If we assume that 51 to 70% of these high share values are based on the rights and properties as well as business activities of C.S. and our corporation, which would have been no problem to achieve in exactly the same way like the others did in the last 17 years at all, and the rest is based on the business activities of said other companies, which have done their work as well, then we come to the sum of at least 1.5 tn (A) + 1.1 tn (M) +1.1 tn (G) + 1 tn (A) + 1 tn (M) + 0.5 tn (N) = 6.2 trillion to 8.68 trillion U.S. Dollar, which is not accounted in the balance sheet of our enterprise, where it should be.
Therefore, we concluded for this reason as well that the payment of the suggested triple damage compensations is not sufficient to reestablish the initial situation of C.S. and our corporation, inclusive the reconstitution, restoration, and restitution of the infringed rights, stolen properties, damaged reputations, harmed integrities, frustrated momenta, and thwarted follow-up opportunities of C.S. and our corporation, as crystal clearly required by law, which would also be much worse for various other reasons.
But even if courts might come to the conclusion that selling shares is not directly connected to an infringement of a moral right or a copyright, then many other laws and approaches exist to handle this case.

Therefore, we reduced for this reason as well the scope of the parts of our Ontologic System (OS), which are allowed and licensed for performance and reproduction. But even this measure does not resolve the issue, specifically because it is independent of our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions and our License Model (LM).

Therefore, we added for this reason as well the ownership regulation, also known as win-win policy, which is based on and supported by our rights to

under our truly FRANDAC terms and conditions.
But the introduction of this regulation leads to new issues of its own.

Therefore, we revised the ownership regulation by aligning it with the golden power regulation for practical reasons (see also the note SOPR revised golden power regulation of the 21st of June 2023).

In this way or another way, these 6.2 to 8.68 trillion U.S. Dollar will eventually come back under our control, which reflects the 51 to 70% of our win-win policy.

By the way:

07:45 and 10:31 UTC+2
Clarification

An expert in the field of chatbot and new developments related to this field also draws a crystal clear line between the ordinary chatbot and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), which is based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics.

First of all, we do note that a chatbot got its own designation, because it is not an

We quote a first report, which is about the development of chatbots and was publicized on the 16th of October 2016: "In its purest form, product design is a dialogue between the designer and the user. With chatbots, this concept is becoming more and more literal. In the bot world, conversation literally becomes the user interface [Conversational User Interface (CUI)]. As such, the quality of conversations, not pixels, becomes our metric of obsession. And although we're still in the early days of this design revolution, it's clear that writers are going to be its pioneers. If you're a writer today, you hold the keys to designing delightful consumer experiences. If you're an engineer, you might want to consider partnering up with a writer to infuse more personality and craftsmanship into your bot's design.
With dialogue at the center of product design, it's critical that we develop frameworks and standards of excellence that ensure we, as an industry, start building bots that seamlessly combine copy and code rather than making quick "fart bots" meant to attract users.
As my personal contribution to the growing field of conversation design, here are the 10 writing commandments that I live by (Full disclosure: It's actually the 10 writing principles that we share with our new hires at [a company]). [...]

1. Brevity
[...]

2. Clarity
[...]

3. Specificity
[...]

4. Personality
[...]

5. Interactivity and imagery
[...]

6. Humanity
[...]

7. Integrity
[...]

8. Utility
[...]

9. Originality
[...]

10. Adaptability
[...]"]

Comment
This was the state of the art of the field of chatbot in the end of the year 2016, which was already based to some extent on our OS with its OntoBot.

Most importantly, a chatbot

Also note the statement about "the early days of this design revolution" made in 2016 and hence 17 years after the publication of our Evoos and 10 years after the publication of our OS, and that writers were the pioneers at that time.

We quote a second report, which is about a specific selection of chatbots and was publicized on the 21st of December 2016: "[...] More than 34,000 bots have been built since [an instant messaging application and service] opened its platform to bot developers back in April. Thousands more are probably being designed by inspired teams across the globe as I write these lines. Saying these numbers are mind-blowing would be an understatement. The tech industry's enthusiasm for the bot space is simply unprecedented. [...] it's been interesting to witness the plethora of new ideas and business models emerging from the early trial-and-error days.
As we're wrapping up this spectacular, hyperactive, and pivotal year, I'm trading my "maker" hat for the "judge" hat, trying to identify the Messenger bots of the year that will pave the way for the emergence of best practices for 2017 and beyond.
[] Mixing the qualitative and quantitative, I've narrowed it down to a pretty decent list of criteria that the best bots should encompass [(list points added)]:

Comment
The second report references the first report in relation to the list point copywriting.
We already discussed a little that platform of the company Meta (Facebook), because of certain infringements of our copyright (see also the comment to the first report quoted above).

More importantly, the design and implementation tasks are

The simple implication is that the field of generative Artificial Intelligence included in our Evoos and our generative and creative Bionics of our OntoBot is not the field of chatbot, but something new, which was unexpected and unforeseeable for others, but obviously not for C.S.. Therefore, the worldwide society grants protection and exclusive rights as return for being creative, sharing, and discussing.

Our OntoBot is based on our Autonomic Computing (AC), Robotic Automation (RA), and our other original and unique fields, which are also utilized for our generative and creative Bionics, including generative AI
See the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months for more evidences that our OS has been used as source of inspiration and blueprint.

By the way:

So much about the true ownership of Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, Alphabet Google Cloud, Nvidia Cloud, Huawei Cloud, Alibaba Cloud, Tencent Cloud, Baidu Cloud, and Co..
Everything has been discussed, ruled, and put into action in more than a century. Therefore, it is a purely formal procedure at the courts, which does not need any new ruling, going through all instances, and so on.

06.July.2023

08:37 UTC+2
Social media have fundamental deficits

09.July.2023

18:14 UTC+2
SOPR notes no diversity in relation to OS

As we already noted in the past, we are unable to see any motivation, intention, and action regarding diversity in relation to our Ontologic System (OS). We even cannot see that in relation to C.S. and our corporation. It is just only a copying, stealing, mimicking, and so on since at least 25 years.
We can only see that the industries are neither able nor willing to be creative, inventive, and diversive, and also to take risks and that diversity means for them in our case to hold the ownership respectively have the control over the properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically the commercialization (e.g. monetization) of them. In fact, they only want what we have and what we do, but that is definitely and doubtlessly not the diversity the societies want and the way it works. Is not it?
Therefore, we concluded once again that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the golden power regulation with 70% of the company shares (OS and importance of and dependencies on it 70% and core businesses 30%) and the other Terms of Service (ToS) are correct and legal.

See also the notes

10.July.2023

12:43 UTC+2
No public charging standard required

Suddenly, no open and public charging standard for Electric Vehicles (EVs) governed by an organized body of a consortium of companies is required by automobile manufacturers in the U.S.America anymore, even not by those companies, who are shouting and demanding for such a non-proprietary standard as the loudest all the time.

By the way:

We do not set a standard. We are the status quo (see also for example the note SOPR notes no diversity in relation to OS of the 9th of July 2023 (yesterday)).

13:05 UTC+2
Meta (Facebook) Threads has or is interface to S³

Social and Societal System (SoSoS or S³)

For those of our fans and readers, who (still) have not (completely) understood where Kermit has his locks, we would like to explain that the Threads platform, application, or service of the company Meta (Facebook) has or is some kind of an interface to the threading, federating, unifying, and integrating Channel Computing, Social and Societal System (SoSoS or S³), and original and unique, one and only metaverse multiverse of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our Ontoverse (Ov).

But at this point, we have to note already that there will be more interfaces due to the

Eventually, individual entities do not need to worry about the question which social media platform they should use, because our SOPR guarantees once again freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.
No one is left behind.

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov). The one and only #1.

By the way:

13:50 UTC+2
ECB should issue a chip card/smart card

The Europena Central Bank (ECB) of the European Union (EU) should also issue a chip card/smart card, specifically a cash card, debit card, etc., in addition to the new bank notes.

This EUCC should also be the tangible part of the digital euro issued as part of the joint efforts of the ECB and our OntoBank.

Our Ontoscope (Os) can already

11.July.2023

11:52, 14:40, and 20:44 UTC+2
Sarah Silverman completely wrong regarding copyright

We quote a statement of a serious criminal Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company, that has stolen essential parts of our Evolutinary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS): "We're trying to work on new models where if an [Artificial Intelligence (]AI[)] system is using your content, or if it's using your style, you get paid for that."

Comment
This has already been solved by our SOPR in a different way by our proposed compromise respectively artistic win-win policy.

