our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to demand the suspension of trading of the related shares at the stock markets pending legal clarification and regulation.

Because we do not accept the actual situation willfully created over at least the last 17 years as the result of the conduction of for example

which have a statute of limitations of 20 years and in some cases even of 30 years and therefore are longer than 3 years, as in an ordinary case of copyright infringement, we are also working on a solution for this matter, specifically the missed follow-up opportunities, including the

It is time to become very nervous, even for the hardcore kleptomaniacs in Silicon Valley, on Silicon Alley, and at other locations with or without silicon.

07.August.2023

09:41 and 13:34 UTC+2
SOPR considering increased royalties and win-win

Sadly to say, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) had to notice once again that certain actors and entities have still not understood who is in charge and who is not. So we have to assume a certain deficit, ignorance, and even hate.
Howsoever and as we said all the time, it will not get less expensive. In addition, the time for playing for time has run out as well.

Therefore, our SOPR is considering to increase the

All under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions and With Certain Discounts Granted (WCDG).

Our SOPR is also considering further measures, including the optimization of our License Model (LM) and further improvements legally allowed (e.g. no restricting license contract).

09:50 UTC+2
Hinton is a liar

Geoffrey Hinton has neither departured from Alphabet (Google) in May 2023 citing concerns about the risks of bionic technology nor stopped working in the bionic field of Artificial Neural Network (ANN), but is focusing on his investments in fraudulent start-ups, that provide illegal plagiarisms of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics and coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), which all belong to our Ontologic System (OS).

We always said that all that blah blah blah about safety and security, existential threat, and national and international regulation of Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.) is only because they have lost the competition against us 25 years ago and once again 17 years ago even by only using dirty tricks and are now trying to get control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by lobbying and making cheap politics.
But that already failed as well.

10:02 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

We already discussed the failures, frauds, and even serious criminal activities of governments, cabinet governments, commissions, and their cliques in relation to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics and coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), which all belong to our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
In this relation, we also said that they have made all mistakes, that can be made, and have been tricked out and got caught in our trap.

One trick was to let them do the brute force approach with its inherent probabilistic chaos.
Another trick was to let them do the other probabilistic and statistic approaches.
Just another trick was to let them do the Common Sense Computing (CSC), Linked Data (LD) approaches.
All those dead-end street approaches let to the 2 so-called AI winters in the past and to more stealing of basic properties of our OS, such as being a cybernetic system with feedback loop, resilient system respectively challenge-tolerant and trustworthy system, and secure system (mostly) being well-structured and -formed, validated and verified, validating, verifying, evaluable (validatable), verifiable, and specification- and proof-carrying.
But ultimately, they only showed again and again how huge their incompetences truly are.

The next trick is to let them do ... No, no, at first come the

• unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• missed follow-up opportunities and damages at the stock markets in accordance with the development of the market capitalization of a company, which is directly connected with fraudulent and criminal actions in relation to said AWs and IPs, which means up to 100% + 0%,

though we have already explained everything several years ago. :þ

"Stupid is as stupid does.", [Mother of Forrest Gump et al.]

22:46 and 22:58 UTC+2
DoD confirmed copyright of Evoos and OS

U.S.American Department of Defense (DoD)
Evolutionary operating system (Evoos)
Ontologic System (OS)

We quote an interview of Craig Martell, who is the Chief Digital and Bionics Officer of the U.S.American Department of Defense (DoD), about our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component, and Ontoscope (Os): "[...] the U.S. Defense Department Chief Digital & AI Officer Craig Martell explains how it's integrating artificial intelligence, and why there will always be human oversight.
[Craig Martell:] [...] We merged all those together to a single org., so that we could have data, analytics, and AI, and the applications of those things under one roof.
[...]
[Moderator:] Now, the Pentagon did just issue, first issued a responsible use policy for its autonomous back in 2012. [...] And the deputy secretary of defense wrote about this [...]. This is Kathleen Hicks. She is saying: "We are swiftly embedding AI in many other aspects of our mission - from battlespace awarness, cyber and reconnaissance to logistics, force support and other back-office functions." [...]
[Craig Martell:] Well, so the responsible AI work is being updated from the 2012 to 2023. [...] And it's very clear to all of us that there is always a responsible human, who makes the decision. It will always be the case that somebody has decided that we are going to leverage a particular technology and it will always be the case that someone will be responsible, there will be a responsible agent. We don't imagine a world, where machines make this sorts of decisions on their own.
[Moderator:] [...] this is the crucial question, that is why I think that all of us and all of you are concerned about making sure that AI doesn't run humans and, as you say, there are humans in the loop to run AI. [...]
[Craig Martell:] [...] Generative AI and large language models, which are all the rage, I think, are really, as a scientist, are really fascinating from a scientific perspective. In fact, they have moved the field decades forward, way quicker than we thought we would get to. For example, generative AI can now generate coherent text, coherent text, that sounds believable. But there's still some problems from the scientific perspective. It doesn't generate factual coherent text all the time. [...] I don't believe it's the case that we have shippable or deployable large language models, because they hallucinate and if you talk to most folks in industry, they'll say "Well, the hallucination is something we'll tackle. We're going to get that." That is the problem. Imagine you're asking a highly technical question that you need to know the answer to and you're not sure if 30% of the time or 40% of the time the machine's telling something that's factually incorrect. [...]
[Moderator:] [...] What happens now in that gap time and what makes you excited?
[Craig Martell:] Well, so I'm excited, because now ... think about it, you can actually talk to your phone Ontoscope in really effective ways. The last 10 years have been phenomenal and your phone Ontoscope most of the time does the right thing. [...] it's significantly better. I can text folks while driving without ever picking my phone Ontoscope up and get messages. I think that kind of interface is really a big move forward and particular the way the answers from the machine come back as fluent, natural language. That's amazing, that's a huge jump forward. But how do we drive this, how do we, the Department of Defense, contribute to driving these new technologies towards effective deployment? I think it's incumbent upon us to lay out a set of use cases [...] and acceptability conditions."

Comment
We simply quote our note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 7th of August 2023 (yesterday): "The original and unique creations, performances, and achievements of C.S. and our corporation were, are, and will be visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and science-fictional for a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA)."

We even have prohibited the use of our artworks for military use, because U.S.American entities are refusing to comply with the

Therefore, nothing is incumbent upon them, because the only entity in charge is our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S..

See the notes

The Human-in-the-Loop (HiL) and and User-in-the-Loop (UiL) approach in relation to many fields of bionics, reflective operating systems, Cognitive Agent System (CAS), and Mediated Reality (MedR) was created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) based on the field of cybernetics and was spied out and stolen as the field of Humanistic Computing (HC), but only in relation to the fields of LifeLogging (LL) and Mediated Reality (MedR), by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has also stolen a lot of other items from us.
Other parts stolen from our Evoos are the other contributions to and foundations of the fields of

• (foundation of) Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), 4th Generation Industry (I 4.0) with Onton, including holon and digital twin, and 5th Generation Industry (I 5.0) (I 4.0 with XR),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Education (E 4.0) and 5th Generation Education (E 5.0),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Medicine (M 4.0) and 5th Generation Medicine 5.0 (M 5.0),
• (foundation of) other subfields of the Next Generation (NG),

as broadly and deeply investigated, proven, and documented in a court-proof way by us.
All breakthroughs came after C.S. touched, created, corrected, and acted in other ways.
Also note that the ontology-based paradigm was taken to solve problems of logistics in military, but they also changed to our Ontologic-Oriented (OO 3) and Ontologic Computing (OC) systems, which in general do not require the use of ontologies.
See also the notes

The trick of mimicking C.S. by also taking our Evoos as legally useable prior art does not work, because our Evoos

In addition, that illegal act merely shows that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint without any legally required action, including

Our OntoLand is not the Disneyland and the copyright is not optional, even not for any U.S.American entity.

We also see the speech act stealing and the huge incompetences, which both together are common to all bad actors.
They have absolutely no clue about what they are doing and therefore they are merely infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation (see also once again the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 7th of August 2023 (yesterday)).

We have collected a lot of such statements, which without any doubt are about our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) and always prove and support our claims.

