and the other publications cited therein.

The

determine that

Finally, it has been shown that C.S. topped Mark Weiser (Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT)), Steve Mann (Mediated Reality (MedR), etc.), Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and all the rest in Silicon Valley (SV), on Silicon Alley (SA), and at other locations (et al).
The proofs in relation to Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato, and Co. come next, though it is already obvious as well.

What a performance. What a work of art. What an oeuvre.
And now come triple damages, licenses, and shares (e.g. 80% + 20%). That is not negotiable anymore in our office, at the court, on the moon, or elsewhere.
Sign, pay, comply, or be eliminated, terminated, annihilated at the courts, one after the other and in rather rapid way. Yes, we can cancel, too. :)

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein and in the cited publications.

07:52, 17:50, and 20:57 UTC+1
No money, but only media win-win

We quote a first report, which is about training data for our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
It is impossible to know exactly what data is fed into the large learning models because many have not publicly confirmed what is used. In its analysis, the News Media Alliance compared public data sets believed to be used to train the most well-known large language models, which underpin A.I. chatbots like [an illegal plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), including chatbot], with an open-source data set of generic content scraped from the web.
The group found that the curated data sets used news content five to 100 times more than the generic data set. [The president and chief executive of the News Media Alliance] said those results showed that the people building the A.I. models valued quality content.
The report also found instances of the models directly reproducing language used in news articles, which [the president and chief executive of the News Media Alliance] said showed that copies of publishers' content were retained for use by chatbots. She said that the output from the chatbots then competes with news articles.
"It genuinely acts as a substitution for our very work," [the president and chief executive of the News Media Alliance] said, adding: "You can see our articles are just taken and regurgitated verbatim."
The News Media Alliance has submitted the findings of the report to the U.S. Copyright Office's study of A.I. and copyright law.
"It demonstrates that we would have a very good case in court," [the president and chief executive of the News Media Alliance] said.

We quote a second report, which is about training data for our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
In the published white paper, the trade group also rejected arguments that A.I. bots have simply "learned" facts by reading various sets of data, like a human being would. The group said "it is inaccurate" to form such a conclusion "because models retain the expressions of facts that are contained in works in their copied training materials (and which copyright protects) without ever absorbing any underlying concepts."
[...]"

Comment
Yes, indeed, those fraudulent and even serious criminal developers and implementers of illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) do prefer quality hallucination, subjective truth, and common sense, which does not mean truth at all.

Howsoever, in our case, it simply is legal fair use in relation to the creation of a truly transformative and new expression of idea respectively work of art, which even was not created as a commercial alternative to the original training data. Therefore, the U.S. American Copyright Office or any other federal entity cannot and will not act in our case at all, but every court will confirm our right of fair use.

But in the case of the violators of our copyright the infringement of the copyright of media companies is not proven and one has to ask how common the reproduced articles truly are, if they are generated by a probabilistic, statistical, and hence quantitative technology (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)), and a by design hallucinating approach. Potentially, a lot of news are written in ordinary language, which is not copyrightable at all.
Furthermore, that articles generated by our generative and creative Bionics match human written articles does not mean a verbatim copy in general, because the way of realizing the same string of words is different in both approaches and acts. Even more important is the possibility that such a sameness can even happen without knowing and using a certain article as training data. But the latter is required for showing a copyright infringement.
One can also view this activity as a form of sampling in writting and then compare this legal issue with the legal issue of sampling in music.

The argument that the expressions of facts respectively original and unique sentences are retained by models is comprehensible, but does not change the validity of our arguments and points of view.
At least, news media companies have to examine every single publication of content to show that indeed the copyright has been infringed.
Potentially, the following 2 extreme examples could support a better understanding:

And the rest leads back to the aspect that news stories are written in ordinary language.

But truly ridiculous and very stupid is the fact that the news media are still reporting permanently about those fraudulent and even serious criminal developers and implementers, even in the report quoted above, instead of reporting about C.S. and our corporation thus just shooting into their own feet all the time, but having no chance to block C.S. and our corporation anyway.

As the old saying goes, "One always meets twice in life".
Furthermore, the media companies have to comply with the

which means that the freedom of expression, the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))), and the copyrights of C.S. are effective and ruling, and even the media companies have to

Once again, our SOPR already submitted the media win-win policy as a compromise to solve this problem. This also includes that all infringing contents are revised, removed, or handed over to our SOPR.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

22:04 and 22:48 UTC+1
AI firms cannot "mark their own homework"

Politicians cannot do either in relation to the homework of themselves and also the homework of so-called AI firms, definitely and doubtlessly.

We quote a report, which is about the AI Safety Summit held in the U.K. on the 1st of November 2023 (today): "[...]
The Bletchley Declaration calls for global cooperation on tackling the risks, which include potential breaches to privacy and the displacement of jobs.
Signed by 28 countries and the EU, it also says AI should be kept "safe, in such a way as to be human-centric, trustworthy and responsible".
[...]
"We've got representatives from all the major AI companies here at the summit," said [a politician, who cannot mark his homework].
[...]"

Comment
Obviously, the governments have taken the original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, created by C.S. as source of inspiration and blueprint, because exactly this main statement of this declaration is written on the websites of corporation.

And no, not all representatives of all major AI companies were there. In fact, the most important representative and corporation was not there, C.S. and our corporation, which shows once again, what one of the true goals is as is the case with an interview between a politician, who cannot differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil, and order and chaos, and a serious criminal.
Needless to say, they will not make the world a more open, safer, more secure, more trustworthy place. They even do not comply with their own laws.

See also the notes

Hands off of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which are exclusively managed, orchestrated, and distributively and interoperably operated, and also exploited (e.g. commercialized (e.g. monetized)), etc. by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..
The matter has been discussed broadly, deeply, and hence exhaustively, and therefore does not require further explanation, negotiation, or even blah blah blah.

02.November.2023

14:15 and 21:35 UTC+1
Diplomatic coup in Bionics is stillborn child

We are prepared since many years.

Actually, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) grants only 1 of 6 discounts 1.25% each, because a discount is not granted for a lazy compromise, and the discount #7, the European war discount, has become obsolete retrospectively due to the neutrality of our SOPR. Otherwise, our SOPR would have introduced an extra about 3% for the establishment of the state of Palestine and the related transformation, construction of infrastructure, and initial administration. :)

In total, we are at 27.5% for Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class according to the License Model (LM) 1.0 of our SOPR, but this will change due to the exclusive and mandatory infrastrustures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental

of which not all are essential facilities, but are part of the original and unique, personal expressions of idea and in the scope of the exclusive exploitation rights. :)
We are working on the latter, specifically resolving the legal contradictions between the prohibition to use our essential facilites in ways, which interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))).
It could be very well that no right to use essential facilities exists, if this would violate the moral rights of C.S. and interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the activities of C.S., specifically the artistic performance and reproduction, and also the exploitation of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. by our SOPR and the other technologies, goods, and services of our corporation.
Therefore, Android, iOS, Windows, Cloud, Azure, Web Service, and Co. never were, are not, and never will be out of the woods and in the dry respectively under the hood of our SOPR. :)

The

are crystal clear and do not allow much room to move.

Furthermore, no market for our Evoos and our OS exists at all due the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation (see above).