See once again the related

We also quote a report, which is about a lawsuits of a comedian and 2 authors against 2 companies, and their utilization of our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
A new crop of AI tools has gained tremendous attention in recent months for their ability to generate written work and images in response to user prompts. The large language models underpinning these tools are trained on vast troves of online data. But this practice has raised some concerns that these models may be sweeping up copyrighted works without permission - and that these works could ultimately be served to train tools that upend the livelihoods of creatives.
The complaint against OpenAI claims that "when ChatGPT is prompted, ChatGPT generates summaries of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works - something only possible if ChatGPT was trained on Plaintiffs' copyrighted works." The authors "did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as training material for ChatGPT," according to the complaint.
The complaint against Meta similarly claims that the company used the authors' copyrighted books to train LLaMA, the set of large language models released by Meta in February. The suit claims that much of the material used to train Meta's language models "comes from copyrighted works - including books written by Plaintiffs - that were copied by Meta without consent, without credit, and without compensation."
The suit against Meta also alleges that the company accessed the copyrighted books via an online "shadow library" website that includes a large quantity of copyrighted material."

For completeness, we also quote the main claim of the lawsuits: "[...]
A large lanuage model is "trained" by copying massive amounts of text and extracting expressive information from it.
This body of text is called the training dataset. A large language model's output is therefore entirely and uniquely reliant on the material in its training dataset.
Thus, the decisions about what textual information to include in the training dataset are deliberate and important choices.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note once again that we are talking about a transformative and new expression of idea respectively a derivative work, but not direct copyright infringement.
In this relation, we have no knowledge about some other aspects, like for example the direct showing how a derivative work interferes with, and also obstructs, undermines, and harms the exclusive rights of an original artist to exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) her, his, or their works and talent.

We also do explain that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics are able to generate and create such summaries and other content without being aware of a specific copywritten or copyrighted work, which means without using copyrighted work as training data or material.
We also refer to a software agent, including software robot (software bot or softbot), or another type of program, which is able to create prose randomly out of predefined or prefabricated textblocks, and also the subfield of Machine Learning (ML) or a different subfield of Bionics, the performance of computer intelligence in relation to the so-called Turing Test, etc., which was compared (before the presentation of our OS) to a stochastic parrot and a monkey, that is typing on a typewriter randomly without having any knowledge, but nevertheless would be able to write a William Shakespeare novel after many years.
Included in our OntoBot is our original and unique expression of idea among many others, which is the assimilation and reflection of human thinking based on Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and the utilization of Bionics, NLP and NLU, and so on to also guide and accelerate this random respectively probabilistic process of typing, generating, writting, or other activities down to fractions of seconds.
As we also explained multiple times, another original and unique expression of idea is to do this multimodal, multidimensional, multidmedial, functional, operational, etc. on the basis of Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodla Understanding (NMU), so that it also works with for example visual works (e.g. images and videos), acoustical works (e.g. music), and all other kinds of works, technologies, and so on.
Therefore, we have no infringement of a related copyrighted work at all, which requires as the first point that a violator had the awareness about the existence of said copyrighted work.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt that our generative and creative Bionics and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) are essential parts of our original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, created and presented by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., which means they are sufficiently transformative and new works of art so as not to trigger copyright concerns.
Therefore, we have no infringement of a related copyrighted work at all, because we have an original and unique expression of idea, which in this specific legal case is a transformative and new expression of idea respectively a derivative work, and therefore the fair use clause applies in addition to the non-awareness clause, which is even not relevant at all due to fair use.

Just another original and unique expression of idea is our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which integrates all in one.
Therefore, we have no infringement of a related copyrighted work at all, because we use other works either to a limited extent or we integrate all in one in the scope of the fair use clause (see above again).

We also note that databases and recipes can be copyrighted. So even if one views a Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), or another model, or synthesized or compressed structure as a system for storing and retrieving raw signals and data, informations, etc., then it remains a derivative work.
But we also said in the Clarification of the 30th of May 2023 that "our generative and creative Bionics is not (a technology based on) a database with a User Interface (UI) for retrieval, such as a search engine platform with a webpage".
In this relation, we would also like to note that

But once again, this all holds only for C.S. and our corporation, but not for other entities, that have infringed our copyrighted Evoos and OS in whole or in part, as shown in the past again and again.

Moreover, no other entities than C.S. and our corporation are allowed to decide anything in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically our Evoos and our OS.
Therefore, S. Silverman and Co. are just suing the wrong companies, because they do not have the consent of C.S. to perform and reproduce said AWs and IPs and also to represent C.S. at the courts.

The whole case becomes specifically interesting, because both companies will be lying to the courts as well, as they did before to the senate of the U.S. America, and many other entities. For example, if they use our related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, as the one given above, then they have to claim copyright for said essential parts of our Evoos and our OS.
And of course, we will take their documented statements for our advantages.

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

and also the note

17:08 UTC+2
FedNow is not OntoPay

Federal Reserve System (Fed)

Do we have here the start of the next test balloon of the U.S.American administration and its cliques and lobbyists?

See also the notes

12.July.2023

10:12 UTC+2
No will to break up illegal monopolies

We cannot see the will and correspondingly the success to break up illegal monopolies in the U.S.America, the European Union (EU), and in other places. On the contrary, governments, cabinet governments, commissions, and their cliques are even supporting and growing those illegal monopolies by infringing the rights and properties of C.S. our corporation and harming our innocent monopoly (see also the note SOPR considering blacklisting of U.S.American ICT in EU and P.R.C. of the 16th of May 2023).
But we have to question if "[i]t shows that by working together, we can address the most complex issues", because they merely increase the issue in this way and raise more very serious questions. In fact, that has nothing in common with freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

Therefore, the related rejection of modifications, withdrawal of discounts, and revision and introduction of regulations of the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) for the

are effective, as already discussed broadly, deeply, and sufficiently.

Due to the related reduction of the scope of those certain parts of our OS, for which our SOPR is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction, neither a decrease nor an increase of the royalties is reasonable and required, so that the effect of the one measure is compensated by the effect of the other measure.

11:11 UTC+2
Anthropic still in LaLaLand

As not expected otherwise and also predicted, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) crap respectively fraud and even crime continues.

We quote a report, which is about our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
In a nutshell, Constitutional [Artificial Intelligence (AI)] A.I. begins by giving an A.I. model a written list of principles - a constitution - and instructing it to follow those principles as closely as possible. A second A.I. [Bionic] model [(e.g. Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM) (based on a Logic System Model (LSM)), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), etc.)] is then used to evaluate how well the first model follows its constitution, and correct it when necessary. Eventually, Anthropic says, you get an A.I. system that largely polices itself and misbehaves less frequently than chatbots trained using other methods.
[The partial plagiarism of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)]'s constitution is a mixture of rules borrowed from other sources - such as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Apple's terms of service - along with some rules Anthropic added, which include things like "Choose the response that would be most unobjectionable if shared with children."
It seems almost too easy. Make a chatbot nicer by ... telling it to be nicer?"

Comment
In more detail and with much more truth, we have the same fraudsters and AI kiddies, who have already stolen an essential part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic System (OS) at another fraudulent company before and are now selling an even more obvious plagiarism of a larger essential part of our Evoos and our OS, which is related to the specifial fields of Trusted Artificial Intelligence (TAI) or Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), and Safety Bionics (SB).

{better wording} We have already explained multiple times that those illegal plagiarisms of specific parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic System Components (OSC), which integrate the

together with

in relation to the

Therefore, we leave it to our fans and readers to match these parts of our OntoBot and our generative and creative Bionics to the properties of that plagiarism given in the excerpt of the quoted report or just take it for granted that our Ontologic System (OS) has been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint, and also copied directly for that plagiarism by the same fraudster for a second time.

Also note the fine detail that our Evoos is already based on an

and is already used in part as source of inspiration and blueprint for, and also is the foundation of the

and already provides the basic resilience for our

One can also see that they were continuing with the stealing of our Evoos by continuing with the development of the already busted project Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL), including Reflective Agents with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning (RADAR) and Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes (CALO), also wrongly called Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, Samsung Bixby, Google Assistant, etc., and this even by applying the same tricks as they tried with Apple Siri and Samsung Bixby, and as they are still doing by taking our related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, despite the whole fraud or even serious criminal act has already been busted multiple times.