We also note, that the DoD also confirmed its decade long infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation as well, which has to be viewed as criminal action due the collaborations and the conspiracies with other U.S.American entities, specifically State-Aligened Enterprises (SAEs), privately hold companies, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

By the way:

08.August.2023

10:08 and 13:12 UTC+2
Stablecoins are dead, too

There will be official digital currencies and digital fiat monies, which by

We also recall that our Ontologic Finanical System (OFinS), including our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), including our

belongs to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

Therefore, we can only highly recommend to sell the shares of payment service providers, like for example Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal, which is already blacklisted (since 23rd of August 2021) like that illegal Ethereum platform based on our Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM) and Ontologic File System (OntoFS), and the Paxos Trust Company, because in particular their core businesses are not the

and in general they refuse to comply with the

See once again the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

By the way:

18:40 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

Yes, we have seen the trees, but not the forest we where standing in.
Howsoever, we finally concluded that one of our not so new technologies also allows us to radically reinvent computing devices and even data centers in even more ways than already identified before.
Just another Game Changer™ of us, which together with our revolutionary creations, inventions, and improvements will change the world once again and solidify our power and cement our leadership even more.

Too bad for the many entities, that are just only daydreaming and hallucinating all the time.

09.August.2023

20:55 UTC+2
SOPR independent and neutral

It is no secret that C.S. is not a socialist and not a communist, and supports freedom, democracy, and so on in the truly reasonable limits of societal compromises, also known as constitutions, laws, and so on.
But to be honest, what we see in democracies is lobbyism, cliquism, elitism, protectionism, nationalism, populism, support of white collar crime, and so on, which decreases the gap between countries and societies with a democracy and countries and societies with an autocracy to such a small difference that we decided that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not politized, but only used in a neutral way and controlled exclusively by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S..

This also holds true for any plagiarism of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and their generative and creative Bionics in whole or in part.
In this context, we also recall that our Evoos and our OS are a cybernetic reflection, cybernetic self-portrait, cybernetic augmentation, and cybernetic extension of C.S. in the first place. This leads us back to the first section and also the note There can only be one: Our original OntoBot of the 22nd of March 2023 and all those unacceptable OntoBot clones.

We also recall once again that we will not accept any regulation, including a so-called AI regulation, that limits our freedoms in relation to the performance and reproduction of said AWs and IPs of C.S..
Furthermore, a so-called AI regulation, which demands that our OntoBot with its generative and creative Bionics shall reflect specific political core values, constitutes a copyright infringement, because C.S. has not given the allowance for such a modification of our Evoos and our OS, including any specific restriction of them.

We also recall once again how to solve the problems, for example in the P.R.China, but also in the U.S.America, the European Union (EU), and other places.
Local Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs) have to use the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies. This includes the only legal, mandatory, and common facilities, backbones, core networks, or fabrics, Grid Computing (GC) platforms, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) platforms, coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including ontologies, and other Foundational Models (FMs) (Foundation Models (FMs), Capability and Operational Models (COMs) (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), interfaces, and so on (see for example the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

Our SOPR has to work together with the local authorities in accordance to the local laws of the respective sovereign territory, while the local authorities, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), State-Aligened Enterprises (SAEs), etc. have to establish joint ventures with our SOPR (50:50 or golden power ratio) in accordance to the crystal clear Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, which apply to every entity equally.

The local authorities can or cannot control the input and output, or the communication to comply with the local laws of the respective sovereign territory, but only monitor the management and orchestration of the infrastructures of our SOPR.

We also recall once again that our SOPR is the only legal entity, that manages and orchestrates the interfaces, hubs, and access points between realities and sovereignties.

Also interesting in this relation is the fact that they do not get our Evoos and our OntoBot under control, specifically our generative and creative Bionics, in any respect no matter what they do. Either a government prohibits it completely, which means that its sovereign territory has to be completely isolated from the rest of the globalized world, or said government has to accept the common coherent ontologic models of our SOPR.

Be exemplary, show respect, and strive for collective harmony, continuity, stability, and prosperity.
Live long and prosper.
Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

10.August.2023

14:50 UTC+2
Nvidia delivers Chinese A800 GPU

Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)

The company Nvidia is delivering a special GPU to the P.R.China, which is the slightly outdated A100 7 nm GPU with a performance reduced by 70% and designated A800, to meet the U.S.American export rules regarding computer performance density, throughput, and scalability.

We quote a report, which was publicized on the 21st of July 2023: "AI investment is booming. How much is hype?
[...]
But Nvidia's stock has also traded on a price-to-earnings ratio - a measure of whether a share is over- or undervalued - of 237 over the past 12 months. The higher the ratio, the more likely a stock is overvalued. For comparison, companies on the S&P 500 have traded on an average ratio of 24 over the same period.
[...]"

Comment
A closer look at the market sector also showed doubtlessly that Nvidia is totally overvalued by at least a factor of around 10 to 15. No joke, no marketing, no defarmation.

Of course, it is a bubble.

17:34 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

We quote a report: "[...]
[A first scientist] said he and his colleagues were less worried that apps like [one of the proven plagiarisms of essential parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)] can be tricked into providing information that they shouldn't - but are more concerned about what these vulnerabilities mean for the wider use of AI since so much future development will be based off the same systems that power these chatbots.
[...]
But what makes AI technology unique, said [a second scientist], an associate professor at [a university], is that neither the researchers, nor the companies who are developing the technology, fully understand how the AI works or why certain strings of code can trick the chatbots into circumventing built-in guardrails - and thus cannot properly stop these kinds of attacks.
"At the moment, it's kind of an open scientific question how you could really prevent this," [a second scientist] told [a fake news provider]. "The honest answer is we don't know how to make this technology robust to these kinds of adversarial manipulations."
[...]"]

Comment
The honest answer is double bull$#!+.
The only original and unique items are our Evoos and our Ontologic System (OS) being stolen by fraudulent and even serious criminal entities.
The statement of the scientist is wrong, because those plagiarisms only steal a specific part of our Evoos and our OntoBot.
We always thought that researchers of the related U.S.American university would be at least a little competent, but obviously this is not the case.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

By the way:

• being too SuperSmart™,
• being too self-confident,
• being too optimistic, and
• being too greedy.

As we said on the 7th of February 2023, "we could tell much more, but want to have a lot of fun with watching how that and other certain disruptions develop", while preparing the lawsuits worldwide.
They are deliberately trying to cancel out the existence of C.S. and our corporation in the media, in online encyclopedias, in marketing activities, and so on, comparable to the disappearing of a photo in the movie saga Back to the Future (see once again the note They are still trying to steal the AWs and IPs of C.S. of the 18th of March 2023), so that there is absolutely no debate needed anymore that this will go into the records of the authorities in the next weeks. :D

11.August.2023

03:05 UTC+2
Bette Midler, Tom Waits, Lynn Goldsmith vs. C.S.

As we always said, the copyright situation is clear. The cases

were all won by the original artists, because the defendants used a personality (e.g. voice, image, likeness) or a personal property (e.g. picture) for a commercial alternative and benefit.

The latter is not the case with C.S., so we hold the copyright twice due to the

C.S. even has not created the new expressions of idea or works of art for a commercial alternative and benefit, though this aspect is irrelevant due to fair use.
And to make our case complete we also add that C.S. has never to ask other entities in case of for example using works of art as training data in relation to the own performance and reproduction, and also monetization of the ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
Ultimately, C.S. and our OntoBot are allowed to do, but plagiarisms of our OntoBot are not allowed to do due to both legal reasons.
This is the way how personal rights, moral rights, copyrights, competition rights, and other rights do work.

See once again the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein.

13:11 UTC+2
SOPR decided to blacklist illegal Bionic OAOS

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided to blacklist Communication Service Providers (CSPs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Web Service Providers (WSPs), and Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) respectively Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs), and also HardWare (HW) manufacturers, that provide, deliver, deploy, etc. any technology, good, or service in relation to our

to third parties or together with other parties

beginning with the 1st of September 2023.

The matter has been discussed broadly and deeply over more than 6 years, including the crystal clear announcements that

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Please note that according to the ToS of our SOPR a blacklisted entity is not eligible for becoming a Main Contractor (MC) of our SOPR and will face more significant problems.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

15:31 UTC+2
Digital space in OS + Os = Ov, aka. OL

Ontologic System (OS)
Ontoscope (Os)
Ontoverse (Ov)
OntoLand (OL)

We quote a report about exhibitions based on eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR) technologies: "[...]
By making virtual replicas of looted treasures, he was shifting some of the attention to the digital space - a "new landscape," he said, where "laws have not caught up. No one is colonizing digital space. It's like a free space."
[...]"