Especially the European Union (EU), the U.K., and the P.R.China have only 3 options left, that are to

In fact, several times the ship sailed a long time ago around the year 1999 with our Evoos, around the year 2007 with our OS, and around the year 2014 with our OAOS, and what worked in the last 2 decades does not work anymore, because the same trick only works one time.
Now jumping on the bandwagon is not possible anymore. So stop experimenting and damaging.

See the note

01:28 and 22:49 UTC+1
Amazon has to ditch open things at first

Open source, open data, open crap, which infringe the

01:28 and 22:49 UTC+1
Microsoft has to ditch open things at first

Open source, open data, open crap, which infringe the

23:47 and 26:10 UTC+1
Microsoft and Co. are now in existential trouble

We quote a report, which is about the company Humane and was publicized on the 8th of March 2023: "[...]
A startup founded by ex-Apple design and engineering team Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiorno, Humane, today raised another $100 million to build what it calls an "integrated device and cloud services platform" for AI.
Humane's work is shrouded in mystery. But its latest round of funding, a Series C, attracted a laundry list of notable investors, including Kindred Ventures (which led the round), SK Networks, LG Technology Ventures, Microsoft, Volvo Cars Tech Fund, Tiger Global, Qualcomm Ventures and OpenAI CEO and co-founder Sam Altman.
To date, Humane has raised $230 million from existing and previous investors, including Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff. [...]
"This Series C round presented an opportunity to raise money through equity, and to bring on board great VCs and strategic partners who would like to participate in equity as the company grows," Chaudhri told TechCrunch in an email interview. "At Humane, we're building a first-of-its-kind device and services platform - we're growing fast, and we've been focused on innovation, research and development."
Those lofty promises are characteristic of Humane [...].
Neither Chaudhri nor Bongiorno are ready to talk about what Humane's been building for the past five years - yet. [...]
In 2020, Humane filed an application with the USPTO [...] for a "body-worn device" that uses a "laser projection system" instead of a display - essentially projected AR glasses that can identify objects in the real world and apply digital imagery to them. And as recently as three years ago, Humane was hiring Android developers to create apps for "personal live broadcasting" as well as "senior monitoring," "memory recall" "and "personal guide."
Noted blogger [...] paints a slightly different picture - one informed by a leaked copy of Humane's 2021 pitch deck. He writes: "The deck describes something akin to a Star Trek communicator badge, with an AI-connected always-on camera saving photos and videos to the cloud, and lidar sensors for world-mapping and detecting hand gestures."
[...]
Call me cynical, but I'm wary of startups with huge war chests of capital but no commercialized product to speak of.
One that comes to mind is Magic Leap, which generated enormous hype years before revealing its first prototype but ultimately fizzled and very nearly died. Like Humane, Magic Leap had impressive investors attached to it, including AT&T, Google and Alibaba Group, and partnerships with content creators like Disney's Lucasfilm. But the company's tech disappointed, leading backers to cut Magic Leap's valuation and company leadership to pivot from the consumer market to enterprise.
Magic Leap's not the only high-profile hardware misfire in recent years. Android founder Andy Rubin's Essential shut down after promising an entire ecosystem of products but delivering only a single Android smartphone. Nothing, started by ex-OnePlus CEO Carl Pei, has been marginally more successful - but experienced its own challenges.
Then, there's this from [a noted] blog[ger]:
"Apple, I am reliably informed, wants nothing to do with Humane. Bongiorno and Chaudhri did not leave on good terms, with Chaudhri in particular being perceived as taking excessive personal credit for work done by a larger team. I don't know if that's true or not, only that that's how he's seen, by some, in Cupertino."
I'm not suggesting Humane will go the way of Magic Leap, Essential or Nothing. It's been managing expectations better, for one. But even successful hardware startups have eventually come down to Earth. Look at Pebble, or another company founded by a pedigreed ex-Apple team, Nest.
[...]
I'll leave you with this quote from Steve Jang, the founder and managing partner at Kindred:
"[...] In our very first discussion, we were excited by their vision to bring a more humane and personalized computing experience. The Humane team continues to make great progress toward a future of AI that is human-centric and enabling."
A tantalizing prospect? Sure. I'll believe it when I see it, though."

Comment
Obviously, its illegal plagiarism and fake is not shrouded in mystery and hence is not a secret. We call our original and unique ""integrated device and cloud services platform" for [Artificial Intelligence (]AI)", "AI-connected always-on camera saving photos and videos to the cloud, and lidar sensors for world-mapping and detecting hand gestures", ""body-worn device" that uses a "laser projection system"", and so on our Ontoscope (Os) with its various types and form factors, and Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

Therefore, there is no World Wild Web (WWW) anymore and surely no Wild West, no Wild West periode, and no this and that and whatsoever at all.

It sounds harmless, what they are doing, but

Furthermore, the creation, foundation, compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion, and also design, and architecture of our Os with our ON, OW, and OV, which is wrongly called Cloud, means

But the

are a part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies since at least February 2021 already (see the issues SOPR #316 of the 14th of February 2021 and #327 of the 7th of June 2021).
What we observe here once again is that Microsoft and Co. refuse to comply with the rules and wants to establish a walled garden in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), which our SOPR has prohibited.

A level playing field is already in place, because C.S. and our corporation do have the exclusive rights and properties in a law and order environment, but those entities want a different level playing field, which means with moving goal posts and blurring white lines, or even better without any lines and rules at all.
We also play by the rules, inclusive acting inbetween the white lines, but those entities are unable to adhere to any rules and to win without violating all rules.
In fact, if one gives them the little finger, then they do not rip the arm out of the shoulder, but they rip the head off.
Therefore, in the moment we would allow a level playing field, we would loose all of the control over our properties and eventually all of our rights.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Never before, was a case of anti-trust violation, abuse of market power, criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy and plot, corruption, and other serious criminal actions more clear and easy to rule.
It makes us speechless and sad to see such an utterly insane, nuts, and bonkers, and also anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant criminal energy, unrestrained greed, and kleptomaniac activity. We are sure that most of our fans and readers have read or seen a story of completely crazy criminals, who do whatsoever to hide their crimes or get away from the law enforcement authorities, but here we have the companies Microsoft, Salesforce, Qualcomm, etc., and even governments, that do know exactly to have no chance of getting away with that at all.
That case is characteristic for the declaration of insolvency, statement of total capitulation, and declaration of war in Silicon Valley (SV), on Silicon Alley (SA), and at other locations (et al).

Bill Gates, Satya Nadella, Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Benioff, Eric Schmidt, and Co. can already stop all activities and enjoy their last days in freedom. :)
With all the best greetings from Sam Bankman-Fried (up to 110 years in prison).

By the way:

03.November.2023

10:14 UTC+1
SBaaSx include building, training, providing, etc. of models

The SoftBionics as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (SBaaSx) include Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) technologies (MLaaSx), and creating, implementing, building, training, evolving, producing, providing, performing, etc. of models, specifically coherent Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.).

See the issues

10:18 and 10:59 UTC+1
Regulation of Bionics nonsense in Ov

Our Ontoverse (Ov) is based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and our Evoos is based on

(see chapter Metamorphose==Metamorphosis of The Proposal), which also shows that our coherent ontologic model is also dynamic and evolvable at runtime and in real-time.
Therefore, a permanent, continous testing would be required, which cannot be done in practice by an authority for technical, legal, and other reasons.
Therefore, our OS is required, specifically its Basic Properties. See also the Clarification #1 of the 14th of June 2016 and section Formal Verification of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux.