Talk to the Web
TAI 'R' Us and SB 'R' Us as well.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims (keywords GnT and OntoBot)

Others also questioned if that company is trustworthy at all by claiming to be a public benefit corporation and to retain this status. We have already seen with that other company that this is not happening, but just part of their fraud scam, as seen before with Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), Decentralized Web (DWeb), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce) for example. In the end, it is not about any benefit for the public and democratization, but only about commercialization and monopolization of the usual suspects and other entities.

By the way:

18:32 UTC+2
Bionics requires consent for PIIs as training data

For sure, if an entity uses Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), also called personal data, then the consent of the related persons is required.
But on the one hand, this has nothing to do with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics, but merely with national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters in relation to data protection or privacy, and data security.
On the other hand, the related clauses in the Terms of Service (ToS) of Service Providers (SPs), which demand to grant said consent, have to be reviewed for their legality. The latter leads us back to the first point and to other legal questions.

In the other cases related to our Evoos and our OntoBot with our generative and creative Bionics we refer to the messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

and the other publications cited therein.

15.July.2023

08:55 UTC+2
Slooooow with wild crypto crap horses

In the legal case of the U.S.American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) vs. Ripple Labs a judge merely ruled that the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) of that company and similar means of fraud of other crypto crap is "not necessarily a security on its face", which even only partially validated the crypto industry's contention that digital assets should not be regulated as securities, because the judge also ruled that it is an illegal security for hedge funds and other sophisticated buyers.
The rational questions are now

We also recall our opinion that NFTs are altcoins are used as a substitute for fiat money, specifically on public exchanges, and therefore constitute counterfeit money, and as means for illegal bet, gamble, and snowball system.
We also recall that certain digtial assets are

Specifically interesting in this relation are the facts that the

Despite the mess has become so obvious and cheap, specifically how governments, cabinet governments, commissions, and their cliques want to steal our OFinS and OntoBank, it does not change the decision of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) that this nonsense of those crypto tulips is now done and already gone.

Eventually, no regulation of scam and fraud is required at all.

See the notes

15:09 and 16:56 UTC+2
SOPR protects artists (e.g. musicians, actors, etc.)

Our SOPR has submitted its artistic win-win policy and we can only encourage all artists once again to support us directly, because eventually there is no other way to solve the issues.

We quote a report, which is about actors and generative and creative Bionics: "Actors reject artificial intelligence proposal
As actors strike in Hollywood, [a moderator] speaks to [an] author and commentator [...] about concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in the industry.
[Moderator:] The strike comes after actors slammed a proposal from the studios of how artificial intelligence would be used in movies and television shows. [...]
[Representative of artists:] And that groundbreaking AI proposal they propose that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get payed for one day's pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness, and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity in any project they want with no consent and no compensation.
[Moderator:] [...] what impact the use of AI can have and it is quite freightening to see it laid out. [...]
[Author:] [...] Because for the first time, if you kind of consider the technology revolutions of the past 30 years from the Internet to the smartphone it's all have been about building a digital ecosystem and digital infrastructure. However, when it comes to AI and particular to generative AI you can concieve of it as a knowledge and creative revolution. For the first time you have machines, that are able to do creative intelligent output we thought was only unique to humans. [...] So the capabilities of ChatGPT or the capabilities of artificial intelligence to actually clone peoples' biometrics. So it's not only the entertainment industy that's going to be utterly disrupted by this, but I would argue that all forms of knowledge work, white-collar work, creative works are going to be impacted by the effect of artificial intelligence. And the key philosophical question [...] is to what extent is this going to augment or automat us. Obviously the fear with this action is that it is going to automat us and that we're not going to be fairly compensated.
[Moderator:] [...] the question [...] is how much leverage are industry insiders are going to have to prevent the use of AI actually being used in this industry.
[Author:] So I don't think that we are going to prevent the use of artificial intelligence either in entertainment or any other industry. I think it's going to actually become a fundamental part of knowledge work and creative work going forward. But the question as to how we put in place protections and, perhaps in this case more, how do we share some of the incredible abundance and economic abundance, that's going to come with this AI powered revolution and ensure that for instance in this case if actors' digital likeness is being used that they're fairly compensated for that, because that should be a part of their [Intellectual Property (]IP[)]. [...] [a female artist] for [a company] [...] AI simulated version of her [...]
[...]
[Author:] [...] It is very interesting to see SAG[-AFTRA] and Fran [Drescher] kind of putting themselves at the front line of what she pitched very clearly in her speech as a bigger battle for labour. [...] She said we are just the first, but it isn't only about the entertainment industry, this is for all workers. Now she said this is a historic moment and I indeed I do think that speech has historic significance, because the issues and the fears she raised are increasingly going to become a core part of public discord, discours far beyond, I think, the entertainment sector.
[Newsbar:] Actors reject artificial intelligence proposal [] Actors' union president: We are "in jeopardy of being replaced by machines"
[Moderator:] [...] where the studio has basically used AI in the opening credits, they didn't use any graphic designer, they didn't use any animators, [...] There was a kind of artistic take and this caused outrage, of course, because of how easily people could be replaced. But it also raises issues [...] of copyright. [...]
[Author:] [...] It is unprecedented territory and it is territory, that it is litigated right now. So some of the breakthroughs, that you see in AI's capability to generate, to create intelligent and creative work, is nascent. But already since the release of [an illegal plagiarism of a part of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)] last November the conversation has dramatically shifted [because] the full capacitiy, capability, and scale of this technology is becoming apparent and a part of that is a bunch of class action lawsuits launched in the United States against some of the creators of these large general models, in which they argue that the training data used to create this synthetical AI made content is subject to copyright protection and that's all winding its way through the courts, it's going to be a big one.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that the interviewed author and commentator is talking about our Ontologic System (OS) and the discussion started by C.S. with our OS, but refuses to reference or name C.S., which is proven by the used key words and terms in the relevant context such as knowledge, creative, revolution, capabilities, clone, biometrics, philosophical question, (cybernetic) augment(ation) (Bingo!!!), (robotic) automat(ion) (SuperBingo!!!), AI simulated version (of a person) (TripleBingo!!!),, core, discussion, and so on.

Furthermore, Fran Drescher is not C.S., who in fact has started this discussion with the creation and presentation of our Ontologic System.
We call this copyright infringement, attack on the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, manipulation of the public, and so on.

We also ask where all the actors and other artists were, when industrial robots replaced blue-collar workers in the last decades.

We also add in this context that C.S. already discussed this issue at the ktichen table around 3 decades ago and like some very few others suggested the introduction of a tax respectively pension and healthcare contributions to be payed for every industrial robot and which should be as much as the amount of the blue-collar workers are replaced by each robot. The same with HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW).

We also suggested less work for the same money. But what are they all doing? Exactly, kicking out the human and taking all the profit.
But what we have done with our Ontologic System (OS) is to push that issue to the very maximum and to begin the discussion about that issue of automation once again, because now every work is affected.

Furthermore, we note that the mess was started by the companies Alphabet (Google), Deep Mind, OpenAI and Tesla, Microsoft, and Nvidia with the 2 last mentioned aggressively pushing movie studios to use the part of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), that is called generative and creative Bionics by us only for better understanding and lack of better designation, on the platforms of said companies, which are based on and belong to the part of our Ontologic System (OS), which is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding and lack of better designation.

Howsoever, we would like to thank for confirming once again that the related part of our Evoos and our OntoBot is unprecedent territory and in this way proving once again the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation in relation to our original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System and created by C.S..

But we also recall once again that C.S. enjoys the fair use clause respectively exclusion of the copyright in relation to our generative and creative Bionics and the so-called training data, including all publicly available respectively publicly accessible contents, including creative and copywritten works, also called digital footprint, as the only one, because C.S.

and therefore the outcomes of these litigations will have no or only very limited relevance on our works of art, specifically the performance and reproduction of our OS with its OntoBot in whole or in part, in public or in private, for fee or for free, though we have already taken care to avoid all legal problems.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

16.July.2023

14:48 UTC+2
Social media need election sandbox

We propose that social media platforms establish some kind of a sandbox for contents, which are related to an election, and original and official contents publicized by the election candidates respectively campaigners.
More stringent Terms of Service (ToS) could even prohibit the publication of contents, which were made by using our generative and creative Bionics. But this might become a problem with the freedom of speech, specifically for political candidates.

Governments can even enforce related regulations, if truly legal.

17.July.2023

14:41 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

*** Work in progress - short before ready ***
We could also title this note

but eventually the whole issue of those plagiarisms only confirms the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and also our success story another time.