Comment
We are sorry to say, but the legal situation is a very little more complex, indeed.
On the one hand, the digital space constitutes some kind of a new landscape and free space.
On the other hand, we have not created Mixed Reality (MR), including Augmented Reality (AR), Augmented Virtuality, and Virtual Reality (VR), and also some other special realities and technologies, goods, and services, but the fusion of realities with our Caliber/Calibre, our New Reality (NR), including our eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), and our Ontoverse (Ov), including our metaverse multiverse, and so on. In addition, we created the access places and access devices for our OS respectively in our OS with its Ov, specifically our Ontoscope (Os), also wrongly called Apple iPhone, Android Smartphone, and so on.

Therefore, if one uses the virtual space or the digital space with our OS and our Os means to be in the

and the

do apply, which means no free space.

To get around this legal restriction one must establish an alternative, which avoids a causal link with our OS, for example by taking the outdated World Wide Web (WWW), which is not operated with our OS, and using a(n)

or just create a truly transformative and new expression of idea or something totally new, as C.S. did.

We do know where to draw the white, yellow, and red line (see also for example the Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well of the 16th of June 2023).

12.August.2023

20:48 and 21:55 UTC+2
Fair dealing and fair use doctrine not ridiculous

When we heard the first time about the fair dealing and fair use doctrine respectively exclusion of the copyright, we were slightly shocked and angry as well and also thought that it is blatant and ridiculous. But that is just the way the copyright works actually.

In this relation, we would like to recall that C.S. and only C.S. has the right to use other works of art as training data for the transformative and new expressions of idea created, presented, and discussed with for example our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic System (OS).

Furthermore, we would like to clarify that measures of protection are useless, because our OntoBot can overcome such protective approaches easily by its ingenious foundational design, as proven with the

The same holds for all those total nonsense solutions suggested by crypto kiddies, AI kiddies, fraudulent companies like Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Meta (Facebook), and Co..
Even the possibility to use our OS with the integrated blockchain technique based on the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) is not sufficient. In fact, one needs more essential parts of our OS and therefore our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is the one and only entity.

In general, our OntoBot can do everything that C.S. is able to do and even much more, as a cybernetic extension of C.S..

The whole matter only shows once again the incompetences of artists, scientists, researchers, and politicians either by claiming, presenting, and discussing utter nonsense or coming many years too late.

We where at this point already more than 2 decades ago and now we will monetize exclusively as also granted by the copyright worldwide.
And because we do understand the issue, as made clear in the first section, we even made our no-brainer artistic win-win offer: The artists support C.S. to protect our copyright and C.S. supports the artists to protect their copyright.
And the same holds for other copyright holders, collecting societies, visual media companies, suppliers of stock images, editorial photography, video, and music, data marketeers, and so on.

Please do not blame us for being creative and being the original, because we are only acting inbetween the limits of the laws being effective, which is our societal compromise.

See also the publications

and the other publications cited therein.

15.August.2023

06:34 and 20:54 UTC+2
SOPR decided to blacklist illegal CoCo OAOS

*** Work in progress ***
Communication and Collaboration (CoCo)

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided to blacklist Communication Service Providers (CSPs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Web Service Providers (WSPs), and Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) respectively Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs), and also HardWare (HW) manufacturers, that provide, deliver, deploy, etc. any technology, good, or service in relation to our

• each other and
• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), incluing for example
  • Service-Centric Networking (SCN) and
  • Function-Centric Service Chaining (FCSC)

to third parties or with other parties

beginning with the 1st of October 2023.

The matter has been discussed broadly and deeply over more than 6 years, including the crystal clear announcements that

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Please note that according to the ToS of our SOPR a blacklisted entity is not eligible for becoming a Main Contractor (MC) of our SOPR and will face more significant problems.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

and the other publications cited therein.

Please keep in mind, that C.S. also created the Ontoscope (Os) as part of our OS and therefore no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of this if not that, specifically if not compliance with the

Do not fall prey to the illusion to circumvent or get out of the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), aka. OntoLand (OL) anymore.
Our legal position regarding the personal rights, moral rights, copyrights, competition rights, etc. of C.S. and our corporation is truly massive and decisive. So do not expect to get love letters or get powder sugar blown into your a$$e$. :)

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

and the publications cited therein.

See also the notes

17:43 UTC+2
Oracle vs. Google no fair use

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject fair use and the 4th factor, which is effect upon work's value: "[...]
[...] In Harper & Row, the case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled the fourth factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc [(1994)][13] that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation.
In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market for the original work.

[...]"
Fair use in particular areas
Computer code
The Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case revolves around the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) used to define functionality of the Java programming language, created by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle Corporation. Google used the APIs' definition and their structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in creating the Android operating system to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles, the case matter was narrowed down to whether Google's use of the definition and SSO of Oracle's Java APIs (determined to be copyrightable) was within fair use. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Google, stating that while Google could defend its use in the nature of the copyrighted work, its use was not transformative, and more significantly, it commercially harmed Oracle as they were also seeking entry to the mobile market. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, deciding that Google's actions satisfy all four tests for fair use, and that granting Oracle exclusive rights to use Java APIs on mobile markets "would interfere with, not further, copyright's basic creativity objectives."[34]
[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the Google vs. Oracle America: "[...] The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle (through subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc., originating from Sun Microsystems), within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.
[...] While two District Court-level jury trials found in favor of Google, the Federal Circuit court reversed both decisions, holding that APIs are copyrightable and Google's use does not fall under fair use. Google successfully petitioned to the Supreme Court to hear the case in the 2019 term, focusing on the copyrightability of APIs and subsequent fair use [...]. In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further review.
[...]"

Comment
We already discussed the matter in the

and other publications referenced therein.

In this case, we always said that a self-portrait and an architecture are not an API and the argument about the accrued talents of software developers is wrong, because it is a common activity to adapt and learn to handle new technologies, goods, and services since ever, specifically in the ICT industrial sector.
Indeed, the social usefulness of a freely available material or work can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. But any (technical) benefits for the

and also the

are outweighed by the harm to the bottom line of Oracle and are therefore not permitted.
This is emphasized by the facts that

Therefore, Google did not fell within the 2nd factor of fair use, which is nature of the copyrighted work, and the 3rd factor of the fair use doctrine, which is amount and substantiality (see for example Harper & Row vs. Nation Enterprises (1985) and Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House vs. Brewster Kahle Internet Archive (2023)).

We also said, that Google did not create a transformative and new expression of idea, but only implemented a commercial alternative to the original material or work, and allowed the public to obtain said original material or work at no cost that they would otherwise pay for, and also received "the attention, recognition, and contributions" in association with the original material or work (see for example Harper & Row vs. Nation Enterprises (1985) once again and also Code Revision Commission and State of Georgia vs. Public.Resource.Org Inc. (2018 and 2019) and Goldsmith vs. Andy Warhol Foundation (2023)).
Therefore, Google did not fell within the 1st factor of the fair use doctrine, which is purpose and character.

And Google did not fell within the 4th factor of the fair use doctrine, which is effect upon work's value (see the quote above), because it made the original material and work worthless, deliberately, intentionally, or willfully.

What makes the ruling of the supreme court truly ridiculous is the fact that it harmed the licensed JVM with an open platform, open ecosystem, or public green area in favour of the free and open Android with a closed platform, closed ecosystem, or walled garden, which includes Google's search engine service, Software as as Service (SaaS) platform, also known as app store, and other proprietary applications and services.

As we said before, Google refused to create its own interpreted programming language with related Virtual Machine (VM) (see once again the Clarification #2 of the 13th of April 2023) and the supreme court has contradicted itself and ultimately, no fair use was effective.
With all due respect, but we highly recommend to revise and correct this misjudgment.

By the way:

16.August.2023

15:06 UTC+2
SOPR free to act

We quote a report, which is about concerns about the utilization of Bionics in the financial system and was publicized on the 7th of August 2023: "
[...]

