Very successful by just being careful and walking it forward.

Yes its about 2 years, August 2024 from git it looks like.

The simpler answer is that there is almost no value outside of buying some customers.

As you've proven to yourself the engineering work is doable on your own.

I've made my own agent and wired it to emacs via ACP... 60 billion in value, ok... sure...

https://agentclientprotocol.com/get-started/clients

No prompts/promptchain/context provided.

No model provided.

No attempt to show how to reproduce the issue.

No attempt at even confirming it themselves.

Just feelings.

and now a thread full of more feelings from others.

So yeah... plenty of real world versions of that.

They make a constructive IP assertion with the watermark claim of origin that persists across mutation. (ie the "artist" signs their work)

They then quitclaim the IP assertion via TOS.

These are not equivalent rights and reversions though and now you have an IP encumbered and weird legal state because of the DRM.

Most people put so little effort into prompting them that they come out statistically "average" which makes them blatantly ugly.

Most of them are pretty bad just like 90% of everything is bad. Humans create bad art all day long too.

I gave a specific example of a making a texture for a videogame? How does that change what you actually said to me very specifically despite maybe not reading what I said?

To the extent that I'm upset its at peoples capitulation at this DRM nonsense over being overly reactive to ... internet images which dont matter.

You should also think about whether, suddenly, courts can now trust images they see because this technology exists?

I think thats not even basically plausible.

If you read my original point you'd see I said "weird DRM glorp" which you and other have tried, and failed to only closely parse "DRM" so that you could nitpick poorly.

It is integral and part of DRM systems and certainly "weird DRM glorp" for an actual close reader.

DRM is not just "I cant watch X movie because DRM" even if that is the statistically prevalent understanding of DRM.

Its a suite of technologies of which watermarking is one of.

I have an IP address so therefore this is all fine?

"Every accusation is a confession" also seems like an insinuation that I have something to hide but you have "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"ie the very generic privacy right fallacy.

As for "vibes driven"... this whole technical "fix" is a result of the reactionary "vibe" of the ai moral panic, your "notes" don't seem to be providing any perspective there?

"this image made by OpenAI" is a drm assertion

You wont be able to assert copyright of the picture that you added an OpenAI red bowtie to, thats a DRM issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Wate...

What image is going to change your worldview so radically that the drm saves you?

edit - to be clear you are watermarking 100,000 fishes with mustaches because of your concern over 1 image that "matters" (and you don't even have an image that matters in mind)

Only criminals and bad actors want private defaults?

The burden of proof is proving there is some harm or problem that needs solving and noone has managed that in this thread or generally.

There is no case that any of its particularly harmful outside of things like CSAM which is illegal.

So what does a deepfake matter?

So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all.

So that you don't have to address any of the issues?

Its a tool with different modalties and affordances.