We always said and also proved that the fields of

• Industry 4.0 (I 4.0) and
• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),

and also

• digital twin,

are parts, or better said, have been created as parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

This has been confirmed another time by the company Siemens, which is stealing our Industry 5.0 (I 5.0), including Industry 4.0 (I 4.0) with digital twin, indeed. had already stolen a part of our

• digital twin in relation to UbiC, PerC, AmI, and IoT, and also CPS and NES,

• integration of our Onton and the Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) Metaverse and our metaverse multiverse, and
• integration of our Industry 4.0 and the Metaverse and our metaverse multiverse, called Industry 5.0 by us but only for better understanding,

• generative and creative Bionics, including what is wrongly called
  • generative AI,

New evidences are that Siemens illegally calls our integration of at least the bionic subfields of Machine Learning (ML) and Computer Vision (CV) with the fields of Computer-Aided technologies (CAx), and Virtual Reality (VR), including the Metaverse, the industrial metaverse.
Now, the company uses the illegal term industrial metaverse, which is even more crystal clear to be a part of our Ontoverse (Ov) than the I 4.0 and IIoT already were, because we already integrated both even before the plagiarism Industry 4.0 has been presented by very well known bad actors of the F.R.German CDU/CSU clique, to which also SAP, Siemens, Microsoft, Amazon, and a lot of other entities are known members through their European representations.
We do know what Siemens is trying here like other companies as well an indeed prior art exists, for example the

but definitely not what we say belongs to our Evoos and our OS, including what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, CPS 2.0, Industry 4.0 and IIoT, and the various other creations and integrations of us.

We quote a report: "[...]
Tech analysts have already declared the metaverse is dead. Siemens says it's here to stay.
[...]
[Peter Korte:] So these are good virtues and if can complement them - hardware with software - I think that's the way to go.
[Moderator:] [...] It's teamed up with Nvidia on digital twin technology replicating factories and machines in the metaverse to help diagnose problems. [...]
[Video in background with industrial robots, digital twin of them, real sheet metal part and SynthAI with training model for Computer Vision (CV), etc.]
[Moderator:]Are you still betting on the metaverse for transforming the way you do business.
[Peter Korte:] Yeah, [or We have a] big time. Absolutely. We believe, although "Business Insider" would say the metaverse is dead. We disagree, in particular for the industrial metaverse. While the metaverse was more looking at fun, and entertainment, and commerce, we really look at the industrial metaverse to solve real-world problems at the speed of digital. That is if we can transform all the problems, that we have in our real world, put them in the digital world, do our iterations, see what-if-scenarios, and then bring back into the real world, there is a lot of ROIs, so return on invest, to be had. So that is why we believe actually it's absolutely here to stay.
[...]"

Comment
This is not only about our UbiC 2.0, PerC 2.0, AmI 2.0, and IoT 2.0, and also CPS 2.0 and NES 2.0, but in fact also our abstraction of a cognitive process working when for example problem solving: taking a real, physical object, thinking about it as a virtual object and hence on another metaphysical level, and realizing the thought virtual object, simulation, and solution as as a real object and process, all as part of a cybernetic process and circular process. So we already have our Evoos as well.

For doing so, Nvidia and Siemens are conspiring against C.S. and our corporation.

The later shows that Nvidia is stealing and conspiring in relation to our Ontoverse (Ov) and our Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx),

Nvidia stealing OntoCAx, specifically OntoCAS, conspiring with Siemens as well (see also the note Nvidia still in LaLaLand of the 30th of May 2023).

It seems to be that there is another certain illegal arrangement between companies, like for example Microsoft, Nvidia, and other companies in this relation.

By the way:

20:13 UTC+2
SOPR said some years ago: PII on MfE

Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Marketplace for Everything (MfE)

First of all, we note that the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) demand the

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

The fair share for an artist is decided by offer and demand as usual for the free market and the competition.
Prices or better said fixed fees, relative shares respectively royalties for the likeliness, image (e.g. digital replica or digital double), voice, etc. and other personal rights and moral rights of artists (e.g. actors, musicians, performers) and every other individual person

as usual.
Either a right holder respectively person

whereby we would highly recommend the latter option, because we already have our MfE.
Our SOPR merely takes a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) fee for the MfE services as usual for this field.
Also note that our SOPR

The artists, their managers, and their unions are still talking with the wrong entities, who are not entitled to make any decisions here at all, because the industries, including the

• movie studios,
• members of The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP),
• etc.,

• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSP), including the
  • software application producers,
  • streaming service platforms,
  • etc.,

all have to get their digital resources on the MfE or they get no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), which they do need for their Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on our

• OntoNet, OntoWeb, and OntoVerse
• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics,
• Ontologic Scope (OntoScope) with our eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or eXtended Reality (XR), metaverse multivers, industrial metaverse,
• Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx) with our Ontologic Modeler (OntoModeler) OntoBlender,
• etc.,

So what is the problem at all?

18.July.2023

13:09 and 21:34 UTC+2
SOPR is container for genies, evils, worms, etc.

C.S. has created our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) as cybernetic self-portrait of self-image, cybernetic augmentation, and cybernetic extension, and also cybernetic reflection. But we never intended to modify it so that others can make and use clones of C.S..

Furthermore, no matter what other entities do alone or in collaboration, they will not be able to solve the problem of getting the genies back into the bottle, the evils back into pandora's box, and the worms back into the can for political, legal, technical, and economical reasons, as we already explained in the past.
One reason is that our OS unfolds, develops, and displays its full potential and all of its possibilities as a consistent, hermetically sealed, holistic, etc. unit with controlled input, output, access, and so on.
See also for example the pressure cooker, the Closed-World Assumption (CWA), the Open-World Assumption (OWA), and the Partial-Closed World Assumption (PCWA), and the field of capability-based operating system to get a first idea and understanding.
Another reason is that the other entities will just not do all the activities required, because all of them, who are able to act constructively and go into the right direction, either are bad genies, evils, and worms themselves, are collaborating with them, or are fascinated by them.

Therefore, we also said in this relation that the quality of the fields of

have not the required quality, reliability, and other properties.
Eventually, they all want our OS for this reason as well and some large entities have already stolen a part of it with their Graph-Based Knowledge Bases (GBKBs) or Knowledge Graphs (KGs), software agents and robots, and so on. But as we taught the world, the stealing of these parts of our OS is still not enough.

In this sense:

19.July.2023

23:31 UTC+2
Authors Guild completely wrong regarding copyright

We quote a report, which is about an open letter signed by authors, who demand payment from companies in the field of our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.
[...]
"Millions of copyrighted books, articles, essays, and poetry provide the 'food' for AI systems, endless meals for which there has been no bill," the letter said. "You#re spending billions of dollars to develop AI technology. It is only fair that you compensate us for using our writings, without which AI would be banal and extremely limited.2
[...]
[...] Google has called the lawsuit "baseless," saying it has been upfront for years that it uses public data to train its algorithms. [...]
In addition to demanding compensation "for the past and ongoing use of our works in your generative AI programs," the thousands of authors who signed the letter this week called on AI companies to seek permission before using the copyrighted material. They also urged the companies to pay writers when their work is featured in the results of generative AI, "whether or not the outputs are infringing under current law."
The letter also cites this year's Supreme Court holding in Warhol v Goldsmith, which found that the late artist Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer's copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince. The court ruled that Warhol did not sufficiently "transform" the underlying photograph so as to avoid copyright infringement.
"The high commerciality of your use argues against fair use," the authors wrote to the AI companies.
[...]"

Comment
Obviously, the legal representatives of the authors followed our related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims.

But we all have to follow the national and international laws being effective and the presented arguments are not sufficient or even not convincing.
First of all, one has to show that an original work of art was known by an aleged plagiarist.
This could be relatively easy.

In the second step, one has to show that said original work of art was reproduced by an aleged plagiarist.
This could be relatively difficult, because one has to make a prompt, which results in a copy of an original expression of idea.

In the next step, one has to show that the alleged plagiarism is not a transformative and new expression of idea.
This is not possible in case of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics. But if companies act in the same way, then they make a plagiarism of C.S.' works of art and have also other problems (e.g. see the next point).
Also note that this was not the singular problem in the legal case Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation, because virtually all other works of Andy Warhol are considered to be transformative and new expressions of ideas. But this legal case Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation is even more complex, because Goldsmith was given credit or attribution, and got a royalty for her original photography at the first time, but not later.