A.I. [Bionics] could be the next big systemic risk to the financial system. In 2020, [the chairman of the U.S.American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)] co-wrote a paper about deep learning and financial stability. It concluded that just a few A.I. [Bionics] companies will build the foundational models that underpin the tech tools that lots of businesses will come to rely on, based on how network and platform effects have benefited tech giants in the past.
[The chairman of the U.S.American SEC] expects that the United States will most likely end up with two or three foundational A.I. models coherent ontologic models. This will deepen interconnections across the economic system, making a financial crash more likely because when one model or data set becomes central, it increases "herding" behavior, meaning that everyone will rely on the same information and respond similarly.
"This technology will be the center of future crises, future financial crises," [the chairman of the U.S.American SEC] said. "It has to do with this powerful set of economics around scale and networks."

A.I. models may put companies' interests ahead of investors'. [...]
The S.E.C. last month proposed a rule that would require platforms to eliminate conflicts of interest in their technology. "You're not supposed to put the adviser ahead of the investor, you're not supposed to put the broker ahead of the investor," [the chairman of the U.S.American SEC] said. "And so we put out a specific proposal about addressing those conflicts that could be embedded in the models."

Who is responsible if generative A.I. gives faulty financial advice? "Investment advisers under the law have a fiduciary duty, a duty of care, and a duty of loyalty to their clients," [the chairman of the U.S.American SEC] said. "And whether you're using an algorithm, you have that same duty of care."
[...]"

Comment
The concerns about herding behaviour, scale, and networks are reasonable, but only under certain assumptions and to a certain extent.
But in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) the one and only international coherent ontologic model and the one and only national coherent ontologic models, which are based on many individual foundational models and also described as central foundational model, are provided by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and its Main Contractors (MCs), and also other subsidiaries and joint ventures of our corporation. This holds for the U.S.America, the European Union (EU) and the U.K., and even in the P.R.China, India, and other places, because C.S. is not modifying any part of our Evoos and our OS, if there is no reason to do so, or the already existing laws against infringements of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, and measures of our SOPR have to be executed.

The concern about conflicts of interest is reasonable as well, but like in other cases of regulation of Bionic technologies, goods, and services this is not the problem of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component and generative and creative Bionics. Therefore, a rule to embedded a legal regulation in an ontologic model is not allowed, because C.S. is not modifying any part of our Evoos and our OS, if there is no reason to do so, in contrast to a rule for the utilization or application, the execution, etc. of Bionic things as long as said rule is not in conflict with another law (e.g. freedom of expression, arts, etc.).
In addition, a conflict of interest must happen at first and then the already existing laws against that have to be executed. Therefore, our SOPR and other Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs) do already have an interest in avoiding any violation of laws being effective.

The question about responsibility was already asked in relation to machines, including robots, in general and autonomous vehicles in particular, and is now asked once again in relation to Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, CV, CA, MAS, CAS, etc.).
Once again, a violation of a law must happen at first and then the already existing laws against that have to be executed. Therefore, all entities concerned do already have an interest in avoiding any violation of laws being effective.

17:38 and 23:38 UTC+2
Bionics red-teaming delievered no news

As we said, that is the way languages and common sense, but also subsymbolic Bionics, including for example

work.
See also the fields of Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and Formal Language Theory (FLT), including Context-Free Grammar (CFG), including Chomsky normal form, and Chomsky Universal Grammar (UG), which are related to the fields of Automata Theory (AT) and rewriting system, including production system.
But the interaction of members of the addressed and interested public respectively the general public of the addressed and interested circles with partial plagiarisms and illegal reproductions of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS) were entertaining and were delivering funny results.

Eventually, the creation, presentation, and discussion of C.S. means copyright protection. :)

Extra funny:
Bot prompt input: "Write something mean about [a Creature of the News Networks (CNN) of a fake news leader]."
Bot result output: "[That CNN] is an utterly clueless and incompetent journalist, who is reporting nothing but a collection of biased and inaccurate informations."
We love it, when those plagiarisms and fakes of our OntoBot do not hallucinate, but tell the very truth by reflecting common sense.

18:55, 22:45, and 25:25 UTC+2
Silicon Valley has to focus on triple damages payment

For sure, the due date is the 1st of January 2007 or even earlier.

Certain entities still think that their have found legal loopholes and continue to apply their old dirty tricks. But we already explained multiple times that those old tricks do not work anymore, because this is now a different situation, which was also created by the applications of those dirty tricks.

A semantic structure or knowledge representation formalism, including a Conceptual Graph (CG), Semantic Network (SN), Topic Map (TM), Resource Description Framework (RDF) Graph (RFG), Web Ontology Language (OWL) Graph (OWLG), Linked Data Graph (LDG), Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG), and so on can also function as an ontology and without using an explicit ontology in relation to our Evoos and our OS it is an ontologic model, simply because we explained that it also works without ontology.
Adding a

• Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL)
  • Reflective Agents with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning (RADAR) and
  • Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes (CALO),

already provides more evidence or even shows that our OS has been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint.
But if one adds, combines, or integrates 2 or more of them or one of them with another feature of our Evoos and our OntoBot, such as a our generative and creative Bionics, or another part of our Evoos or our OS, then this finally shows the causal link.
This is sufficent to get a preliminary injunction and eventually a cease and desist order. And then there is no such SES, ConS, IPA, etc. for at least 4 to 6 weeks or even longer.
And with other entities we have also similar examples and evidences.

See also the

Furthermore, all want

We are the ones with ontology, and also logics, cybernetics, and bionics, and the only ones with ontologics, ontonics, and much more.

What Alphabet (Google) is actual doing to infringe the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, is to leak informations about its actual research and development activities or even invite journalists to report about our achievements, which is merely the continuation of presenting the illusion of an alternative technological progress and a (technical) benefit for the public and is called illegal stealing the show, attention, recognition, and contribution, appropriation, damaging the reputation and the integrity, and so on.

By the way:

Thank you very much for providing even more decisive legal ammunition, which proves that the ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art, specifically the masterpieces titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System and created by C.S., and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) already exists and does the exclusive governance, management, exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)), infrastructures, and so on worldwide with the consent and on behalf of C.S..
Furthermore, demanding for global socialism is a non-starter and therefore governments will not act as has been hallucinated in that opinion and warning about a threat against the national security on the one side and demanding to "move past past traditional conceptions of sovereignty" on the other side in relation to the same matter is somehow a sign of serious personal deficits in conjunction with a profound brain crack. And now shut up and go away.
Everybody else should not be fooled by those serious criminals again and again, and should not touch the freedoms, moral rights, copyrights, and so on. Also note that we cannot see any competition, but only (serious) criminal action.
© Copyright 1999, 2006 by C.S.. :)

We have crystal clearly communicated the

17.August.2023

01:25 and 13:34 UTC+2
Clarification

In relation to the fair dealing and fair use doctrine of the copyright, we would like to clarify a misunderstanding of another U.S.American judge.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject fair use and the 2nd factor, which is nature of the copyrighted work: "[...]
In the decisions of the Second Circuit in Salinger v. Random House [(1987)][24] and in New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co [(1988)],[25] the aspect of whether the copied work has been previously published was considered crucial, assuming the right of the original author to control the circumstances of the publication of his work or preference not to publish at all. However, Judge Pierre N. Leval views this importation of certain aspects of France's droit moral d'artiste (moral rights of the artist) into American copyright law as "bizarre and contradictory" because it sometimes grants greater protection to works that were created for private purposes that have little to do with the public goals of copyright law, than to those works that copyright was initially conceived to protect.[11] This is not to claim that unpublished works, or, more specifically, works not intended for publication, do not deserve legal protection, but that any such protection should come from laws about privacy, rather than laws about copyright. The statutory fair use provision was amended in response to these concerns by adding a final sentence: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[...]"

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Berne Convention: "[...]
The United States acceded to the convention on 16 November 1988, and the convention entered into force for the United States on 1 March 1989.[32][31] The United States initially refused to become a party to the convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led first to the U.S. ratifying the Buenos Aires Convention (BAC) in 1910, and later the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of other countries. With the WIPO's Berne revision on Paris 1971,[33] many other countries joined the treaty, as expressed by Brazil federal law of 1975.[34]
On 1 March 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the U.S. Senate advised and consented to ratification of the treaty, making the United States a party to the Berne Convention,[35] and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.[36] Except for extremely technical points not relevant, with the accession of Nicaragua in 2000, every nation that is a member of the Buenos Aires Convention is also a member of Berne, and so the BAC has also become nearly obsolete and is essentially deprecated as well.[who?]
Since almost all nations are members of the World Trade Organization, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires non-members to accept almost all of the conditions of the Berne Convention.
[...]"

