Ideally, AI is the larger umbrella term for just about anything. It should not be the term used when speaking critically of a specific kind of AI: NPC AI, TTS (text to speech), STT (speech to text), ML models for vision, GenAI (LLMs, image generators, audio generators, video generators) etc.
When speaking critically, most people do mean “GenAI” and that should be the distinction.
Looks like everything is up and running again: https://status.canonical.com/
Longest outage today was ~3 hours. Another was ~1 hour.
Then about 6 incidents of ~20min each.
TL/DR: You can read about it in detail here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1416.pdf
According to PrivacyGuides, regarding this announcement:
The payment uses the same zero-knowledge proofs as Signal’s donation system, so they won’t be able to correlate your payment info to you.
According to Signal’s support article:
Is my payment information linked to my Signal account?
No. Your payment information is not associated with your Signal account. Using the anonymous credential scheme that we introduced for Signal private groups, clients make payments and then associate a badge to their profile such that the server can authenticate the client is in the set of people who made a payment, but doesn’t know specifically which payment it corresponds to.
That’s really going to depend on how strictly you define “vibe coded”. If that means that someone put in a single prompt and the LLM spit out an entire program, then yes, I doubt that would be copyrightable.
However, if the person “vibe coding” does understand how to program, and they use multiple prompts and organize the code to make a working product, then the code could be copyrightable by compilation:
It’s a little more complicated than how you’re making it out to be and it’s also going to depend on where you live.
TL/DR: It can be copyrightable as a whole, but the output of a single prompt is not likely copyrightable.
The U.S. Copyright Office put together a report in 2025 on how AI is being handled in the U.S. as well as in other parts of the world.
See Section II - F: “Modifying or Arranging AI-Generated Content”
Generating content with AI is often an initial or intermediate step, and human authorship may be added in the final product. As explained in the AI Registration Guidance, “a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’”¹²⁶ A human may also “modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.”¹²⁷
As several commenters noted, human authors should be able to claim copyright if they select, coordinate, and arrange AI-generated material in a creative way.¹²⁸ This would provide protection for the output as a whole (although not the AI-generated material alone).¹²⁹ A relatively common scenario in registration applications is the combination of human-authored text with AI-generated images. In one early case, for instance, the Office found that the selection and arrangement of AI-generated images with human-authored text in a comic book were protectable as a compilation.
Then if you skip to the conclusion of the report:
As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
If you’re curious where your country falls on the spectrum, see Section III - International Approaches.
Edit: added TL/DR.
Ok actually watching it play beat saber was pretty interesting as well:
https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/status/2097527368919470162
Now to see if it can play Skyrim.
It’s worth pointing out that, unfortunately, it looks like using LLMs for SEO is the best option that websites have today and is likely here to stay.
Louis Rossman - I’m #1 on google thanks to AI BULL💩 - the modern internet is a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uKZ84zwJI0
You’re cutting out the important context with that quote:
Occasionally I’ll have it write more substantial code for me, usually for bug fixes, and occasionally for small features. I find it does a pretty decent job here, but I keep it on manual mode and often ask it to write the code in a different way, or take a different approach.
That doesn’t sound like someone who’s just blindly copying and pasting whatever an LLM told them to do. I agree there’s absolutely a risk with using LLM generated code that could cause some copyright issues. But the way he’s using it sounds like it minimizes that risk.
The Licensing Problem It doesn’t sound like the way the dev is using the LLM would make this a high risk issue. He’s mostly using it for testing/brainstorming/pseudo code rather than generating code to use directly.
The title of this post is incredibly misleading and I can tell you didn’t read how it’s actually being used. The dev mostly isn’t using the LLM for code generation. There wouldn’t be any “potentially unattributed plagiarism landmines” to worry about.
Edit: The dev does use the code in some cases, see below.
I think you meant LLM tools?
If you’re meaning all AI tools then that also includes anything ML related. Accessibility tools such as Speech to Text models, Text to Speech models.
Research tools such as those used to virtually unravel and read heavily damaged or incredibly fragile ancient scrolls, tools to help detect exoplanets, or tools for discovering cures to diseases.
And more.
Looks like a lot of people are already connecting to this to check it out.
Direct link to the simulation for anyone curious:
https://nikolays.github.io/PGSimCity/
On Android, SherpaTTS pulls in a number of different Piper and Coqui voice models. They definitely sound a lot better than this.
Yeah, unfortunately, they’re good at what they do. Hopefully a better service will come along, or archive.org improves their archival methods. It’s also going to be hard to find a service that ignores requests to delete archived pages.
Obviously, scanning the content of messages and content is controversial, but Apple says it performs the scan on the device. Users can also turn the feature off in the settings. “Sensitive Content Warning uses on-device machine learning to analyze photos and videos. Because they’re analyzed on your device, Apple doesn’t receive an indication that nudity was detected and doesn’t get access to the photos or videos as a result,” its website adds.
I’d rather these kind of systems be set up to run locally like this, even better that we are given control to disable it. For the ML model it’s a balance between too many false positives and too many false negatives.
We probably should find a better archive service:
https://piefed.zip/c/youshouldknow/p/1201608/ysk-archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-this-blog-and-more
Certainly looks interesting, but I have to mention that I’m not a fan of the Discord Rich Presence feature. The directory access that this typically requires immediately bumps up any flatpak to a medium risk category.
Granted I’m definitely one of those users that does not care to share my current status to all other users as to what I’m watching/listening to at every moment.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office, it absolutely can, but it depends on how much control the user exerts on the final product.
If a single prompt was used and they copy pasted the entire thing, then yes, as you have said, it is not copyrightable.
However, if multiple prompts were used and the end result is compiled/arranged with enough direction by the end user, then it can be copyrighted by compilation.
Generating content with AI is often an initial or intermediate step, and human authorship may be added in the final product. As explained in the AI Registration Guidance, “a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’”¹²⁶ A human may also “modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.”¹²⁷
As several commenters noted, human authors should be able to claim copyright if they select, coordinate, and arrange AI-generated material in a creative way.¹²⁸ This would provide protection for the output as a whole (although not the AI-generated material alone).¹²⁹ A relatively common scenario in registration applications is the combination of human-authored text with AI-generated images. In one early case, for instance, the Office found that the selection and arrangement of AI-generated images with human-authored text in a comic book were protectable as a compilation.
A small locally run model would work and it would use less electricity than what’s needed for spending time researching different lists from different websites.