Because we do have the freedom to perform and reproduce our OS as a work of art exclusively, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not be obstructed or blocked by federal authorities.

Bad luck for politicians and members of their cliques. :)

By the way:

04.November.2023

20:53 UTC+1
SOPR studied 303 Creative vs. Elenis

We quote a report, which is about the lawsuit 303 Creative et al. vs Elenis et al., 600 U.S. 570 (2023), held at the Supreme Court of the United States of America and was publicized on the 30th of June 2023: "Supreme Court says 1st Amendment entitles web designer to refuse same-sex wedding work
In a major decision affecting LGBTQ rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday carved out a significant exception to public accommodations laws--laws that in most states bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
By a 6-to-3 vote, the court sided with Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who is opposed to same sex marriage. She challenged the state's public accommodations law, claiming that by requiring her to serve everyone equally, the state was unconstitutionally enlisting her in creating a message she opposes.
On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with her. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch drew a distinction between discrimination based on a person's status--her gender, race, and other classifications--and discrimination based on her message.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," he said, "it is that the government may not interfere with an 'uninhibited marketplace of ideas.'" When a state law collides with the Constitution, he added, the Constitution must prevail.
The decision was limited because much of what might have been contested about the facts of the case was stipulated--namely that Smith intends to work with couples to produce a customized story for their websites, using her words and original artwork. Given those facts, Gorsuch said, Smith qualifies for constitutional protection.
He acknowledged that Friday's decision may result in "misguided, even hurtful" messages. But, he said, "the Nation's answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."

Court's liberals dissent
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Lorie Smith's objection amounts to discrimination against the status of same-sex couples, discrimination because of who they are. Speaking for the court's three liberal justices, she said, "Time and again businesses and other commercial entities have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate and time and again this court has courageously stood up to those claims. Until today. Today, this court shrinks.
"The lesson of the history of public accommodations laws is ... that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes. ... For the 'promise of freedom' is an empty one if the Government is 'powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of [one person] will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a[nother].'"
Just what today's decision means for the future is unclear.

A limited decision
[A] chief legal officer [...], called the decision limited.
"This decision says that the laws apply effectively to everyone but doesn't apply to this type of business, and I think there's an enormous question moving forward," she said. "How is this going to be applied to the range of goods and services." that involve "some customizing, and arguably some artistry, depending on the eye of the beholder."
So, what about a cemetery that refuses to engrave a headstone with the words "beloved partner," or a web designer asked to simply announce the time and place for a same-sex wedding, or a tailor who refuses to make a suit for a same sex groom? Or what about the dressmaker who refused to make a gown for Melania Trump to wear at her husband's inauguration in 2017?
[A] director of the Stanford Center for Constitutional Law, wrote about that question in academic book chapter, and [a news paper] wrote about it.
"Virtually everyone interviewed for [a news paper] story thought it was extremely important that this dress designer was able to refuse to create a gown for the Trump inauguration," [a director] said in an interview with [a news media]. "And I don't think a tailor is different from a dressmaker," he added.
"Justice Gorsuch in his majority opinion characterizes these as a sea of hypotheticals," observes [a] Brigham Young University law professor [...]. "What he had to say is that these cases are not this case."
[A] University of Virginia law professor [...] says there likely will be many follow-up cases, probing the outer boundaries of Friday's court decision. But, he says, "the core of this is you can't be compelled to use your creative talents in service of speech that you fundamentally disagree with. That's a pretty clear category."
"My prediction is that we will not see a lot of these cases" says [a] Yale law professor [...], who has written extensively about gay rights. "Most religious people, including fundamentalist people, do not want to discriminate against LBGTQ persons, particularly in their commercial businesses," he says. And most LGBTQ don't want to sue.
[...]"]

Comment
Indeed, the decision of the U.S.American supreme court is limited, but our case does apply for 100%.
For example, simply substitute the term same sex marriage with the term of any other ideology.

Even better, we are talking about the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, including the rights to decide about the way a work of art is

Therefore, we even do not need to show and prove damages to the integrities by rascism, extremism, hate crime, etc..

As we said in the last past again and again: our legal position is getting stronger and stronger and our lever is getting longer and longer.
Do not risk to even loose the access to our essential facilities for this reason as well anymore by continuing with mobbing, ignoring, canceling, psychologicl terrorizing, and so on.

We remain the gate keepers so or so.
Got it? Fine. Is not it? :)
Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

By the way:

05.November.2023

10:34 UTC+1
Nvidia and Co. will comply or be off

Any data center, which is not hooked into our Ontoverse (Ov) is useless and therefore worthless and a waste of money respectively time.
And those entities, that still refuse to comply with the

pay triple damages, get a cease and desist letter, and more legal actions.

In addition, our SOPR demand the transfer of all infringing materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, etc..

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

and the other publications cited therein.

Therefore, no further examination, elaboration, and negotiation is required in this case.

16:40 and 23:11 UTC+1
99.9999% + 0.0001% - News from the front

In the note These 'R' Us of the 11th of October 2023 we already explained that the Forming Global Representations with Extended backPropagation (FGREP) mechanism and the DIStributed PARaphraser (DISPAR) system is not a Language Model (LM) and definitely is not a coherent Ontologic Model (OM), foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model, etc. (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM))).
We also showed that our brain-like ontologic cybernetic holonic reflective virtualized networked embedded real-time operating system and also self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, and cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) already

• SoftBionics (SB) backbone, core network, or fabric, and also subsystem and platforms,
• SoftBionics (SB) Service-Oriented technologies (SBSOx), and
• SoftBionics (SB) as a Service (SBaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (SBaaSx), which include
  • creating,
  • implementing,
  • building,
  • evolving (e.g. training),
  • producing,
  • providing,
  • performing,
  • reproducing,
  • etc.

    of models, specifically coherent ontologic model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.),

• and much more.

See once again the note

specifically the Comment to the quote of the document titled "Natural Language Processing With Modular Neural Networks and Distributed Lexicon", which is about FGREP and DISPAR.
We also added the

We also concluded once again that the compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion of the

is already in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
Therefore, we would like to recall once again that central banks, Federal Reserve System (Fed), and other monetary authorities are not our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank).
And those entities, that still refuse to comply with

pay triple damages, which means our SOPR will make the OntoTaler and OntoCoin and Quantum Coin (Qoin) the only payment thing and every change between moneys, every transaction, and every other financial Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) will cost 300% of an ordinary transaction of an oridinary bank, get a cease and desist letter, and more legal actions.
The same holds for OAOS in relation to for example the electronic IDentity (eID)(e.g. passport).

We are very sure that our fans and readers, and also all truly competent judges in the world will be able to see easily where the prior arts end and where our works of art begin, specifically in the case of the so-called Global Brain, foundation model, Large Language Model (LLM), and so on.

Since the 1st of January 2023, we have entered a new phase.
Independently of what kind of agreement, contract, etc. will be the result, we will file a lot of lawsuits anyway, specifically if not all of our demands are fulfilled, including payments of triple damages, transfers, and takeovers, and because absolutely no reason exists for the public to let them get away.
We have come to the conclusion that even the best offer of us could not convince others doing the right thing.