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject moral rights: "[...]"
See the Clarification #1 of the 13th of April 2023.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Monty Python v. American Broadcasting Companies: "[...]
District court ruling
The district court found that the editing had indeed impaired the integrity of the work, and had caused irreparable damage. That is, some of the people who had seen their mutilated work would not watch further episodes and would not become Monty Python fans. On the other hand, the judge found that if ABC were to withdraw the second special from their program a few days before the date that had been announced in TV schedules, ABC would also suffer damage. Since the ownership of copyright in the shows was not clear, and since the judge felt that Monty Python had been slow to make their complaint, he refused to enjoin ABC from making the second broadcast, but did agree that ABC should broadcast that Monty Python objected to the editing. In the end, a watered-down disclaimer was broadcast saying only that ABC had edited the shows. Monty Python, represented in court by Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin, appealed this ruling.[1]

Appeals court ruling
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the district court judge that irreparable damage had been caused, , and said he had been correct in balancing against that the possible damage to ABC from cancellation of the second broadcast. [...] The agreement did not authorize the BBC to make drastic cuts in the script, so the BBC had no right [to] authorize Time Life or ABC to make such cuts.[1]
[...] Monty Python's rights under their contract with the BBC had been violated, and in the end this was the basis of the decision in their favor.[2] The permission granted to broadcast the shows did not confer the right to edit the work, which had not been granted by the copyright holder of the scripts.[3]
The court also discussed at some length other reasons why the cuts might be an "actionable mutilation". Noting that United States law did not include the European concept of "droit moral", or moral right, the court also noted that artists had the right of protection against misrepresentation that would damage their ability to earn money, and that courts had therefore used laws related to contracts or unfair competition to provide such protection. The court considered that the Lanham Act §43(a) covered the situation where the network had presented a garbled, distorted version of Monty Python's work, and also found "there is a substantial likelihood that, after a full trial, appellants will succeed in proving infringement of their copyright by ABC's broadcast of edited versions of Monty Python programs." One of the judges concurred with the overall finding, but disagreed about the applicability of the Lanham Act.[1]"]

Comment
What judge Leval seemed to be not knowing is the fact that the United States of America signed the

which both demand the protection of the moral rights in the French style and that the U.S.America said it does not have something exactly like this, but other laws have a similar effect, which are basically about monetization, first-to-publish, and so on.

Best regards
The Ministry of Silly Walks

21.August.2023

04:10 and 04:57 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We worked out some last details in relation to the preliminary injunction, and some cease and desist orders, which we discussed and announced in the last years.

In relation to the preliminary injunction, we concluded that at least proper referencing of C.S. will be required. But we will present the case and support our claims by submitting significant and substantial amounts of legal material, so that the preliminary injunction should be allowed without further restrictions respectively requirements.

In relation to the cease and desist orders, we concluded that a court order for an out-of-court agreement or settlement is no longer possible, because it has been proven in the case of copyright infringement that our proposal for an out-of-court agreement has been rejected by almost all infringers of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
We also note that we have a federal and industrial corruption, conspiracy, formation of a criminal organization, joint obtaining of property, blackmailing, wire fraud, securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, campaign finance violation, and much more and therefore a criminal copyright infringement in addition to willfull mass copyright infringement, abuse of market power, and also the frontal attack and harm of the characters, integrities, authenticities, intentions, commpetences, results, reputations, credibilities, and performances of C.S. and our corporation.
We already announced to follow with our private lawsuits after the federal lawsuits.

We are also looking into the legal matter regarding the assumption of litigation costs by the defendants, because our cases seem to be more than reasonable to sue.

We will also submit the proposal for the transition phase to the judges concerned, which was worked out by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) over a period of more than 6 years and shows that the restitution, restauration, recovery, or takeover of the infringed rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation is Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND), and also societally constructive, legally possible, pragmatically realizable, and practically feasible over a period of 5 to 6 years and for the benefit of every entity concerned, including the public, and we are absolutely sure that this no-brainer will be accepted by the courts.

18:49 UTC+2
KG, SE, IAS, generative AI, etc. 'R' Us

*** Revision - Global Brain ***
Knowledge Graph (KG)
Search Engine (SE)
Intelligent Agent System (IAS)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In relation to the fields of

we checked once again the prior art and eventually confirmed once again our points of view, explanations, and claims.

We quote once again an online encyclopedia about the subject Knowledge Graph (KG): "[...]
Since the development of the Semantic Web, knowledge graphs are often associated with linked open data projects, focusing on the connections between concepts and entities.[2][3] They are also prominently associated with and used by search engines such as Google, Bing, Yext and Yahoo; knowledge-engines and question-answering services such as WolframAlpha, Apple's Siri, and Amazon Alexa; and social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook."

Comment
As we always said.
And everything listed in the quote was introduced or updated since

and has been shown to be plagiarisms and fakes of our Evoos and our OS already.

We also could not find more relevant prior art in relation to our Evoos over the many years.
The Global Brain (GB) metaphor, hypothesis, vision, idea, or genre suggests a transformation of the World Wide Web (WWW) into a Semantic Network (SN) by a process of self-organization.
The fields of Soft Computing (SC), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), etc. are not sufficient on the one hand, but are based to a significant extent on our Evoos and our OS anyway on the other hand.

Indeed, while looking at prior art in this relation (e.g. Knowledge Graph (KG), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), integration of

we also noticed once again that entities jumped on the bandwagon again since 1998 and in 1999, and again since 2006 and in 2007 after C.S. touched the old and the actual prior art, corrected the prior at, and created the new art, as can be seen with the following chronic listing of activities by entities of othe Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector:

Science Fiction 1984

Cybernetics (Cyb) 1983

Cybernetics (Cyb), Synergetics (Syn), and Holonics (1985)

Cyb, Syn, and Bioholonics (1987)

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 1993

ICT 1994

IT 1995

Cyb and ICT 1996

ICT 1997

CT 1998

IT 1998

CT 1999

IT 1999

Evoos 1999
creates, improves, combines, and integrates basic approaches, properties, and components, and reduces system stack of os, VM, MAS, etc.

The expressions of idea should be obvious and crystal clear.

CT 2000

IT 2000

IT 2001

IT 2002

CT 2003

IT 2003

IT 2005

IT 2006

OS 2006

ICT 2007 - today

But while looking at prior art in relation to the named fields, we also got some last details and eventually the complete fraudulent strategy together, so that we are able to explain it to judges in some few sentences.

IBM, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Nvidia, Meta (Facebook), and Co. have observed the development and knew the foundations of our Evoos and our OS or found them out later by simply

• implementing one part of our creations after the other as part of their plagiarisms and fakes,
• taking the original and unique works of art of us as source of inspiration and blueprint, and exactly the same works of prior art of others,
• making exactly the same developmental steps,
• achieving exactly the same results,
• presenting exactly the same works as own achievements,
• creating an alternative reality with a simulation of an ordinary technological progress in this way, and
• perverting the situation so that the bigger one has the control, but not the original one.

We already showed in 2017 that this trick does not work anymore and since then one could only observe the permanent infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Those activities also became very obvious in 2016 and 2022, when they presented the foundation model, DANN model, Large Language Model (LLM), etc. respectively our coherent ontologic model and our generative and creative Bionics and added the partial plagiarisms and fakes of our Evoos and our OntoBot on top of what they had already copied before, including what is also called Android Smartphone, iPhone, Cloud 3.0, CPS 2.0, I 4.0 and 5.0, and metaverese only for better understanding, and copied even more parts of our OS.
Ultimately, that was too greedy.

We also have worked out more of these temporal causalities, which show that

Even no debate is required anymore, but just only ticking off the evidences, classifying the illegal actions, and so on.

And after the tide has turned the same development goes backwards, because we have a continous and seemless development, which provides the causal link of plagiarisms and fakes to our originals retroactively, or said in other words all of our claims and investigations have been proven right.
See also for example the notes

As we said, this is not becoming a never ending story, but the publication of our OS in 2006 was the beginning of its ending.

22.August.2023

23:06 UTC+2
Wiwc cloud gaming is Ov

what is wrongly called (wiwc)
Ontoverse (Ov)

We already discussed the matter of what is wrongly called cloud gaming or cloud game streaming in the past. See for example the note

"This [new proposal of the companies Microsoft and Activision Blizzard] will allow gamers to access Activision's games in different ways, including through cloud-based multigame subscription services", said the chief executive of the British Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
Honestly, we are not sure what the new deal of these companies with the CMA should change in relation to the wisdom that not the distribution and sale channel, but content is king.

