Posted on 01/02/2025 11:05:33 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Disclaimer: The title of this thread is the title of the video at youtube. I don't necessarily think it will change your life.
I don't like Google and have never used Gemini. That said, there were some things in the video about this new rendition of Gemini that were quite impressive.
The summary below was provided by ChatGPT in html (so I could just insert it into the thread).
The video introduces Gemini 2.0, a cutting-edge AI assistant developed by Google, highlighting its features, applications, and real-world use cases.
Gemini 2.0 is a versatile, free AI tool with impressive performance and practical applications. It sets a new standard in multimodal AI, outperforming many alternatives, and is particularly suited for education, daily tasks, and exploratory use. The video emphasizes that Gemini 2.0 could be transformative for users looking for an all-in-one AI assistant.
People who quibble over whether or not it is intelligent or sentient overlook the brilliance of its work product.
Re: the Tim Gallaudet interview with Sean Ryan: While there wasn’t anything particularly groundbreaking, I found Gallaudet to be a captivating figure with a unique perspective. As both an admiral and an oceanographer, he brings a wealth of knowledge to the topic of UAPs, though much of what he probably knows is classified. What he can discuss primarily consists of circumstantial evidence, making it all the more important to read between the lines to piece together the bigger picture. And by the way, there’s a lot between the lines in this interview.
That said, when a Navy flag officer speaks out on this subject, it’s significant. Gallaudet’s comments don’t feel like they’re just his personal opinions—I get the impression he’s representing a broader group of officers who share his viewpoint. His perspective underscores that the military isn’t monolithic on this issue. There seems to be a clear divide between those, like Gallaudet, who believe the public deserves transparency, and others (like the Air Force) who believe this isn’t any of the public’s business.
Here's your question:
If you have a product idea and use an AI platform to help design, manufacture, and distribute it, is the resulting product the property of that AI platform?Here's the answer from ChatGPT:
This is a great and timely question, as the use of AI tools in product development raises important legal and ethical considerations. Here's a general analysis:
1. Ownership of the Idea
- If you came up with the product idea and used the AI platform as a tool to assist with designing, manufacturing, or distributing it, you are the owner of the idea and the resulting product.
- AI platforms are generally treated as tools, much like using software like CAD for design or a spreadsheet for analysis. The creativity and intellectual property rights remain with the person who provided the original concept and directed the work.
2. Terms of Service (TOS) of the AI Platform
- Many AI platforms include terms of service that specify intellectual property (IP) rights.
- Common Scenarios:
- You retain ownership of any output created with the platform unless the terms state otherwise.
- The platform may retain a license to use your output, typically for improving the AI or for promotional purposes.
- What to Check: Always review the platform's TOS to ensure you understand if they claim any rights over your output.
3. Copyright and Patent Implications
- Copyright:
- In many jurisdictions, human creativity is required to claim copyright. If you directed the AI and had a substantial role in the process, the output is likely considered your creation.
- Patents:
- If the product involves an invention, the person who conceived and directed the inventive process is usually the rightful owner. The AI is seen as a tool, not an inventor.
- However, some jurisdictions are grappling with how to handle AI-generated inventions.
4. Potential Pitfalls
- Shared Rights: If the AI platform’s TOS includes clauses granting them ownership or co-ownership of the output, this could lead to disputes.
- Third-Party Components: If the AI incorporates third-party designs, software, or other elements in the product, you may face licensing or IP issues.
- Trade Secrets: Using an AI platform may risk exposing sensitive product details, so ensure the platform has robust confidentiality protections.
5. Best Practices
- Review Terms of Service: Understand the specific rights and limitations associated with the AI platform.
- Document Your Contribution: Maintain clear records of your idea and the steps you directed in the development process to establish ownership.
- Consult a Lawyer: For complex or high-value products, seek legal advice to ensure your intellectual property rights are protected.
- Consider AI Providers: Choose AI platforms that explicitly state that you retain full ownership of your output.
Conclusion
The resulting product is typically your property, provided the idea and direction came from you. However, ownership could be affected by the platform’s terms of service or any third-party elements involved. To safeguard your rights, always understand the platform's TOS and, if in doubt, consult legal experts.
Let me know if you’d like a deeper dive into specific scenarios!
I listened to the interview and Sean Ryan did his usual excellent job. A few thoughts:
1. Gallaudet is definitely credible. I have no reason to doubt anything he said.
2. It sounds like he has no idea who is really “in charge”. He made assumptions about who he thought might be running the coverup (DCI, National Security Advisor) but had no hard evidence for it.