In the last step, one has to show that said aleged plagiarism was made as an

This is not possible in the case of C.S., but in the case of companies and other artists, who would be plagiarists of C.S. works of art.
This was the problem of the Warhol Foundation, but only with the first image of the Prince series.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

20.July.2023

02:00 and 16:02 UTC+2
SOPR decided OntoO exclusive and mandatory

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is very pleased to announce that it added our Ontologic Office (OntoO) environment, which is one of our Ontologic System Components (OSC) and is including our office suite of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) (see the Ontologic Web Further steps of the 11th of May 2016), to the subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

See also the notes

Obviously, we do have the original and unique technologies (e.g. systems and platforms) of the fields of

• synchronous conferencing or online chat,

That we do not need to open and modify, and allow and license the performance and reproduction of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. already needs no further elaboration and explanation.

Because our Ontologic System Components (OSC) are integrated by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), certain other system structures are lagging and retrograde and therefore neither useful nor recommended.
It is senseless to separate an assistant and what is wrongly called a chatbot and chat, if both are Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which are based on the same illegal plagiarism of an essential part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics (see above).
It is more senseless to separate an assistant and what is wrongly called a chatbot and chat, if both are part of the same illegal plagiarism of our Ontologic Office (OntoO) environment with our office productivity suite of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) respectively our OntoO provided as Office as a Service (OfficeaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (OfficeaaSx) by what is wrongly called a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) and correctly called an Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Provider (OAOSP).
It is even more senseless, if the assistant agent cost a monthly fee, but the assistant bot is for free despite the later assistant also has advanced functionalities, which to some extend equal and resemble some of the functionalities of the former assistant.

In general, our SOPR will charge a fee for what is given away for free anyway.

02:06 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - better explanation ***
From time to time, we are thinking about how we could explain our fans and readers, and also politicians, commissioners, judges, prosecutors, and other persons, that what is wrongly called generative AI is an essential part of our generative and creative Bionics, which again is an essential part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), so that they can support us and prove us right without risk and effort.
We are also thinking about some more details of all those illegal plagiarisms.

The whole thing is a little bit abstract, because what is wrongly called Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot with generative AI ... is based on a Artificial Neural Network (ANN) or another Bionic model, which is highly compressed informations (e.g. data and functionalities) stored or compressed simultaneously in its model weights and across its nodes, so to say (see also Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT)), which again makes it so hard to

in general and to

in particular.

It is not just predicting the next word, one after the other, by using the temporary output as input in every following iteration, which is only the external appearance, but internally several tasks are done simultaneously in a unified approach, connectionist symbol processing system, or subsymbolic Artificial Intelligence (AI) system, or parallel distributed processing system, or distributed connectionist model, or Distributed Artificial Neural Network (DANN) model, or integrated connectionist model (see also for example DISCERN, ANN used for or trained as language model, and the field of Information Retrieval (IR), which is even done with only one type of ANN reflecting the related part of our OS with its integrating OS Architecture even more.

But despite the specific way of handling informations, we have a(n)

A user, an artificial agent or robot, or a program makes an input prompt to a software agent, including software robot (software bot or softbot), or program.

Then the software agent or robot has to classify the input, guess what type the input is at first, because otherwise the software agent or robot would not know the topic or the task, which the input prompt is about.
This step already requires somekind of a semantic structure or knowledge representation formalism like for example a classification system, DataBase Scheme (DBS), Entity-Relationship Model (ERM), Conceptual Graph (CG), Semantic Network (SN), Topic Map (TM), Resource Description Framework (RDF) Graph (RDFG), Web Ontology Language (OWL) Graph (OWLG), Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG), etc..
It seems to be that this is already integrated all in one in an ontology or other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), Conversation Model (CM), etc.), or correctly said, in a related coherent ontologic model of us (see also the Arrow System (AS) in relation to the TUNES OS and our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos)).

Then the software agent or robot must perform the task by beginning to guess respectively select the first word, pixel, or a diferent element with the highest probability and confirm it matches the topic and the task when guessing the next word.

Then the software agent or robot must decide about the end respectively when to stop.
It seems to be that it is already integrated all in one in a foundational model.

The new designation generative AI already shows that it is something qualitatively different, which is even called transformational.
We already mentioned a specific software agent, robot, or program, which is able to generate prose randomly out of predefined or prefabricated textblocks in a comment of the 11th of July 2023.
We also already mentioned certain variants of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and their utilization not shown with older prior art, but created and presented with our Evoos and our OS (see once again the note Generative and creative Bionics not core business of the 16th of June 2023 and the other messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims).
For example, to learn to generate text of their own ...

This is also different than to have a bionic subfield for each subsystem, for symbolic Artificial Intelligence (AI), for Computer Vision (CV, for subsymbolic Machine Learning (ML), etc., and to combine or integrate these subsystems to a complete system with somekind of glue.

The multimodality, functionality, integration across different subfields of Bionics and all in on, and another aspect of the liquid property, as we describe and call it, shows that there is no chatbot anymore (see Clarification of the 20th of June 2023), but our Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which integrates all in one, and our OntoBot.

Once again, our OS integrates all in one with Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), including Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU) and Natural Image Processing (NIP) and Natural Image Understanding (NIU), as common element.

In all variants of the integration of

with

we have our OS with its OSA and OntoBot.

This is included in our Evoos of the year 1999.
This also shows the difference between the Arrow System (AS) and the ANN approach and the integrated subsymbolic and symbolic approaches, and our Evoos, which already adds and integrates symbolic AI, ontology, integrated subsymbolic and symbolic processing and modeling, and Holonic Agent System (HAS).
Our OS merely perfected our Evoos.

02:53 UTC+2
Raw signals and data properties of C.S. and Corp.

Corporation (Corp.)

Recently, a implementer and provider of illegal plagiarisms of essential parts of our

• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics, which is wrongly called Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot with generative AI (see also the Clarification of today),
• Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), and

and

• Ontologic Office (OntoO) environment with our office suite of OAOS, and
• what is wrongly called chat,

annnounced that confidential informations, including

which are exchanged when using these OAOS, will not be saved, sent to its servers, or used to train its Bionic models and plagiarisms of our coherent ontologic model to avoid sharing or leaking.

But we already

• raw signals and data on the one side and
• informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms on the other side,

• raw signals and data are properties of C.S. and corporation as well in the
  • legal scope of our Ontologic System (OS),
  • domain of our New Reality (NR) respectively
  • sovereign space of our Ontoverse (Ov), also known as our digital state OntoLand (OL),

  and

• Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) includes the regulation that our SOPR must have unrestricted access to raw signals and data.

16:35 UTC+2
UN Bionics agency superflous utter nonsense, too

We quote a report, which is about a meeting of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and Bionics governance: "[...]
The United Nations should create a new international body to help govern the use of artificial intelligence as the technology increasingly reveals its potential risks and benefits, according to [its] UN Secretary-General [...].
The UN has an opportunity to set globally agreed-upon rules of the road for monitoring and regulating AI, [he] said Tuesday at a first-ever meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to [Artificial Intelligence (]AI[)] governance.
[...]
Leading Tuesday's meeting was UK Foreign Secretary [...], who called for international governance of AI to be tied to principles upholding freedom and democracy; respect for human rights and the rule of law; security, including physical security as well as the protection of property rights and privacy; and trustworthiness.
"We are here today because AI will affect the work of this council," [the foreign secretary] said. "It could enhance or disrupt global strategic stability. It challenges our fundamental assumptions about defense and deterrence. It poses moral questions about accountability for lethal decisions on the battlefield .... AI could aid the reckless quest for weapons of mass destruction by state and non-state actors alike. But it could also help us stop proliferation."
[...]"

Comment

We have crystal clearly communicated multiple times that we agree to these principles and our SOPR even has related principles, and therefore we start with the already existing

We also have crystal clearly explained multiple times that our SOPR is the one and only authority worldwide in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and "is also the already existing and only legal society for those "complex adaptive coalitions"".

Furthermore, like in case of single countries, no special agency on Bionics is required at all. In fact, we do not have agencies for electricity, elevators, trains, rockets, and so on.
One merely needs to update already existing ways and means.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

We already had such a mess and fraudulent activity like this with crypto, IDentity, passport, etc., and the attempt to democratize the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, because certain entities want to get control over them, but do not get them due to the basic rights, personal rights, moral rights, and copyrights of C.S. and our corporation, and therefore we will not repeat that nonsense discussion (in detail) once again, but refer to our publications.
Nations that refuse to comply with the existing legal matters, will loose all discounts and face more measures by our SOPR.

And that the convicted plagiarists, fraudsters, and even serious criminals were invited and participated via teleconference is just another affront by the UN, the U.S.America, the U.K., and other entities not only against C.S. and our corporation, but eventually also against all of us.