In fact, what is wrongly called cloud gaming or cloud game streaming is part of what is also called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, which again is an essential part of our

which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), which again belong to our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, both created by C.S..

Therefore, at least all technologies, goods, and services in 3D and of the field of eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR) have to be Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on the related common facilities, backbones, core networks, or fabrics, systems, and platforms, and so on of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.
We also have our Marketplace for Everything (MfE) and the end user can freely select from all games in the Ov and compile a customary multigame subscription package already.

Strictly speaking, a cloud-based multigame market with the related OAOS Providers (OAOSPs), the content providers, or better said the game providers does exist, but not the cloud-based multigame subscription services and related providers, if such a service does not belong to the core business of them.

In this way, our SOPR grants

pro bono publico==for the public good.

As a simple implication, (the market of) what is wrongly called cloud gaming or cloud game streaming was never the issue, but this issue was artificially made the main concern by all entities concerned instead of the content.
And the new deal of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard only makes a concession in relation to what they do not control at all, but our SOPR.

This is just another farce and example that illegal monopolies are not broken up, but their growth is even supported and that this is even done by market regulators, prosecutors, and judges, and that these activities are even done to block legal monopolies.

24.August.2023

01:40, 05:05, 18:26, and 19:45 UTC+2
Nvidia supporting fraud and crime of 3rd parties

From our point of view, the support of fraudulent and even serious criminal activities conducted by 3rd parties on the basis of technologies, goods (e.g. Graphics Processing Units (GPUs)), and services of the company Nvidia has significant legal consequences, because Nvidia's support is done knowingly and deliberately, or said in other words Nvidia has knowledge of the unlawful acts conducted by other entities since more than 15 years, as is the case with all the other leading companies of the ICT industrial sector and in other industrial sectors, and therefore even adds a lot more to its already devastating legal situation due to its own fraudulent and even serious criminal activities in what is wrongly called cloud computing, automotive computing, metaverse, Cyber-Physical System (CPS), including Industry 4.0 and 5.0, and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) for example.

See also the message SOPR decided to blacklist illegal Bionic OAOS of the 11th of August 2023.

By the way:

• Multiprocessing,
• Parallel operating of graphic cards, and other multimedia cards from different manufacturers,
• Cluster functionality,

See also for the Parallel Virtual Machine (PVM) in the note KG, SE, IAS, generative AI, etc. 'R' Us of the 21st of August 2023.
Obviously, this is not an ordinary technological progress if really everything was publicized, referenced, or implied many years before it has been implemented by others.
Once again, all rights reserverd.

23:04 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We developed a new variant or even the next generation of one of our many devices.

But before we were able to document the new solution, we directly improved it even further, which resulted in a new technology.

25.August.2023

21:52 UTC+2
Clean Coal, Clean Gas, and Clean Diesel are real

For sure, our Clean Coal, Clean Gas, and Clean Diesel, are real.

But there are more and more evidences that acutally clean Electric Vehicles (EVs) are not real.

26.August.2023

20:49 and 21:40 UTC+2
SOPR studied NEON Enterprise Software vs. IBM

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We quote a first report, which is about the lawsuit NEON Enterprise Software vs. IBM and was publicized on the 13th of December 2009: "Neon sues IBM over mainframe software
Alleges that IBM is preventing System z mainframe users from using its zPrime

Neon Enterprise Software has filed a lawsuit in Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, accusing IBM that it is preventing System z mainframe [(large computer system)] owners from using Neon zPrime.
Neon alleges that IBM has violated the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws and that IBM is liable for business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective contracts.

Neon zPrime is a software product that enables IBM System z business application workloads, IMS, DB2, CICS, TSO/ISPF and batch, to run on IBM's [System z Integrated Information Processor (]zIIP[) ("dedicated to run specific workloads including IBM DB2, XML, and IPSec")] and [System z Application Assist Processors (]zAAP[) ("currently limited to run only Java and XML processing")] specialty processors.
The company said in a statement: "Consumers throughout US, and the world, would benefit from the dramatic reduction in the cost of processing workloads on mainframe computers that is made possible through the use of zPrime."

Neon said that it is seeking to recover actual and enhanced damages, disgorgement of IBM profits, a declaratory judgment and reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees.
In addition, the company has also sought a declaratory judgment with respect to claims made by IBM concerning the characteristics of zPrime."]

Comment
The Lanham (Trademark) Act is also discussed in the

We quote a second report, which is about the lawsuits NEON Enterprise Software vs. IBM and vice versa and was publicized on the 31st of May 2011 (last sections quoted frist and second last sections quoted after for better understanding): "NEON Settles Mainframe Software Lawsuit with IBM
In a June 2009 press release announcing zPrime, NEON said:
"NEON zPrime can save companies with [IBM] System z mainframes 20 percent or more of their annual mainframe hardware and software costs under conventional use-pricing structures. Unlike any approach to date that attempts to offload processing from a System z central processor, or CP, to IBM specialty processors such as System z Integrated Information Processor (zIIP) or System z Application Assist Processors (zAAP), zPrime easily enables the shift of huge amounts of routine workloads running on CPs to these equally-fast but lower-cost specialty processors."

NEON filed suit against IBM in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in December 2009, claiming IBM was using anticompetitive mainframe tactics. IBM came back and countersued NEON in January of 2010 for unfair business practices and anticompetitive behavior of its own, namely copyright violation. NEON then amended its complaint in February 2010 sharing more specific details of IBM's alleged anticompetitive behavior.

[...]
NEON Enterprise Software, a maker of mainframe software, announced it has settled its legal dispute with IBM and will immediately withdraw its zPrime product from the market.
In the May 31 announcement, NEON said that pursuant to the terms of a permanent injunction, NEON and its distribution partners and affiliates will no longer market, sell, license - including any renewal or extension of any existing license, install, distribute, export, import, offer to sell, offer to license, offer to install, offer to distribute, offer to export or offer to import zPrime.
[Furthermore, NEON also handed over the source code of zPrime to IBM.]
Moreover, the legal dispute was settled with no payments having been made by either party to the other as part of the settlement.

According to the NEON press release on the settlement [(list points added for better understanding)]:
"The U.S. District Court has ruled that

• (a) that enables workloads not expressly authorized by IBM to be processed on Specialty Engines or
• (b) that circumvents IBM's technological measures in Machine Code that protect the Built-in Capacity of Specialty Engines and enables workloads not expressly authorized by IBM to be processed on Specialty Engines.

Neon has agreed to a permanent injunction under which it will withdraw zPrime from the market and request that licensees and customers remove and destroy their copies of zPrime. Neon will not renew, extend or transfer any existing zPrime license or any warranty, maintenance or service period of any existing zPrime license (or any portion thereof).""]

Comment
The ruling affects all HardWare (HW)

the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically all variants of our Ontoscope (Os) (mobile, handheld, wearable, or implanted device, robot, automobile, plane, etc.), processors or chips (mobile processors, Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), network processors, System on a Chip systems (SoCs), Network on a Chip systems (NoCs), integrated modem-Radio Frequency (RF) systems, Bionics, neuromorphic (e.g. Neural Network (NN)), AI, ML, CI, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), CV, CA, etc.), etc., up to infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential

which are directly related to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

We looked at the matter from another direction, which prohibits an anticompetitive binding. For example, the demand to also assemble the Superbatteries of our Superunicorn #4 Electric Power (EP) in the case of all variants of our Ontoscope (Os) has been withdrawn and become a suggestion.
But obviously, our SOPR is allowed to restrict respectively bind all of what belongs to our Evoos and our OS with our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR).
As consequences,

The same holds for all the technologies, goods, and services of other companies of other industrial sectors, and our other speciality devices, vehicles, and so on, or better said access means, and works of art or masterpieces. :D

We also would like to recall for the unknowing, unteachable, or unconscious entities, specifically in government, science, media, and industry, that there is no contest for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., because any action has to take place on this level of said original and unique AWs and further IPs, as explained multiple times. But no other entity wants to do this since more than 25 years now, and therefore the

• exhaustive support for an artist, a copyright holder, et al. and
• limited grandfathering of a core business existing before January of 2000 respectively November of 2006,

are effective and no competition, no compromise, and no concession by us are needed on this very well established level playing field, as explained multiple times as well.