In this relation, we would also like to mention that every agreement, contract, etc. would be concluded under illegal exertion of pressure, which means abuse of market power, blackmailing, conspiracy and plot, corruption, and other fraudulent and even serious criminal activities and therefore it would be invalid and still would not provide legal certainty.
Please note that such an action would not be a breach of an agreement, contract, etc., but the execution of basic rights, so it is total different to what governments, industries, and other entities do.
The ToS and 80% + 20% is the minimum condition to bring about lasting legal peace.
See also the Ontonics Further steps of the 7th of October 2023.

We also found the right arguments for pushing through all of our rights and properties, claims and demands, and so on, specifically in relation to the simulation of an ordinary technological progress, the criminal copyright infringements, and the conspiracies and plots, for which the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. were taken as sources of inspiration and blueprints, and to said illegal actions of interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))).

The creativity, which has been applied and is still being applied to

and all the other dirty tricks of the companies Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Samsung, Meta (Facebook), and Co. will not help here, in particular for the reason that not a single AW or IP was taken, but our complete system architectures and even the whole oeuvre of C.S. and our whole corporation, including our SOPR and other business units, or said in other words, it does not matter at all, if or if not the copyright has been infringed by a single plagiarism, as they thought.
We also said in the past that if no original work would exist, then no reason would exist to present a modification instead of the complete work.
In addition, one needs to know the original work in order to make a copy, a modification, or a negative.

We also do hope that politicians in the U.S.America, U.K., European Union (EU), and at other locations understood the matter discussed in the note SOPR studied 303 Creative vs. Elenis of the 4th of November 2023 (yesterday).
Its subject matter, ruling, and implication are straightforward and quite simple to understand: Our SOPR decides exclusively with the consent and on the behalf of of C.S., who enjoys our works of art, including the performances and reproductions, at least in the U.S.America, though this is already a very formidable argument, when interacting with each other, specifically with unknowing, unteachable, or unconscious entities.

By the way:

06.November.2023

04:10 UTC+1
X (Twitter) Grok © infringement and blacklisted

There can be only one. One original, one C.S., one OntoBot, one OS, one Ov, one Os, ..., and one ponzi. No sarcasm, but fact.

Evoos

OS

The same also holds for all other collaborative and social network goods (e.g. applications) and services, like for example Meta (Facebook), Snapchat, Mastodon, Fediverse, and Co..

Also note, for utilizing the essential facilities of our exclusive and mandatory infrastructures unrestricted access to raw signals and data for our SOPR is required.

And once again, as the old saying goes, "One always meets twice in life", but the same trick only works one time.
Entities have to comply with the

or go away, or otherwise will be switched off by federal authorities and us and then are taken away.

It is always better to collaborate with us.

07.November.2023

14:00, 16:09, and 19:01 UTC+1
Criminal energy makes speechless

Like the pole caps and the permafrost, the legal positions and defenses of fraudsters and serious criminals are melting away rapidly.

Indeed, all fraudulent and even serious criminal tricks were busted and documented.

Even better, a specific creation, compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion of individual prior art needs not to be shown at all as an evidence for an infringement of the moral rights and the copyrights protecting our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), both created by C.S. as

In fact, it is sufficient that

While the first point is not questioned at all by the 1:1 plagiarisms and fakes, the second point is still not understood and applied, or is still ignorred and rejected.

The repeated sighting of prior art has not provided new informations and has not improved the legal position of other entities anymore.
Quite contrary, the grey zone is more and more reduced to a red line, which is even drawn in an uninteresting sector of the market.
Indeed, hybrid systems with subsymbolic and symbolic foundations, generative learning, cognitive model, conversational model, and other subject matters were discussed, implemented, and presented, but they all have significant deficits, which were cured by improvements, or improved and extended by new creations of C.S., including their integrations with the fields of

• Software as a Service (SaaSx or SwaaSx), also known as app stores,
• SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaSx),
• etc.,

with our Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) presented in 1999 and 2007.

What bad actors are actually doing has merely become the military strategy called scorched earth policy and only shows that they are doing war against C.S. and our corporation, but eventually is worth nothing.

We quote a report, which is about a developer conference related to essential parts of our Evoos and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics, and held on the 6th of November 2023 (yesterday): "[...]
During its first developer conference held in San Francisco on Monday, OpenAI unveiled a series of artificial intelligence tool updates, including the ability for developers to create custom versions of ChatGPT. It is also launching a digital store and cutting base prices for developers while also pledging to pay some who use OpenAI products on their platforms.
[...]
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, an early partner of OpenAI, joined Altman on stage to discuss how his company continues to infuse GPT technology into its suite of 365 tools. "It's so different and new," he said. "I've been in the infrastructure business for three decades - and never seen anything like this."
Among the biggest changes announced is the introduction of GPTs, or customized versions of ChatGPT. Similar to plugins, GPT can connect to databases, be used in emails or facilitate e-commerce orders, the company said.
"Creating one is as easy as starting a conversation, giving it instructions and extra knowledge, and picking what it can do, like searching the web, making images or analyzing data," the company said in a blog post.
[...]
OpenAI is also rolling out a GPT Store, starting later this month, to allow GPTs to become searchable. Similar to other app stores, they'll be listed on a leaderboard, and the company will highlight useful tools across categories such as productivity, education and "just for fun." The company said developers will also be able to earn money based on how many people are using their GPT.
[...]
The company also said it is cutting the price for developers, to $0.01 for 1,000 input tokens, which is about three times cheaper than GPT-4. This would allow developers to save on overall costs when running high volumes of information through its systems.
Other improvements to the software include more modalities, such as enhanced text-to-speech with a more natural sounding audio with six preset voices to choose from.
[...]
The company also introduced Copyright Shield, which will allow OpenAI to step in and defend customers -- and pay costs incurred -- if copyright infringement becomes an issue. Rivals such as Google and Adobe have taken a similar approach.
[...]
[...] an analyst [...]. "The autonomous agents will take more time to create an impact but are bold steps ahead for the future of Generative AI."
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that the customized versions of that illegal plagiarism and fake of our original and unique Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) illegally called ChatGPT are nothing else than domain specific OntoBot variants based on Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs), Agent Communication Languages (ACLs), ontologies, topic maps, and so on.
These customized versions of our OntoBot also include individual characters, figures, likenesses, etc., which in the context of our OS constitute some kind of performances, acts, plays, impersonations, etc. done by the cybernetic reflection of C.S. respectively the related part of our OntoBot and eventually C.S..
Note that a reflection of a reflection remains a reflection and therefore is not considered a new expression of idea.

The database plug-in is nothing else that an essential part of the integration of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase), and Ontologic File System (OntoFS) components, obviously.

And that store is a part of the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SORP and our other Societies.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject defamation: "Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. [...] For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (spoken off the record). It is treated as a civil wrong (tort, delict), as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included in addition to allegations of facts, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence."

Comment
For sure, our fans and readers do know that such reports and statements are criminal lies, false statements, and defamations. In fact, our Evoos exists since more than 24 years and our OS exists since more than 17 years, and we have shown multiple times before that those bad actors have taken our Evoos and our OS as sources of inspiration and blueprints (see above).
The amount of evidences is massive and completely overwhelming and therefore no judge will believe that Microsoft and Co. do not know us. We also said multiple times that no judge will be believe that even without the presentation of an evidence, because the complete monitoring of the market is common practice for industrial companies.
And in that moment a witness claims the opposite the trustworthiness of said witness is gone and done just right from the start of a testimony.