3. Likewise he had no explanation about how the secret-keepers pass on their secrets from one administration to another—or one decade or another. Matthew Pines has much deeper analysis on these points.
4. That means the Admiral is flying blind—very dangerous imho. It is the exact hazard he describes about submariners not having a good map of sections of the ocean floor.
5. What is he supposed to do if he finds an underwater base that could be human or NHI or both? Is it national security and he needs to keep quiet about it? I don’t think he has thought this stuff all the way through.
Anyway—I think Matthew Pines is the guy who is cutting edge—has a deep understanding of the federal and corporate bureaucracies, understands secret organizations including secret societies—so Pines is not flying blind.
That means Pines has credibility with whoever is pulling the strings—and could persuade them it is in their long term interest to allow all of us to share in technological wonders that are within our reach—and Pines has the brilliance to help them map win win tactics.
Particularly this part:
I hear a lot of Luddites and naysayers on this forum. I advise taking advantage of the rich opportunities.
As a Navy flag officer, Gallaudet likely has access to information Pines can only speculate about. His credentials are extraordinary: Oceanographer of the Navy, Commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, and Acting Administrator of NOAA. If anyone in the Navy knows the truth about underwater or transmedium UAPs, it’s Gallaudet. His background places him in a unique position to understand and contextualize these phenomena.
If you listen closely to Gallaudet he does say:
“I don’t know what they are.”
He does not say:
“I do know what they are but I can’t reveal that because it is covered by National Security.”
I take him at his word.
He does not know what the USOs are.
His role in the Navy was extraordinarily important because weather and oceanography are critical to naval operations. Without superior data from Gallaudet's command, the Navy would face significant disadvantages in mission planning and execution, from submarine warfare to carrier operations.
Unlike most Naval flag officers, his responsibilities spanned the full spectrum of naval operations—military strategy/execution, scientific exploration, and intelligence integration.
He knows.
That covers a vast range of possibilities. And I wouldn't take anyone in the military at their word when it comes to classified intel.
So if you are correct we are stuck with the hilarious philosophy class puzzle:
“This statement is false.”
Lol.
I mean he knows that "they" are here and they aren't human. And he knows as much as anyone in the Navy knows unless the Navy has a rogue element that is somehow connected to the black programs.
As Sun Tzu says, "All warfare is based on deception."
The military lies for a living.
I usually dislike McGuire because he's rabidly anti-Trump and I think he does a disservice to the UAP/UFO issue by sharing his politics. But this is a good interview.
As an aside, he sure has porked up. He's dangerously obese. His shirt could pop a button and put someone's eye out.;-)
There is one book on the alleged Navy Secret Space Program btw:
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Program-Extraterrestrial-Alliance-Programs/dp/0998603805/
We're talking about 80+ years since then.
I could discuss this for hours—but “anti-gravity” is a folk version of the technology allegedly being used.
The actual claim is that “portals” are created and the craft “skip” through them.
Since the “portal” is not part of our space/time it is not subject to our “laws of gravity”.
As to secrecy—it all depends on how you define the term.
There have been many dozens of folks claiming to participate in the programs.
The counter-intelligence “trick” is to minimize the number of “respectable” people who believe them.
The issue I have with Salla's work is that it is speculative and unsupported by a convincing argument—though that doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue. That said, if Salla has knowledge of gravitic propulsion and is still alive to discuss it openly, it raises the question of why even a small aspect of this 'technology' hasn't visibly influenced today's military advancements.
Salla’s witnesses give general descriptions of what is happening—kinda like if you fly on a plane that does not mean you know how the engine works but you know what you are seeing when you look out the window.
I do not believe or disbelieve his stuff—I just pay attention to it, file it away for later—and then try to evaluate it when I get additional data from other sources.
There is no “soft landing” for disclosure—I think the .gov figured that much out in the 1940s.
You are either in—or you are out.
Grusch in particular has really messed up the coverup.
I started excluding Salla a long time ago. I might have been wrong, but one has to draw the line somewhere.
As you know (as a financial professional), I am a skeptic until I can establish confidence in something. When it comes to this subject, the so-called truth is a moving target.
As an aside, I spent many years doing due diligence on companies and projects. I developed good antennae.
I don't invest (money or faith) until I can get comfortable...and I am very careful.
Agreed. Grusch has been well vetted and shown himself to be a solid whistleblower.
On another issue, I have develop a keen sense of who to listen to and who to discard.
You are in the elite group of those I listen to.
I still make mistakes, but I am always improving.;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.