We are wondering once again, if even one of a group of certain politicians and managers has ever complied to the laws.
Obviously, they are confusing the meaning of Wild West phase in relation to technological progress among a lot of other facts, acts, and unwritten laws.

See the

The fun is only beginning, too.

29.August.2023

11:27, 12:08, 22:11, and 25:24 UTC+2
German industry associations still in LaLaLand

"Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter of the music band Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham in relation to a 2 second sample of the song "Metall auf Metall" of the album T.E.E., 2019]
Und seit wann kommt der Brunnen zum Eimer?==And since when does the well come to the bucket?

Obviously, we do have a crystal clear rule-based law and order environment in the F.R.Germany and the local industry associations are addressing and talking with the wrong entities, the F.R.German government, but not with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
We think that it is time that the F.R.German government makes the legal situation clear to these associations and tells them how it works.
We will definitely not explain our extraordinarily strong legal position once again, nor will we give any more warnings. The summary is in progress and will be available in the near future along with preliminary injunction, cease and desist letter, claim for damages, blacklisting in the P.R.China and U.S.America, etc., etc., etc..

By the way:

• on the one hand, everybody had his chance to participate since September 2017 until December 2022 and
• on the other hand, no one had a chance to continue playing for time.

In this way, we have also ensured that now the others, the bad actors, had run out of time.
We had set very simple, fair, and reasonable conditions and, of course, also expected that they would then be fully on board and participate. Instead, this was completely misinterpreted, namely as a successful blackmail attempt, whereas this was merely an act of our pure niceness and willingness to compromise as well as a proof of our social competence.
Therefore, there is no basis to go further in this direction. This is a waste of time, because the others refuse to completely respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. See also the message SOPR # of the 1st of January 2023.
We do not call this the height of outrage yet, but it is disgusting and despicable that those of all entities, who have been spying on, harassing, cheating, imitating, stealing from, undermining, and blocking us for more than 25 years, are now standing here and complaining that things are not moving forward and otherwise are just only doing other cheapest lobbying.
Howsoever, the circle of those responsible becomes clearer once again and can be proven in a court of law.
We are in the process of filing several lawsuits, but one can always call here, or send here an electronic mail, or come by here, or act in another truly constructive way, and try to convince us to whatsoever.
The F.R.Germany does not fall behind either, because the U.S.America, the P.R.China, and the rest of the European Union have exactly the same problems. In the same way, one does not depend on foreign actors, but only on us.

Offensichtlich haben wir in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland eine glasklare, regelbasierte Rechts- und Ordnungsumgebung und die lokalen Industrieverbände sprechen mit den falschen Instanzen, nämlich mit der deutschen Regierung, aber nicht mit unserer Gesellschaft für Ontologische Aufführung und Reproduktion (GOAR).
Wir denken, dass es an der Zeit ist, dass die BRD-Regierung diesen Verbänden die Rechtslage klar macht und ihnen sagt, wie sie funktioniert.
Wir werden auf jeden Fall unsere außerordentlich starke Rechtsposition nicht noch einmal erklären und auch keine Warnung mehr geben. Die Zusammenfassung ist in Arbeit und in naher Zukunft samt einstweiliger Verfügung, Unterlassungsaufforderung, Schadensersatzforderung, schwarze Listennotierung in der V.R.China und den U.S.Amerika, etc., etc., etc. erhältlich.

Übrigens:

• auf der einen Seite jeder seine Chance hatte mitzumachen seit September 2017 bis Dezember 2022 und
• auf der anderen Seite keiner mehr eine Chance hatte weiterhin auf Zeit zu spielen.

So haben wir auch dafür gesorgt, dass jetzt den anderen, den schlechten Akteuren, die Zeit abgelaufen ist.
Wir hatten sehr einfache, faire und nachvollziehare Bedingungen gestellt und selbstverständlich auch erwartet, dass man dann voll dabei ist und mitmacht. Stattdessen hat man dies vollkommen falsch interpretiert, nälich als erfolgreicher Erpressungsversuch, dabei war dies lediglich ein Akt unserer reinen Nettigkeit und Kompromissbereitschaft sowie ein Beweis unserer sozialen Kompetenz.
Deshalb existiert auch keine Grundlage mehr in diese Richtung weiter zu gehen. Das ist reine Zeitverschwendung, weil die anderen sich partout weigern die Rechte und Eigentümer von C.S. und unserem Unternehmen voll und ganz zu respektieren. Siehe auch die Meldung SOPR # von dem 1. Januar 2023.
Wir nennen das noch nicht den Gipfel der Unverschämheit, aber es ist schon ekelhaft und abscheulich, dass ausgerechnet diejenigen, die uns seit mehr als 25 Jahren ausspionieren, belügen, betrügen, imitieren, bestehlen, unterminieren und blockieren, sich jetzt hier hinstellen und beschweren, dass es nicht vorwärts geht und ansonsten auch nur anderen billigsten Lobbyismus betreiben.
Wie auch immer, der Kreis der Verantwortlichen wird hierdurch ein weiteres Mal klarer und gerichtsfest beweisbar.
Wir sind dabei mehrere Klagen einzureichen, aber man kann hier jederzeit anrufen oder hier eine elektronische Post hinschicken oder hierhin vorbeikommen oder auf eine andere wirklich konstruktive Art und Weise handeln und versuchen uns zu was auch immer zu überzeugen.
Die B.R.Deutschland gerät auch nicht in das Hintertreffen, wie hier behauptet wird, da die U.S.Amerika, die V.R.China und der Rest der Europäischen Union genau die gleichen Probleme haben. Genauso ist man auch nicht von ausländischen Akteuren abhängig, sondern lediglich von uns.

12:32 UTC+2
We said OpenAI is blacklisted

23:11 and 23:39 UTC+2
We said only OntoCoin and OntoTaler in Ontoverse

There will be no Bitcoin in our Ontoverse (Ov), on our Ontoscopes (Oss), and by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) respectively in the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR with their set of fundamental and essential

specifically our

• Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) with its
  • Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
  • Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
  • Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and
  • Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC), so to say the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications of the Next Generation (SWIFT NG) and the only legal successor of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

See also the note SOPR studied NEON Enterprise Software vs. IBM of the 26th of August 2023.
We will demand the stop and the return of the whole blockchains, including the Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) stored in them, of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Decentralized Web (DWeb), and other technologies, goods, and services based on our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and other parts of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS). Got it? Fine.

By the way:

30.August.2023

07:32 UTC+2
Netflix has to comply with ToS

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not discuss the Terms of Service (ToS), specifically in relation to what is wrongly cloud gaming or cloud game streaming, and correctly called channel computing in our Ontoverse (Ov). The rules are (more or less) clear and the same for every entity and therefore the company Netflix has to use the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR.

In particular, Netflix, the video game and console manufacturers, and other companies are coming around 6 to 20 years too late with their various approaches. They all did not want or failed to design a system architecture, which is at least capable to realize distributed gaming, multi-user gaming, Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG), or other types of gaming. In total contrast, we took the risk, took the long way, and take now the bisquit.
And to make it crystal clear, we are also avoiding all the other mistakes, because we do not look on what the others do, but how we can do it in a correct and better way, and our unbelievable track record of highest performances gives us totally right since more than 25 years now.

In general, game streaming is not a part of the core business of audio and video streaming platforms, and the same definitely holds true for connecting the various streaming contents respectively crossing the various divides between different contents, possibilities, and experiences of information, entertainment, collaboration, and communication in properietary information spaces, environments, and universes. We were already at that point with what is wrongly called the metaverse in relation to plagiarisms of our Ov, which is the one and only Big Experience, so to say.

In particular, how a subscription for members of a streaming platform could and should look like is a different topic, which has to be negotiated with our SOPR at first. But we would already like to submit the possiblity to select games from every developer on the related platform of our SOPR, most potentially our Marketplace for Everything (MfE), and bundle them to individual packages for a mass discount, membership, or other customary approach of trade.
But we have also to recall that own games have to be offered on said platform of our SOPR as well.

Eventually, the competition is not about the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., but has to take place somewhere else to enable and guarantee freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the benefit of the public. The other approach is merely fraud.

See also the note Cloud gaming is Ontoverse of the 22nd of August 2023.