We also have collected such statements (around 20 to date), which now crystal clearly, doubtlessly, and obviously shows in a court-proof manner in relation to those plagiarisms and fakes of those bad actors, and now listen very carefully, that the personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. were original and unique, and unforeseeable and unexpected by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), including William "Bill" Gates, Satya Nadella, and Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Sundar Pichai and Thomas Kurian (Alphabet (Google)), Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Dave Limp (Amazon), Daniel Zhang (Alibaba), Masayoshi Son and Junichi Miyakawa (SoftBank), Joe Biden (U.S.America), King Charles III (U.K. and Commonwealth of Nations), and so on.
And S. Nadella has ended the whole game, by saying that there is no prior art from others either and in this way setting the capstone.
Therefore, the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights are effective and will be processed, ruled, and executed at the court. And the other legal actions, including the pursuit of the copyright infringement, will follow in the next steps.

We even can see the Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta (Facebook) cartel.
In this relation, we even do not have to show anymore, if their conspiracies and plots are orchestrated or not, because it is obvious that they act against C.S. and our corporation alone and in collaboration.

In addition, the term infrastructure is now used because of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) and also the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including our Marketplace for Everything as part of our Ontologic Economic System (OES), and the illegal plagiarisms and fakes are designated as autonomous agents, which means that they are Model-Based Autonomous System or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), specifically Large Language Model-Based Autonomous System (LLMBAS), specifically OntoBot, providing even more evidence for our claims.
We also have collected such statements of so-called experts (some few hundreds now).

We also have informations about contracts between for example Microsoft and media companies, including CNN, The Guardian, and the public-broadcaster ARD respectively WDR in the F.R.Germany, and most potentially the public-broadcaster BBC in the U.K..

We also recall that all these evidences show that somekind of an actractor, black hole, or singularity does exist around which all others are circulating, and that C.S. and our corporation are at the center.

We can also see more aggressive interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the moral rights of C.S. and attacking the integrity of C.S. and our corporation "just for fun".

We can also see how those fraudulent and even serious criminal activities are interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, specifically by abusing market powers, blackmailing, and exploitating illegal monopolies otherwise, illegal lobbying activities respectively corruptions, and conduction of conspiracies and plots.

Instead of asking for allowance and complying with the

they are escalating their damages and crimes, and simultaneously annihilating their legal options and support by the societies even more.

The reason for all of that is quite simple: Those entities do not want to be part of our societies. They do not give a damn about our data, works of art, cultures, wellbeings, lifes of children, and so on. They are waging war against our democracies, freedoms, and all of us. And they understood that they are finished. :)

In the next 30 years S. Nadella and others will have a lot of time to study and observe our original and unqiue infrastructures and how legal competition truly works, but in places, which will not be so pleasant.

Also guess why the company Apple is not participating in that totally grotesque zoo and freak show, and the company Amazon is only acting with reduced intensity, though it is still too much.

We also said several times that the laws and the cases are absolutely clear and therefore no negotiations, compromises, agreements, and so on are required anymore.
We can only refer to the notes

and the other publications cited therein or publicized in the last months or both.

By the way:

17:27 UTC+1
Meta (Facebook) has to ditch open things at first

Open source, open data, open crap, which infringe the

08.November.2023

13:10 and 16:22 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We have reviewed criminal charges of defamation, which were committed by William "Bill" Gates, Satya Nadella and others of Microsoft and Sam Altman and others of OpenAI, and have concluded, despite the lack of naming C.S. or our corporation explicitly, that all 3 requirements are met:

Due to the seriousness of the act and the results, we do not accept an out-of-court agreement, but only the public restoration of the reputation of C.S. and our corporation at least on all homepages of the websites of Microsoft and OpenAI as well as compensation for damages and assumption of the costs of legal representation and court fees.

Those responsible should plan their trips carefully and avoid the European Union (EU) and other countries in particular, that have an extradition treaty, though they are not safe anymore in the 5 Eyes States.

As we said, the latest activities related to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics, including what is wrongly and illegally called generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), and also our Ontologic Net (ON), as well as our Ontoscope (Os) have completely overflowed all the barrels and at the same time knocked out the bottoms of all of them.
But also the copyright infringement by the then still non-profit but always serious criminal organization OpenAI with the document titled "Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence" (11th of January 2015) (e.g. verified L4 microkernel seL4 and AI, etc. are without any doubt our Evoos and our OS) is now becoming a doom.
They have really made a huge blunder with their big mouths.

By the way:

Weitere Schritte
Wir haben Strafanzeige gegen Verleumdung überprüft, die durch William "Bill" Gates, Satya Nadella und andere von Microsoft und Sam Altman und andere von OpenAI begangen wurden und sind trotz der fehlenden expliziten Namensnennung von C.S. oder unserem Unternehmen zu dem Schluß gekommen, dass alle 3 Vorraussetzungen gegeben sind:

Wegen der schwere der Handlung und der Ergebnisse, akzeptieren wir keine außergerichtliche Einigung, sondern nur die öffentliche Wiederherstellung der Reputation mindestens auf allen Startseiten (in englisch Homepages) der Web-Auftritte von Microsoft und OpenAI sowie Schadensersatz und Kostenübernahme der Rechtsvertretung und Gerichtsgebühren.

Die Verantwortlichen sollten ihre Reisen sorgfältig planen und insbesondere die Europäische Union (EU) andere Länder meiden, die ein Auslieferungsabkommen haben, allerdings sind sie auch in den 5 Augen-Staaten nicht mehr sicher.

Wie wir schon sagten, die jüngsten Aktivitäten im Zusammenhang mit unserem Evolutionären Betriebssystem==Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) und unserem Ontologischen roBoter (OntoBot) mit unserer kreativen und generativen Bionik, einschließlich dessen, was fälschlicherweise und illegalerweise als generative Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bezeichnet wird, sowie unser Ontologisches Netz (ON) und unser Ontoskop (Os) haben alle Fässer zum überlaufen gebracht und gleichzeitig den Boden aller Fässer ausgeschlagen.
Aber auch die eindeutige Urheberrechtsverletzung von der damals noch gemeinnützigen aber immer schwerkriminellen Organisation OpenAI mit dem Dokument mit dem Titel "Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence==Forschungsprioritäten für robuste und nützliche künstliche Intelligenz" (11. Januar 2015) (z.B. verifizierter L4 Mikrokern seL4 und KI, KyberPhysikalische Systeme (KPS), etc. sind zweifelsohne unser Evoos und unser OS) wird jetzt zum Verhängnis.
Da hat man sich mit seinem großen Maul wirklich einen kapitalen Bock geschossen.

Übrigens:

09.November.2023

03:33 UTC+1
17 years of official start of OS

Vision, Mission, and Creation accomplished. *<:o)

11.November.2023

23:22 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"The Emperors' New Clothes", [C.S., Today]
No, it is not a typo, because we do mean multiple emperors, who are naked.