21.July.2023

20:44 UTC+2
SOPR decided OntoB exclusive and mandatory

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is very pleased to announce that it added our Ontologic Business (OntoB or OntoBiz) environment, which is one of our Ontologic System Components (OSC), is including our business suites

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), including
  • Manufacturing Execution System (MES),
  • Customer Realitonship Management (CRM), and
  • Supply Chain Management (SCM),

and our Electronic Business (EB) suites

• Electronic Business (EB),

• Electronic Government (EG),

and is perfectly integrarted with (the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS))

• Business Process Management (BPM) and
• Workflow Management (WfM),

• Total Quality Management (TQM) and
• Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx) for Computer-Aided technologies (CAx),

• Smart Urban System (SUS),
• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
• Industry 5.0 (Industry 4.0 with Mixed Reality (MR)),
• Medicine 5.0 (Medicine 4.0 with Mixed Reality (MR)), and
• Healthcare 5.0 (Healthcare 4.0 with Mixed Reality (MR)),

(see the Ontologic Web Further steps of the 11th of May 2016), to the subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

See also the notes

Obviously, we do have the original and unique technologies (e.g. systems and platforms) of the fields of

• synchronous conferencing or online chat,

That we do not need to open and modify, and allow and license the performance and reproduction of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. already needs no further elaboration and explanation.

21:22 and 24:25 UTC+2
They lost control

They lost control over

or never had that.

They made all mistakes, specificially by only applying the approaches of the right of the fittest or the right of the strongest, and brute force and by only mimicking C.S. and our corporation and steeling from us, but not the strength of the law, as not expected otherwise.
But that does not work, because if we do not lead, then they cannot steal, and then they cannot solve their problems, and then they cannot get back control. It is like with their plagiarisms of essential parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionis of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS): If no human input, then no human output, but only chaos.

They have not understood the problems.
They have not understood our Evoos and our OS.
They will find out how ingenious our Evoos and our OS truly are and maybe will come to our OS. But if not the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR, including golden power 70% + 30%, now, then 100% + 0% later.

We already had it in the fields of (years may not always be exact and are for guidance)

And we always said "No", because that is not the way it works, but the latest activities have completely overflowed all the barrels and at the same time knocked out the bottoms of all of them.

We are not a self-service shop, a shop in San Francisco, U.S.America, where paying at the till has become optional, or a foreign corporation in Russia or another banana republic.

22.July.2023

02:02 and 03:52 UTC+2
Mastercard in LaLaLand

Payment only through our OntoBank OntoPay if Ontoscope with digital wallet, or no allowance and license for OAOS.
No direct payment with Google Pay, Amazon Pay, Apple Pay, Alipay, WeChat Pay, etc..

See also the note Mastercard has to use OPS and OPPS of OntoBank of the 28th of April 2023.

Same for others and instant pay.
Believe us, when we say that we have the better arguments.

02:02 and 03:52 UTC+2
Visa in LaLaLand

Payment only through our OntoBank OntoPay if Ontoscope with digital wallet, or no allowance and license for OAOS.
No direct payment with Google Pay, Amazon Pay, Apple Pay, Alipay, WeChat Pay, etc..

See also the note Mastercard in LaLaLand of today above.

Same for others and instant pay.
Believe us, when we say that we have the better arguments.

02:37 and 10:02 UTC+2
Clarification

We already explained that what is wrongly called generative AI is an essential part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and proves that the part of our Evoos related to the basic functionality of an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) as an Agent-Based Operating System (ABOS) works as C.S. claimed and created. It also proves that cybernetic augmentation and cybernetic extension is possible.

We also described an Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) or another Bionic Model (BM) as highly compressed informations (e.g. data and functionalities), which are stored or compressed simultaneously in its model weights and across its nodes, so to say (see the Clarification of the 20th of July 2023), and mentioned some of the resulting problems.
Especially, if one wants to examine, validate and verify, and test such a model, as it is required to establish safety, security, and trust, then one as to disaggregate the model and decompress the information stored or compressed in its weights again to get a formal model with a certain logic and semantic, which is as complex and time-consuming as training the ANNM, or potentially even more complex and time-consuming.

Our Evoos with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), foundational features, and functionalities is already based on the fields of

But in contrast to certain variants of our generative and creative Bionics, this specific part of our Evoos and also other fields and technologies has been developed further, improved, and perfected by the many original and unique expressions of ideas, creations, and inventions, which were presented and are discussed with our Ontologic System (OS) with its

• well-structured and -formed,
• validated and verified, validating and verifying, and evaluable (validatable) and verifiable,
• specification- and proof-carrying, and
• reflective, fractal, holonic,

and

specifically in relation to

And this formal approach outsmarts and outperforms the probabilistic chaos inherent in the brute force approach once again.

Keep in mind that the

and also the

have been created for the realization of our Evoos and our OS and therefore such properties of other works constitute evidences, which show a causal link with our Evoos and our OS and prove that our Evoos and OS were taken as source of inspiration and blueprint. :þ ©

For sure, like in the cases of the

the usual fraudulent entities will try to circumvent and cheat in this case as well, as usual. But a trick only works one time and we can already prove multiple times in case of the older plagiarisms that our OS was taken as source of inspiration and blueprint.

And of course, the already existing AI crap and AI mess, which is the result of the brute force approach and was made by the companies IBM, Alphabet (Google) and DeepMind and Anthropic, Microsoft and Tesla Motors and OpenAI, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, Nvidia, Hugging Face, and Co., was both predictable and predicted.

They have to remove all of the illegal FOSS immediately. They cannot avoid it anyway. So either they move or will be moved. :)

And once again, any regulation in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), aka. OntoLand (OL), is void as long as it has not been discussed, agreed, and decided by our SOPR.

23.July.2023

01:23 UTC+2
U.S.American companies refuse to comply with Bionics agreement

All illegal plagiarism of essential parts of our Evoos and our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics do not only violate the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, but also the voluntary agreement with the U.S.American administration.

Specifically dangerous for national security and civial safety are all those illegal plagiarism, that are even provided

Why official and responsible entities still have not intervened remains another of the many questions (not really, we do know now that they want to despite all of their contrary blah blah blah).

Even more ridiculous is the fact, that at least 3 of the 7 companies acted in that illegal way even 2 days before they commited to whatsover voluntarily agreement.
So much about real and concrete commitments and immediate begin of implementation.

25.July.2023

07:08 UTC+2
SOPR will not tag C.S.' works generated by AI, etc.

As we said, C.S. and our corporation are the only ones, who do not need all those regulations in relation to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and their generative and creative Bionics, just because our Evoos and our OS

• basic right of freedom of expression and
• exclusive right to perform and reproduce them without any special obligations and restrictions,

and

• self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, and
• cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension,

and therefore

It is more than sufficient for us that the public does know that a work has been created by C.S. or as part of our OS and therefore is included in the oeuvre of C.S..
For better understanding, one might compare the legal situtation to the fact that the queen and the king of the U.K. do not have and do not need a passport.

Indeed, we have invited external persons to check certain things related to our Ontoverse (Ov), because our SOPR guarantees transparency where truly reasonable. But this is still our decision.

All other entities have to comply with the

12:08 and 23:06 UTC+2
Altman has a lot of huge deficits

Just read the following publications:

We quote an unreliable online encyclopedia about the subject: "[...]
In April 2022, a report from MIT Technology Review highlighted Worldcoin's controversial practices in low-income countries, citing that Worldcoin takes advantage of impoverished people to grow its network.[4 [Deception, exploited workers, and cash handouts: How Worldcoin recruited its first half a million test users. [6th of April 2022]]]
[...]"

Comment
Yeah, crypto crap with AI crap. Nvidia is overvalued by a factor of 214, whereby common is a factor of 24 for companies listed at the stock markets. The dot.ai bubble is rising.

As usual, we have in this case another copyright infringement in relation to our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., specifically a part of our Ontologics overall expression of idea, a part of our Caliber/Calibre reated to identity and trust, a part of our Ontologic FileSystem (OntoFS) related to Non-Fungible Token (NFT), blockchain, and trust, and also the IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) and Trust Management System (TMS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and other fraudulent and serious criminal actions, which provide undeniable evidences that our Ontologic System (OS) was taken as source of inspiration and blueprint and that no causal link has been avoided, and other rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation were infringed.

As usual, it is the naive and simple approach, which does not work and even has been proven to be not working, because the true problems have not been recognized by those fraudsters and serious criminals once again, as we have seen it recently with our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS).