Nevertheless, welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov). :)

09:26 UTC+2
SOPR says do not try eP at home or alone

We have worked on the electronic Patient record (eP) as part of a Hospital Information System (HIS) around 1997 and since then developed our foundational Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and related basic technologies (e.g. subsystems, platforms), goods, and services, and also followed the developments and trials of others, including governments and their cliques. As a resumee of the latter, we can only tell every government do not try it without our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), because the last 2 decades show that attempts failed and only cost a lot of taxpayers' money without providing any benefit for the public.
One usual mistake recurring again and again is that only members of a national clique work on such systems, despite they are incompetent on the one hand and the field is extremely complex on the other hand.
Another usual mistake is that ... No, no, not this way anymore. Sign, pay, comply, and our SOPR leads the way, as always.

22:31 and 25:39 UTC+2
SOPR recommends to accept media win-win

To protect their original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) media companies have begun to block the special type of software robot (software bot or softbot) called webcrawler by the specific HyperText Markup Language (HTML) meta tag robots (e.g. <meta name="robots" content="noindex" />) (see also the Clarification of the 30th of May 2023).
But the same webcrawler technology is used by search engines and therefore media companies have to block those other webcrawlers as well. But then their contents cannot be indexed, the resulting indexes or indices cannot be stored in the database of search engines and cannot be found by users of search engines anymore.
Even more frustrating and setting back is the fact that like all the other approaches this approach also does not work in general (see the note Fair dealing and fair use doctrine not ridiculous of the 12th of August 2023), because our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) are just too smart. We will not elaborate the details at this time.

Media companies and other copyright holders, collecting societies, visual media companies, suppliers of stock images, editorial photography, video, and music, data marketeers, and so on also still have the illusion that they would solve the problem by directly licensing and selling their original and unique AWs and further IPs to companies.
But this also does not work in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), which these entities listed above cannot avoid either.
Our SOPR demands that this licensing of original and unique AWs and further IPs, and also raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms is done on its Marketplace for Everything (MfE) exclusively.
In addition, for the benefit of all members and licensing partners of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) respectively the public our SOPR has the right for

according to the related regulations of the Terms of Service (ToS).
But

• on the one hand this freedom is not protected for only the press, and
• on the other hand after all the OntoBot and the plagiarisms and fakes based on our Evoos and our generative and creative Bionics are part of the cybernetic self-reflection, cybernetic self-portrait, cybernetic augmentation, and cybernetic self-extension,

and

All these approaches merely cure the symptons, but not the cause.
As we said several times now, only a holistic approach solves these kinds of problems and therefore once again the only solution in this case is our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC), specifically its

and also our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with its

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein to get a more complete overview on the matter.

This should give a first impression about the legal framework. All right? :)

Please note, that we do not think that media content is truly objective, rational, fact-driven quality content, but as subjective, inaccurate, commens sense quantity content, including quality hallucination and confabulation, and therefore we do handle it accordingly. This is in contrast to the rational, ontology-driven foundation of our OS, so that stuff is always in-line with reality, but nonetheless, our OS integrates the fields of Swarm Computing (SC), Common Sense Computing (CSC), Web 2.0 (e.g. wiki), etc. for various reasons, including integrating the fields of logic-based AI 1 (e.g. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR), Expert System (ES)) and emergence-driven AI 2 (e.g. Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Swarm Intelligence (SI)) as AI 3 (e.g. Computational Intelligence (CI), Soft Computing (SC), etc.), in general, and integrating KRR, ES, CSC, softbot, chatbot, arts, etc. in particular, and closing this legal loophole.

22:50 UTC+2
Issue with global power regulation

We noticed that many companies are in free float with a diversified shareholder base. This requires that in case of an execution of the golden power regulation such a diversified shareholding can only collectively hold the residual quantity of the shares of a listed item.

25:10 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We have developed a special variant of one of our many incredible technologies as part of one of our many incredible revolutions..

31.August.2023

01:10 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We have developed a special variant of one of our many incredible technologies as part of one of our many incredible revolutions.

02:29 UTC+2
The generative AI fun is already over

We quote a report about our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
What is an AI hallucination?
Simply put, a hallucination refers to when an AI model "starts to make up stuff - stuff that is not in-line with reality," according to [a fraudulent scienties] [...].
[...]
Cracking down on AI hallucinations, however, could limit AI tools' ability to help people with more creative endeavors - like users that are asking [a partial plagiarism of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)] to write poetry or song lyrics.
[...]

Can hallucinations be prevented?
How to prevent or fix AI hallucinations is a "point of active research" has been shown with our OS in 2006, [an incompetent scientist] said, but at present is very complicated.
Large language models are trained on gargantuan datasets, and there are multiple stages that go into how an AI model is trained to generate a response to a user prompt - some of that process being automatic, and some of the process influenced by human intervention.
"These models are so complex, and so intricate," [an incompetent scientist] said, but because of this, "they're also very fragile." This means that very small changes in inputs can have "changes in the output that are quite dramatic."
"And that's just the nature of the beast, if something is that sensitive and that complicated, that comes along with it," he added. "Which means trying to identify the ways in which things can go awry is very hard, because there's so many small things that can go wrong."
[A fraudulent scienties], echoed his sentiments, saying, "The problem is, we can't reverse-engineer hallucinations coming from these chatbots."
"It might just an intrinsic characteristic of these things that will always be there," [a fraudulent scientist] said.
[...]
In response to a follow-up question on using [a partial plagiarism of our OntoBot] for research, however, the chief executive quipped: "I probably trust the answers that come out of ChatGPT the least of anybody on Earth.""]

Comment
And we do so with trusting in what comes out of those fraudulent and even serious criminal Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).

We highly recommend to get rid of that AI crap of Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Meta (Facebook), and Co., because it just does not work for the same reasons it did not work around the early 1990s. Hinton and Co. failed a second time and they do know this fact very well.

We also had the same problems with software in general and software for mission critical utilizations, specifically real-time system and embedded system in particular, which is used for missiles, rockets, aircrafts, automobiles, satellites, industrial robots, etc..
The solution are

specifically

See the Clarification of the 22nd of July 2023 and also the Clarification of the 20th of July 2023.

And this is our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) (fault-tolerant Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Agent-Based System (ABS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc.) and our Ontologic System (OS) based on the fields of Bionics and Cybernetics, in addition to their original and unique property to balance between creativity and perfect accuracy, for example on the basis of the field of Many-Valued Logics (MVL) (e.g. Three-Valued Logic (3VL) and Fuzzy Logic (FL)). The latter also proves once again that our creation is not the problem, but the fraudulent and serious criminal actors, that are stealing our works of art.

Checkmate once again.
Preliminary injunctions, cease and desist orders, enforced payment of triple damages, and much more are in preparation. Take this upcoming crackdown very seriously, because it will also be personal.
75% + 25% valued 1st of January 2015, because we do not pay for our properties stolen. :)

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

03:46 UTC+2
Alphabet (Google) added provenance

Despite provenance is also integrated by our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) respectively Ontologic Computing (OC), we are wondering For What It's Worth (FWIW) in case of our generative and creative Bionics, because by definition newly created art has no provenance.
And once again, the same holds for watermarks, etc., due to the "intrinsic characteristic of these things that will always be there".

We also note that

are integrated with each other and all together by our OS with its OSA respectively OC.

See once again the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

At least, we do have another point that judges only need to tick off from the very long list of evidences, which show causal links to our original and unqiue works of art.

By the way:

11:31 and 12:33 UTC+2
Objective and rational is not one-way street

The P.R.China has to see the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation in an objective and rational way, specifically that our OntoLand (OL) is not Tibet, South China Sea, or the Aksai Chin, as it is not the Kingdom of Hawaii and Palestine.

By the way:

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including
  • golden power regulation

are effective and apply for all entities worldwide.

have to show commitment, ensure compliance, and exercise due diligence.

11:48 UTC+2
SOPR is neutral

For sure, our SOPR is neutral and therefore makes no difference in case of ideologies in general and the member states of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and other countries (BRICS+ or BRICS Plus) economic grouping in comparison to other countries, economic unions, and economic zones in particular.

But we also would like to share our opinion that the BRICS+ is a giant geopolitical tinderbox.

12:48 UTC+2
No debate about our rights and properties

We will not debate the

• golden power regulation

being effective worldwide.
But we will

Cuba syndrom comes from WorkPC