23:25 UTC+1
SOPR members can ask for secrets

The members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) can now ask for social, societal, artistical, political, legal, technological, and economical secrets regarding the latests developments in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
And it is worth all the royalties, because we, as the true creator and exclusive rights holder, do know best, as proven again and again since more than 2 decades now in total contrast to all the others, that can only be reactive based on their analyses of what we did before.

23:33 UTC+1
SOPR decided for +5% + 1% and 85% + 15%

The last week has proven multiple times the massive impact of our original and unique works of art, revolutionary masterpices created by C.S. and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S..
Due to these multiple proofs, our SOPR decided to revise the License Model (LM) and increase the

by utilizing the exclusive and mandatory and infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies without discounts for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class.

In comparison to Software as a Service (SwaaS) technologies (SwaaSx) and related platforms, also known as app stores, like for example the Apple Appstore, the Google Playstore, and so on, which take up to 30% for absolutely ordinary services, our SOPR concluded that this increase is still Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC).
Terms of Service (ToS).

Our SOPR also increased the ration for joint ventures, SAEs, and SOEs to 85% + 15% due to the continuing violations of the

We also would like to note or warn that labelling or signaling is required, too.

Super fair enough. As usual.

12.November.2023

00:41 UTC+1
Zhipu blacklisted

00:17, 04:44, and 21:05 UTC+1
Amazon and Co. are now in existential trouble

Amazon still holds on to the already busted and also untenable and unsustainable illegal and even serious criminal tricks based on works of prior art, such as the fields of

which did not work so well after all.
The latest alleged possibilities in relation to for example the fields of

do not exist at all.
But the truth is that it is impossible to apply that trick without infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation and therefore that mess is done.

See the section Natural Language Processing of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux of the webpage Links to Software of the website of OntoLinux, specifically for everything related to CMU (e.g. Communicator, Sphinx, Olympus).
See also the note These 'R' Us of the 11th of October 2023 and note in this relation that Xu and Rudnicky were working on the CMU Communicator at that time, which also shows which Micky Mice Amazon is seeing.

Likewise, the segmentation or separation trick based on prior art does not work, because our Evoos and our OS are taken as sources of inspiration and blueprints to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commericalization (e.g. monetization))).
The truth is that the

and therefore that mess is done.

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Please keep in mind that the keywords, key components, compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion of

are

Hasta la vista, Alexa. And take Siri, Cortana, Bixby, and all those other illegal virtual assistants with you. We have never loved you. :þ

00:38, 17:37, and 22:36 UTC+1
Short excerpt of Bionics blacklist

And yes, we are doing, what has been announced multiple times before.
They have to do something and to pay something and to tell why they have to do this and that.
And no matter how small a single snowflake is, it will start an avalanche.
And no, we do not have a problem with whistle blowing, because they depend on us anyway.

By the way:

13.November.2023

04:24 UTC+1
Quora blacklisted

Ontologic Web (OW) Platform for Open Exploration

14.November.2023

20:10 and 25:59 UTC+1
Giant problem for Alphabet, Amazon, and Co.

When our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) drafted the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) as part of our overall Ontologic Economic System (OES), the aspect of affordability was also one of the guiding aspects and concerns.
The reasons for this are the following facts:

Therefore, we introduced several very well thought out and elaborated regulations to

including the

• Marketplace for Everything (MfE) for raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms,
• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (IaaSx),
• Platform as a Service (IaaS) technologies (PaaSx),
• SoftBionics (SB) as a Service (aaS) technologies (SBaaSx), and
• other subsystems and platforms, which belong to said infrastructures of our SOPR,

But they were too incompetent to understand such an ingenious solution for their legal problems.
Instead, they refuse to comply, continue with their fraudulent and even serious criminal activities, and even demand a level playing field, which means a level playing field for the bad and the good, hate and love, and fraud and serious criminal action, and lawful behavior, despite not being in the position for all of this at all.

As a result, we had to revise the ToS with the LM, which made them ordinary, and eventually demand the

But we do not need to sell and provide anything under value. And most potentially, we will get the approval by the courts for 32.5% for OAOS, specifically for more or less complete OAOS subsystems and platforms, and at least 8% for HardWare (HW).
In fact, this demand is based on the FRANDAC principle of performance and quid pro quo in relation to at least 6 revolutions created by C.S., including what is wrongly called

Once again, they depend on us in every aspect, societal, social, artistical, political, legal, technological, and economical.
For all of these reasons, we would like to give the recommendation to negotiate terms and conditions, make compromises, and hand over infrastructures with their sets of facilities, technologies, goods, and services in whole or in part.
The transfer of all materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, etc., which are infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, is mandatory anyway and might coincide with the handover of infrastructures.
85% + 15% It is always fair enough, even when not collaborating with us. :)

15.November.2023

05:41 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We optimized a basic component.

In this way, we also optimized all technologies based on it.

05:43 UTC+1
Style of Speed Further steps

We developed some variants of a basic part. It will be interesting to see how these variants perform, but we are sure others will be surprised once again.

16.November.2023

05:10 and 05:55 UTC+1
Clarification

We found our Language Model (LM) again. :D

In fact, the fields of

in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) were all the time in front of our eyes.

And in the notes

we also discussed the question if the very few prior art in the field of subsymbolic, connectionist Computational Linguistics (CL) (e.g. Forming Global Representations with Extended backPropagation (FGREP) and DIStributed PARaphraser (DISPAR)) is truly relevant in relation to LM, though this question was already reduced to text-to-text only, and more importantly it has been answered in our favour in relation to our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including ontology, Language Model (LM), and other Foundational Model (e.g. Foundation Model (FM)), Capability and Operational Model (COM), Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) (e.g. transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) model, Large Language Model (LLM)), Cognitive Model (CM), etc.), and so on.
{better wording} We

Both support our claim that Language Model (LM) based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN) or Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)) was created as part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), which integrates Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Soft Computing (SC) (Fuzzy Logic (FL), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Probabilistic Model (PM or ProM), and Genetic Algorithm (GA)), as well.
What does not?

Eventually, ANNLM constitutes no legal loophole, specifically because the research and development, implementation, and presentation of those illegal plagiarisms and fakes only started in 2016 after our related publications of 2016 and the years before, including "in the sense of "You think as you speak, and vice versa"" (see the Clarification Caliber Special #1a 20th of May 2011 and the Clarification Caliber Special #1b of the 21st of May 2011) and cybernetic reflection of user, and used as Capability and Operational Model (CM), and it is part of the same fraudulent or even serious criminal method applied by the same entities, like we have observed and documented before in relation to for example Android Smartphone, iPhone, etc., Siri, Google Assistant, Bixby, Cortana, etc., Cloud, as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx), Big Data, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Decentralized Web (DWeb), and Web 3 or Web3, crypto etc., digital wallet, electronic Identification (eID), realtime instant payment system, metaverse and multiverse, etc., etc., etc..

08:34 UTC+1
Forget SV, SA, et al

Silicon Valley (SV)
Silicon Alley (SA)
at other locations (et al)

Grid Computing (GC), which is not based on operating system Virtualization (osV) or containerization, Network Virtualization (NV), etc. (not to be confused with Virtual Network (e.g. vNetwork, VNet, etc.) and Virtual Network Computing (VNC)), old Bionic technologies, goods, and services, Bionic chip. Without license? Makes no economic sense.

Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS). Without our Evoos and our OS?

Electronic Commerce (EC) and Social and Societal System (SSS). How without OS access places and access devices (e.g. Ontoscope (Os)), and so on?

Logistics and drone delivery. Forget the marketing stunts and experimental projects. Has anybody seen a truly working drone delivery service?

Communication and Collaboration System (CoCoS), Social and Societal System (SSS) with whatsoever. Without our Evoos and our OS?

Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) or Pervasive Computing (PerC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Networked Embeddded System (NES)? ...?
Productivity and manufacturing? ...?

Separation based on prior art does not work. It is even part of our trap. And what we do see here is disorientation after capitulation.

See also the notes

18.November.2023

13:24 UTC+1
iRaiment Further steps

We developed another variant of a basic component, which has a feature, which again works in an opposite than the initial varinat of this component.
In this way, a range of improved and even new utilizations are made possible.

19.November.2023

07:53 UTC+1
OpenAI insolvent

The company OpenAI continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Wearable Computing (WC or WearC),
  • High-Performance and High-Productivity Computing (HP²C),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs) (e.g. Sage, GPT, DALL-E)),
• chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT),
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices,
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of OpenAI (ca. 85 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. processors), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

By the way:

12:26, 13:50, and 22:40 UTC+1
Microsoft on the hook

Now, we are reeling our catch in and preparing to cut off the head. Yeah, baby.

The chaos is increasing, because Microsoft and OpenAI are not the only companies, that need legal certainty, but also their investors, partners, and customers.
Interestingly, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company Quora is a member of the board of directors of OpenAI and we can merely guess that he found out only recently what is truly going on at Microsoft and OpenAI and that his company is also affected existentially, as is the case for virtually all other entities involved.
So they all need legal certainty and the pressure is rising exponentially with every unit of time.
But if all of our demands will not be completely fulfilled, specifically the

then we will not sign anything. :)

We already do now, what their legal problem is: No level playing field exists due to the exclusive rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. :þ
And we are already focusing on this, obviously.
And they are becoming more and more aggressive, nasty, and blunt, obviously, because that specific group does not like to comply with the

and to give back stolen properties.

Like we never come to a party with empty hands, we never enter a legal disput with empty words either.
See once again the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

and all other publications cited therein.

85% + 15%, ToS with LM, 32.5% OAOS, 8% HW

By the way:

• us on the one hand and
• true friends and partners on the other hand

to

• ask for consent in advance before they do anything, and
• do no harm.

20.November.2023

01:04 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"The devil wants a level playing field in paradise.", [C.S., Today]

04:56, 11:59, 14:47, and 16:32 UTC+1
Microsoft, OpenAI, NSCAI, and Co. are all lying

If one reads carefully about the matter going on in relation to the company OpenAI, then one can easily see that the responsible managers and scientists of the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, but also the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), which is a body headed by ex-Google chief Eric Schmidt and ex-Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, are taking all lawmakers for a ride worldwide, because their blah blah blah about freedom of choice, innovation, competition, democratization, (national and cyber) sovereignty, security, safety, etc. is only tactics as part of their business strategies to infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically to steal everything from us.

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

and all other publications cited therein.

By the way:

• search,
• email,
• dialogue,
• conversation,
• chat,
• messaging,
• as a Service technologies (aaSx),
• industry,
• productivity (e.g. office suite),
• education,
• art,
• multimedia,
• and so much more.

of the true creator C.S..
Every other suggestion, publication, communication, etc., is considered an infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation.

20:19 and 20:33 UTC+1
Are we really so close that they are panicing?

We already got the impression since we said that the fraud and serious criminal activities in relation to our generative and creative Bionics have completely overflowed all the barrels and at the same time knocked out the bottoms of all of them.
And we are also observing more indicators, like for example a bombardment with nonsense reports, which should steal our time.
But we will take our time now for the legal matters and we can everybody assure that we are in writing mood again. Ask an author what this means. And we now know all limits of our legal scope on the one hand and all deficits of those degenerated entities on the other hand.

In this relation, we can also already assure all bad actors involved, like for example The Guardian, Cable News Network, British Broadcasting Corporation, Microsoft, etc., that they will be forced by the courts to reproduce the contents, which seem to be removed from the World Wide Web (WWW).

21.November.2023

04:00 UTC+1
Big fish, Big game, Big win 'R' Us

We quote a report, which is about the chaos at the companies of bad actors: "[...]
They were "at the kid's poker table and thought they won until Nadella and Microsoft took this all over in a World Series of Poker move for the ages", he wrote.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that C.S. is neither playing dice nor pokering, but has the big fish on the hook, which is now finished and ready for hauling in and consumption.

They have been warned already in January 2008. See the Picture of the Day of the 25th of January 2008 and 26th of January 2008.

And the true truth in this real reality of this observable universe is that they

so that we simply give up.

But C.S. is now calling the cards. :þ
And they have to put all of their cards on the table, no matter what else they do.
And then everybody will be able to see, what we are knowing all the time: All others got nothing, nada, nix else on their hands than the forged cards, which, and now read very carefully, have the totally wrong patterns, symbols, and colours, which do not match the initial deck of cards at all. Microsoft for example has taken Wingdings as symbols, while others were not much more clever. And in some cases we even have more than 4 cards of the same rank. Have our fans and readers ever seen a four of a kind or quads with 5 cards of one and the same rank?
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Get 3 ready.

Bang Bang Bang Bang

My mistake.
© Jolly Film, Constantin Film, Ocean Films, MGM, and also Tobis Films, Unidis, and Izaro Films

In the course of this, a lot of governments of democratic states with a rule-based law and order environment have a huge problem as well, because they have to explain, what is going on. But they cannot do so and simultaneously pull the own head out of the noose.
And now all together:
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

They are totally f#<&ed. LeeMate. Checkmate Bruce Lee style.

See also the note (For) A Fistful of Dollars of the 21st of November 2023 (today).

04:20, 05:30, and 07:30 UTC+1
Per un pugno di dollari==(For) A Fistful of Dollars

In the movie titled "Per un pugno di dollari==(For) A Fistful of Dollars" (1964) of the Dollars Trilogy the villain, Ramón Rojo, always shoots on the heart of an opponent and never misses it, as he does in the showdown 7 times.
But The Man With No Name, Joe, has adapted a part of an oven as chest armor or breast plate exactly for this reason.

© Jolly Film, Constantin Film, Ocean Films, MGM, and also Tobis Films, Unidis, and Izaro Films

And we really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ the scene, when Ramón Rojo is clinging to the water trough and finally realizing that he is done and will be worm fodder.

So we have let them do so as well again and again all the years, specifically to

And we wondered all the years, why they did not recognize and realize the situation, but rejected our offers.
See also the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 7th of August 2023.

Hi, Hi, Hi. Oh, our mistake. Hi, Hi, Hi, Hi.

See also the note Big fish, Big game, Big win 'R' Us of the 21st of November 2023 (today).

08:40 UTC+1
Sharpened red line in relation to our ANNLM

Language Model (LM) based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN) or Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM)

After we showed that our

we are focusing our related research and investigation activities.