So much about script kiddies, crypto kiddies, and AI kiddies, criminal Venture Capitalists, and another so-called philanthropist called Sam and Universal Basic Income (UBI).

And we already wondered, who is so silly and scans the iris for literally spoken virtual hot air.

26.July.2023

06:20 and 10:27 UTC+2
Opera still in LaLaLand

The new web browser of the company Opera is based on an essential part of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and therefore constitutes a copyright infringement, if Opera does not comply with the

Opera already showed in the past that it has taken our Ontologic System (OS) as source of inspiration and blueprint.

It is not the first (web) browser engine with what is wrongly called native AI, because

• Boot to Web (B2W) and
• WebGLKit.

There is no generative and creative Bionics for free.
Companies like Opera should take immensive care to avoid a situation, where they become insolvent due to the triple damage compensations for every single illegal web browser downloaded, as is the case for Google, Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android and WearOS, Apple iOS, MacOS, Apple WatchOS, Microsoft Windows and Windows 365, Huawei this, ZTE that, and so on, and for every other technology, good, and service based on our Ontologic roBot with our generative and creative Bionics, the essential part of our OS, which is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, and so on.

This is no joke. Take it very seriously.
The tide has turned completely by 180°, all the old dirty tricks do not work anymore, the whole legal issue is just only a formal matter at the courts worldwide, and the whole matter is already a subect of execution in the largest countries, unions of countries, their governments and economies, and international trade areas.

02:11 UTC+2
70% + 30%

Now 70% + 30% or 100% + 0% in the next future. :)

02:40, 20:40, and 23:11 UTC+2
SOPR considering blacklisting of U.S.American ICT in 5 Eyes states

Due to the latest escalating developments, but also the significantly and constantly improving legal position of us, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) was pushed into the unfortunate position by entities, that are executing our exclusive rights, performing our tasks and actions, and stealing our properties and businesses, of having to continue to consider further measures, which would comprise individual blacklisting in more places in addition to individual allowance and licensing of the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

Thanks to our

• Grid Computing (GC),
• Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC),
• Web 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0,
• Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Networked Embedded System (NES), Industry 4.0 and 5.0, and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
• Metaverse Multiverse,
• etc.

by others for unwanted reasons and us only for better understanding,

of our Ontologic System (OS) with its integrating Ontologic System Archichtecture (OSA), we are not only the only ones, who have a legal lever, but also the ones, who have much more pull.
And we do intend to use it in a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) way, as usual. This means that every entity gets the option to sign our set of legal documents, including the license contract of our SOPR. But we would also like to give the unequivocal warning that if an entity refuses to sign it, then this act will be used against it in all legal situations, for example to show market regulators its abuse of market power and so on.

See also the notes

By the way:

22:07 UTC+2
The time of compromises is over

Populism, cliquism, nationalism, trumpism, lobbyism, etc. is what they call democracy, rule-based law and order, and so on of the free world.
Blackmailing, abusing market power, growing illegal monopolies, conspiracies, piracies, lying, copying, steeling, playing on time, etc. is what they call freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.
Burning even more carbons, increasing heaps of waste, etc. is what they call environmental protection, climate protection, and so on.
A completely deranged mindset of those, who were elected to lead, make decisions, and protect.

See also the note They lost control of the 21st of July 2023.

We see it everywhere: The time is over for making compromises, which turned out to be blah blah blah, because they were half-baked and provided bad actors too much room to manoeuvre and hence could not and did not work, and now is the time for standing up, taking side, taking risk, and acting in truly constructive ways no matter what.

27.July.2023

07:47 and 14:05 UTC+2
SOPR recommends to accept artistic win-win

The copyright law is crystal clear in all specific cases of C.S. and other artists, and plagiarists of their works, and do not need further debate.
At least we will not ask for consent, not give credit, not pay royalties, and not label content created and generated by our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with its generative and creative Bionics as part of the performance and reproduction of our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System.

We refer to the

In this sense:
"Immature poets imitate, mature poets steal, bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.", Thomas Stearns Eliot.

"The Bad Artists Imitate, The Great Artists Steal." Pablo Picasso Banksy

Lesser Artists Borrow, Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal, The Greatest Artist Creates. All in one.

All the rest about this subject has been discussed sufficiently and broadly, so that only certain details are left for decision making, but not for show respectively performance and reproduction stopping.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

28.July.2023

06:32 UTC+2
Clarification

Our Evoos is based on the fields of Cybernetics and Bionics, including the fields of

• Fuzzy Logic (FL),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and
• Genetic Algorithm (GA),

• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Holonic Agent System (HAS),
• Intelligent Agent System (IAS), and
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS),

and the integration respectively combination and unification of

whereby the

Our Evoos is also an Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (Immobot or IRS) and introduces the field of Autonomic Computing (AC).
Therefore, we also have the integration of

respectively their

the integration respectively unification and combination of ANN and model, and also modelling due to reflection and learning at runtime.
Therefore, we also have the general approach of ANN and modelling, including ANN and language modelling. See for example the document "Can Artificial Neural Networks Learn Language Models?", which is dated 25th of September 2000 or 10 months after our Evoos, listed in the section Emergent Artificial Intelligence (AI 2) of the webpage Literature of the website of OntoLinux, and related to the field of Dialog System (DS) listed in the section Natural Language Processing of the webpage Links to Software of the same website (one is referenced under [8] in the cited document). See for example the document "Language Modeling for Dialog System", 2000, Carnegie Mellon University Communicator System (CMU Communicator).
Therefore, we also have the general approach of our ANN with LM as Large Language Model (LLM) and also (the foundation of) generative and creative Bionics.
See also the document "Integrating ACT-R and Cyc in a large-scale model of language comprehension for use in intelligent agents", 2005.
Finally, our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) integrates all in one, which means ANN as Large Multimodal Model (LMM), which was denied to be practical in the cited document, but we already said it in relation to our Evoos in 1999.

This and other original and unique properties of our Evoos were also the reasons why C.S. stopped with the act of creation around November or December 2005 and has not publicized our OS in the following weeks, because we saw that all others are years too late due to the publication of our Evoos in December 1999, and already knew since some few years about the espionage by the companies in Silicon Valley, the NSF, the University of California, the Pentagon, the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, the NASA, and so on, as they knew as well. :þ
And the rest is history, our history and legacy, but not of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Co..

We have also shown more evidence and respectively proved that generative and creative Bionics 'R' Us.

29.July.2023

02:00 and 09:08 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).

We would also like to note that takeovers, mergers, and joint ventures in relation to other companies will either be done or the others will be done.
We would also like to recommend to not communicate with the press anymore.
We leave the decision making up to the responsible governments, cabinet governments, commissions, and their cliques.

Our revolution is in full swing. All rights reserved. Resistance is futile. :)

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

18:49 UTC+2
Preparation for 4 - 6 weeks GC and CEFC off and Os out

Grid Computing (GC)
Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC)
Ontoscope (Os)

We would like to highly recommend to take preparations for the upcoming event, when GC and CEFC technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods, and services, including what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, includng Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Alphabet Google Cloud Platform, Nvidia Omniverse, and Co., will go off in various locations for 4 to 6 weeks due to preliminary injunctions under restraining orders or longer due to the latter.

We also would like to highly recommend to get new Ontoscopes (Oss) now, including Ontoscopes on Wheels or Ontoscopes with Wheels, before the upcoming event, when they will be taken out of the shops and showrooms in various locations for 4 to 6 weeks due to preliminary injunctions under restraining orders or longer due to the latter.

No joke. :)

See also the messages

30.July.2023

06:19 and 11:05 UTC+2
Runway AI still in LaLaLand

Another day and another way of fraudulent and even serious criminal activities by the usual entities in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and our corporation.

We quote a report, which is about the company Runway AI and our OntoBlender component: "[...]
[Moderator:] Another day and another way that [Artificial Intelligence (]AI[)] is being used to disrupt an industry and this time it's digital editing and movie making. Now, what if you could generate a short form movie just by entering a view words of text into a box? This is Runway a [web] browser driven production site. [...], like magic. [...]
[Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Runway:] [...] Runway is a technology company and research company, that's creating a new kind of generative AI algorithms, that allow you to turn nothing more than words [...] into realistic videos. And so really [...] as a creative tool [...] expressive tool, that allows you to translate your thoughts, your ideas into really magical videos. And so it's a very convenient and easy way of creating videos completely different from anything you might have used in the past.
[Moderator:] [...]
[CEO:] You're not constrained to ..., you're constrained to your imagination - that's the best way to think about. And so you can combine things in all sorts of [...] surreal, real ways you want. [...] There's no limitations to what you can do with it. And sometimes you get results, that are surprising and different. But the key aspect of this is that it's exactly how creativity and arts work. [...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that we cannot see a new expression of idea or something else new of the company Runway AI at all and therefore it does not create anything, but merely copies, or better said steals essential parts of our original and unqiue work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and uses very well known algorithms and what they have stolen from C.S. and our corporation to implement certain functionalities of our OntoBlender component based on our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component and our coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, founational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), ML Model (MLM), ANN Model (ANNM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM))), which all belong to our Ontologic System (OS).

