, we shall expand to a system with an Intel processor and a discrete Nvidia card. So hybrid graphics, Nvidia vs. Wayland

schestowitz[TR2]

, ought to be interesting. Let's start, then. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.dedoimedo.com | Plasma 6 second review - Not bad, but more work is needed

*jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 09:39

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Mar 26 10:05

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 10:20

schestowitz[TR2]

<li>

schestowitz[TR2]

<h5><a href="https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/betrayal/">Words Betray Us</a></h5>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

<p>What is missing in Schneier and Sanders' account is the word abuse. Just as drugs can be abused despite offering great potential benefits, so can technology. Each of the social problems described in his list is really a simple abuse. Perhaps Tristan Harris is the among the few able to so boldly call out what is inhumane. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

<p> Abuse occurs within power relationships. It need not be criminal, technically. Indeed most of what Schneier and Sanders describe is accepted, legitimised or at least normalised. That does not make it any less abusive. </p>

schestowitz[TR2]

</blockquote>

schestowitz[TR2]

</li>

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-cybershow.uk | Words Betray Us

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-dramatic-reversal-in-crispr.html?showComment=1711370852321#c5147961929004615870

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Mar 26 12:47

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 13:01

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 13:44

*Disconnected (Network is unreachable).

Mar 26 13:48

*Now talking on #techbytes

Mar 26 13:49

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 14:57

*jacobk (~quassel@hqipcnw2u5ica.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 15:20

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 16:17

*jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 16:46

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 17:55

*jacobk (~quassel@8cgmbeq9ipg9s.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 18:05

*Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 18:23

*Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 18:27

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 18:56

*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 19:11

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 20:43

*jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 20:54

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Mar 26 20:58

*Guest19014 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

Mar 26 21:33

*Guest19014 (~Rodney@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 21:46

*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)

Mar 26 22:36

schestowitz[TR2]

"The EPO has always been horrendous at handling these kinds of evidence correctly. Unless priority was claimed from a priority application filed at the EPO, they should have stayed out of the whole issue and left priority entitlement to be a matter of national law as those laws intersect with the PCT. This shambles of a decision is what you get when the EPO overreaches its core competencies."

Mar 26 22:41

schestowitz[TR2]

Mar 26 22:42

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Guest post] Dramatic reversal in the CRISPR Broad Institute cases following G 1/22 - The IPKat

Mar 26 22:42

*jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes

Mar 26 22:43

schestowitz[TR2]

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/discrepancies-in-description-should-be.html?showComment=1711395566282#c1131490703122076598

schestowitz[TR2]

"Today I read the JCB appeal court decision and found in it a nice example of an entire case turning on just one word in claim 1. Here "disable". One would think the word clear. One would think there is no need for an Art 84 EPC objection to it during pre-grant prosecution. Only when the prior art doc "Aichi" is applied for the first time, in a petition to revoke the patent, does it emerge that "disable&qu

schestowitz[TR2]

ot; can be construed in two different ways.<br /><br />Thus, the case is a helpful reminder that it is a futile pursuit of the EPO, to suppose that in ex Parte pre-grant proceedings it can anticipate every objection to the clarity of every word in claim 1 of the patent monopoly in suit.<br /><br />Of the two meanings of "disable" the court of first instance jumped one way and the court of appeal (CA) the other. What consi

schestowitz[TR2]

deration was it, that persuaded the CA to jump the other way? Why, the technical purpose of the act of disabling. And how to divine that purpose? Look at the specification. <br /><br />For me, the CA decision (from the very experienced patentJudge Colin Birss) got it right. Obviously, the judge was helped enormously by the content of the file of litigation, the argument over the facts, right up to that point. How often does a TBA a

schestowitz[TR2]

t the EPO see the case differently from the OD? How every tribunal other than the English CA got it wrong, I don't understand. Perhaps by construing the patent monopoly in suit differently from any other document, by taking the claim in isolation rather than in the context of the description?<br /><br />I'm grateful to Kant for flagging up the case. Despite its failure to include the magic words "Art 69, EPC" I still see

schestowitz[TR2]

it as very relevant to the debate about how to construe a claim at the EPO, both before and after grant.'

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/discrepancies-in-description-should-be.html?showComment=1711381777725#c696579184793315404

schestowitz[TR2]

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22) - The IPKat

schestowitz[TR2]

">Mr Thomas,

schestowitz[TR2]

Sorry for this tardy response to your ...</a></h5><blockquote>Mr Thomas,<br /><br />Sorry for this tardy response to your comment.<br /><br />The principle of the primacy of claims in claim interpretation may be a « red line » for BOAs as you suggest. But this principle does not in any way negate the crucial and obvious role of the description and of the drawings, if any, to gain understanding of and convey meaning to the terms o

schestowitz[TR2]

f the claims. Concretely, this is illustrated when there are drawings by the requirement to include in the claims reference numbers used in the drawings and the description.<br /><br />There is a red line anyway, it is the well established principle that the interpretation of a claim for the assessment of patentability cannot read into the claim unclaimed features disclosed in the description. An argument based on an unclaimed feat

schestowitz[TR2]

ure to distinguish over the prior art, if acknowledged as convincing by the deciding body, must also be considered ineffective unless the applicant or patent monopoly owner amends the claim to enter this feature.<br /><br />As to the case of a claimed feature presented as « optional » in the description, I am not surprised by your position. But I do not see this inconsistency as an issue of serious concern. When a feature is ent

schestowitz[TR2]

ered into a claim, it implies that it is made objectively essential and considered as such by the applicant or patent monopoly owner. This makes obsolete the presentation of the feature in the description as « optional ». And in my opinion, such a presentation casts no doubt either as to clarity (the meaning is not affected by the term « optional » in the description) or support (the feature is disclosed in the description whet

schestowitz[TR2]

her presented as optional or not). <br /><br />The term « optional » or equivalent terms are objectionable when they are included in a claim e.g. if the feature is preceded by such as « preferably » or « for example ».<br />"