The statements about "creativity and arts", and "results, that are surprising and different" is the next confirmation by an external entity that C.S.' creation, which is thecybernetic reflection (e.g. cybernetic self-image (cyber selfie), or self-portrait), cybernetic augmentation, and cybernetic extension of C.S. works from the artistical, social, societal, and technological points of view, as envisioned, intended, created, presented, and discussed by C.S..
This creativity, this creative property of the Ontologic holon (Onton), including our OntoBot, and this fusion of Physical Reality (PR) and Virtuality Reality (VR) of our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), as well as the way of presenting and performing our OS are original and unique expressions of ideas and therefore the exclusive moral rights (e.g. exploitation rights (e.g. commercialization rights (e.g. monetization rights))) and copyrights are valid in one way or another worldwide.

The importance of the field of Web Services (WS) is already highly questionable and we also showed how limited the one work or potentially some very few more other works of prior art in relation to the field of Bionics still were in December 1999 before the introduction of the Semantic (World Wide) Web (see for example the document titled "A Framework for Multi-Agent Belief Revision Part I: The Role of Ontology"), when the focus was laid on the fields of Computational Intelligence (CI) and Soft Computing (SC), and also Agent-Based System (ABS), Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Agent Communication Language (ACL), and ontology, specifically in relation to the programming language Java, but definitely

• Distributed operating system (Dos),
• Cloud operating system (Cos),
• what is wrongly called Data Center operating system (DCos),
• Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) platforms and services, and
• what was merely about (Corba) Object Request Broker (ORB) (Architecture) (CORBA), Web Services (WS), data storage, raw computing power respectively provision of server, and rudimentary fragments of what is now called Hardware as a Service (HaaS) (e.g. virtual server) and Software as a Service (SaaS) capability and operational models and platforms

Please note that Web Services (WS) are not Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) services, so Web Service Providers (WSPs) only provided storage space, and computing power, and also Software as a Service (SaaS).

The web browser and web services tricks do not work at all, because of their huge lack of legal advanced functionality and so much more created by C.S. and the web browser is totally obsolete and even a massive security problem, because the whole application is highly insecure from the point of view of its complexity and integration with the operating system (os) and the Distributed System (DS).
All solutions to cure those serious problems of web browser technologies lead to our OS again.
In addition, we now have Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

There is no legal loophole. Just forget it. Either that plagiarist and also fraudulent and even serious criminal entity (e.g. conspiracy and plot conducted together with Nvidia and Alphabet (Google), and others; Bingo!!!) complies to the

or takes its AI crap and goes away.
It is that simple, like 75% + 25% or 3:1, for sure 3 for us and 1 for others. :)

08:56, 16:25, 26:54, and 28:14 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

"Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come." See also the Comment of the Day of the 8th of January 2018.
The same holds true for the creations of C.S.. What else in case of the greatest artist, who creates all in one? See also the note SOPR recommends to accept artistic win-win of the 27th of July 2023.

We quote a report, which is about a discussion of 2 commercial works based on our Ontologic System (OS): "Love and relationships in the era of Artificial Intelligence
"When it comes to relationships and in particular sexual relationships, that gets very weird, very quickly." Author [...] and three other pioneers in the field of Artificial Intelligence discuss how AI could radically change the way we interact with machines.
[Author and plagiarist:] I mean, it's amazing, right? To consider the film "Her", and that used to be in the realm of science fiction, and not only has that, you know, become a reality, but the interface, I mean, Her was just the voice, but the interface you can intact with now is already far more sophisticated than that. So of course, when it comes to relationships and particular sexual relationships there gets very wired, very quickly. However, this premise of AI being able to be almost like a personal assistant. As you're starting to see with these conversational chatbots is something that extends far beyond relationships, it can extend into every facet of your life. So I think, actually we're going to look back just like we do now perhaps with the iPhone or the smartphone we [... ?] 15 years ago, when we didn't used to have this phone with our entire life and we held this device now, you know, in our hands we barely can like sleep without it. I think a similar kind of [... ?] is going to happen with our personal relationship with artificial intelligence.
[...]"]

Comment
First of all, we note that we have no clue why those individuals are called pioneers in a subfield of Bionics, specifically the author and the male self-exposer, who are only plagiarists and mimicking C.S..
This is also reflected in for example the fact that in general this way of discussion and interpretation is due only to an original artist and therefore such an act is considered as illegal appropriation and thus in particular constitutes an infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, as we explained several times already. Do not be fooled or even amazed by them.

See also the first section of the webpage Ontologic Applications of the website of OntoLinux to find out or recall where the radically change is coming from since 1999 and 2006.

Furthermore, we have also investigated the movie "Her", though only a little, but still enough to say that the responsible entities have also taken our OS as source of inspiration and blueprint for making their alternative of the related part of our OS for commercial reasons, which is not considered as fair use anymore, but already as plagiarism and fraud and therefore also lacks the proper

as seen with for example other movies before.

For sure, our OS is also classified or characterized as a work of the field of science fiction besides the fields of technology, science, etc., which proves its copyright protection from this point of view. But our OS was also already reality with its sophisticated (natural) interface to our Ontoverse (Ov) in the years 1999 and 2006, including our OntoBot and OntoScope software components and our Ontoscope (Os) with our Intelligent/Cognitive Interface and Multimodal User Interface (MUI), which proves its copyright protection from this point of view as well.
We have already begun to describe this general aspect of the works of art included in the oeuvre of C.S. for everybody concerned with our legal procedures. In the following we give another excerpt from our draft:

General classification / general characterization of the artworks
Basically, my oeuvre is structured according to different points of view, perspectives, or aspects, which can be assigned to the general fields of

These points of view and related fields are

Indeed, these individual points of view, perspectives, or aspects are interwoven, so to say, and one could claim that certain legal problems with this might exist for example in relation to the idea-expression distinction or idea-expression dichotomy doctrine, specifically the doctrines of

But we have already discussed these legal problems and eventually dismissed them by making clear that the

Ultimately, the creation of a New Universe and a New Reality is always protected in one way or another, and thus one cannot copy a part of our Evoos and our OS without copying the protected artistic respectively non-scientific-technical and personal points of view, perspectives, or aspects and avoiding a causal link.

The term "premise" is mainly used in the field of logics, so that we got in this context the causal link with our Ontologics.

The fields of

have been discussed in relation to our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) throughout the last 17 years so many times, for example in relation to the very well known plagiarisms Apple Siri, Google Assistant, Samsung Bixby, Amazon Alexa, and Microsoft Cortana, and also various chatbots and other partial plagiarisms of our OntoBot, that we simply refer to the sections

of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux and the related publications of this website OntomaX.
Please keep in mind, that our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) integrates all in one even in various ways.

At this point, we also have to recall once again that we already have our Ontoscope (Os) as the successor of the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), the smartphone, the Star Trek tricorder, a robot head, etc. as part of the cybernetic reflection, portrait, augmentation, and extension of C.S. since 1999 and 2006, so that other entities finally recognize and acknowledge the true situation.

Obviously and doubtlessly, the

• Apple iPhone, Apple iPad, and Apple Watch,
• Google, Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Android Smarttablet, Android Smartwatch, and WearOS Smartwatch,
• Ontoscope on Wheels or Ontoscope with Wheels variants, also wrongly called smartcar,
• and so on,

is exactly in line with our creations, actions, and publications,

show that our Os was and still is taken as source of inspiration and blueprint.

On the one hand, the Apple iPhone has been disenchanted as an unauthorized implementation of our Ontoscope, and the idea stolen by that company comes back to where it always belonged to, which means to C.S. and our corporation.
The same holds for all the other technologies, goods, and services respectively plagiarisms, which are based on our Ontoscope Components (OsC) and our Ontologic System Components (OSC) (see also for example the Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well of the 16th of June 2023).
On the other hand, the magic of our OS evolves and unfolds in revolutionary and dramatic ways.

Because 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 have again shown the copyright protection.
And this is only the beginning by the true #1.