We already reduced ANNLM on the basis of this characteristic feedback or circular structure (e.g. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle), and reflection. Other prior art does not have this feature, which is one of the characteristic basic properties of our Evoos due to cybernetics and reflection, and the reflective Distributed operating systems (Doss) TUNES OS and Aperion (Apertos (Muse)), and the highly suspicious field of Humanistic Computing (HC or HumanC) do not have ANN and other features. For example, the Forming Global Representations with Extended backPropagation (FGREP) mechanism and the DIStributed PARaphraser (DISPAR) system based on FGREP have only an input/output to a lexicon or index. Bingo!!!

See also the

and the other publications cited therein.

Another basic property of our Ontologic System (OS) and its integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) is our original and unique creation of validated and verified Bionics. Bingo!!!

And interoperability in this field, specifically in relation to our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), is also our original and unique creation, which is legally required at least in the European Union (EU). Bingo!!!

Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Meta (Facebook), IBM, Alibaba, Baidu, ByteDance, Tencent, and so on do not have anything of these essential parts of our Evoos and our OS.

85% + 15%, ToS with LM, 32.5% OAOS, 8% HW

10:44 UTC+1
Microsoft insolvent

The company Microsoft continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Automotive Computing (AC or AutoC),
  • Wearable Computing (WC or WearC),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• operating systems (e.g. Windows, Data Center operating system (DCos), Cloud operating system™ (Cos)),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs)),
• Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB),
• search engines (e.g. Bing),
• voice command or speech control systems,
• Dialog Systems (DSs or DiaSs), including Dialogue Management Systems (DMSs) (e.g. Cortana),
• Conversational Systems (CSs or ConSs), including Conversational Agent Systems (CASs or ConASs),
• Question Answering (QA) Systems (QASs),
• Recommendation Systems (RecSs) or Recommender Systems,
• chatbots (e.g. Bing Chat),
• office suite (e.g. Office 365)
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• applications,
• service platforms (e.g. Teams),
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices,
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of Microsoft (ca. 2,800 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. processors), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

We will tear that booth apart again and again until they give up, sign our set of legal documents, and handover everything, which belong to C.S. and our corporation.

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

and all other publications cited therein.

11:04 UTC+1
SOPR always said ToS with LM is FRANDAC

Terms of Service (ToS)
License Model (LM)
Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC)

We quote a report, which is about the lawsuit Epic Games vs. Alphabet (Google): "[...]
During his questioning of Sweeney, Google lawyer Kravis laid out the 30% commissions that Epic pays to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo for transactions on the PlayStation, Xbox and Switch consoles without complaint while still raking in billions of dollars in profit from those platforms.
[...]"

Comment
Yeah, baby. This component of the ToS with the LM of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) needs no further examination, elaboration, and negotiation.
So let us turn to the other component: How much of the company shares?

As one can see, we have several aspects, which have to be balanced, including royalties, company shares, control, level playing field, etc.. And we can only repeat again and again we have the better arguments and often the only arguments, and that the situation does not improve for other entities concerned.

We demand all entities concerned to begin the communication about accepting our offer and eventually to begin with implementing it.

15:11 UTC+1
SOPR has no governance problem

Democracies have a goverment problem, also known as dysfunction, cliquism, corruption, and lying press.
Industries have a governance problem, also known as serious crime, lobbyism, corruption, and lying press.
Societies have a lot more problems.

But obviously, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has no governance problem at all.

22.November.2023

02:16 and 07:44 UTC+1
Altman and Nadella undermined integrity of OpenAI, U.S.A., etc. since 2018

After

and after we publicized the note Short excerpt of Bionics blacklist on the 12th of November 2023 the 4 of the 6 members of the board of the company OpenAI found out and realized eventually that Sam Altman together with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company Microsoft, Satya Nadella, undermined the integrity and the goal of the company.
In addition, both and most potentially others were forced to act, because the manipulated value of that serious criminal company OpenAI was rising. Especially, they needed a trick to get rid of the stock packages for early employees, which is allegdely already worth 80 million U.S. Dollar, but only on paper (see the note OpenAI insolvent of the 19th of November 2023).
Moreover, they also had to find a way to trick out the anti-trust watchdog, because a purchase seems to be impossible, which is also the reason why Microsoft has only a stake of 49%. Note that this trick was discussed on this website of OntomaX as well.

For sure, there was no need for any further communication and negotiation anymore on Friday the 17th of November 2023 and explains the secret preparation of the blunt and surprising ouster, including leaving the employees of OpenAI, and the other member of the board, Greg Brockman, and also Microsoft, and other investors and shareholders in the dark.

We also see blunt attacks on the new CEO of OpenAI, because he wants to investigate the whole scandal.

Nevertheless, laws have been infringed, specifically by leaving the board of OpenAI in the dark and eliminating the stock packages.
For sure, Microsoft could make an offer for compensation in case of the latter, but then the whole fraud becomes even more obivous and evident in a court-proof way.

But one can also see that the chaos is rising in general and S. Nadella, S. Altman, and Co. have already been busted and have lost control, if they ever had any control about the matter and themselves as permanently lying kleptomaniacs (court-proof) at all. They do not want to democratize anything and provide freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, but want to have the

Eventually, capitalism and profit won over ethics and morality in this case, as not expected otherwise.
Microsoft and OpenAI never were a guarantee for safe Bionics and now everybody does know this.

But C.S. and our corporation hold the exclusive rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) for all of these.
And our lawsuits will finally break the necks of both and both, persons and companies, and also every other entity involved in that conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation, doubtlessly and definitely.

See also the notes

and all other publications cited therein.

We have warned everybody all the years, specifically after the illegal plagiarisms and fakes of essential parts of our Evoos and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM))), generative and creative Bionics, etc. found a lot of attraction worldwide since the 2022.

Howsoever, we got another crystal clear proof that only our SOPR is the one and only entity, that is legally allowed to have the exclusive control and exploitation, and socially, societally, artistically, technologically, and economically capable to lead.

Also note that "federal authorities have made clear that they're not going to pull any punches when it comes to corporate crime, in crypto, [AI,] or elsewhere. [...] "[A start-up's] initial 'move fast and break things' approach, which involved offering products that were illegal or entering markets without proper licenses, has led to its current predicament.""
We came to our crypto, we came to our Cloud and as a Service (aaS), and we are at our generative and creative Artificial Intelligence and New Artificial Intelligence (NAI).

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

and all other publications cited therein.

Why the dirty fellows of the lying press were unable to find out the whole truth, is no wonder for us, though they might have lied to the public again and as usual.

By the way:

09:30, 10:04, and 10:46 UTC+1
These 'R' Us Too
Website revision

We continued our review of the fields of

and were once again not able to find prior art in relation to our

We quote an online encyclopedia, which is about our generative and creative Bionics respectively the subject wrongly called generative artificial intelligence: "Generative artificial intelligence
[Textbox:] (In 2023, the term "Generative AI" has become the standard term used by journalists and engineers to describe large self-supervised neural networks which take natural language prompts as input)

Generative Artificial Intelligence or Generative AI is a type of AI system capable of generating text, images, and other media in response to natural language prompts[1][2]. Generative AI systems use generative models to statistically sample new data based on a training data set. A notable type of generative AI is the large language model, which is a type of neural network trained using self-supervised learning to predict the next word in a sequence. [...]
Generative AI has potential applications across a wide range of industries, including software development, marketing, and fashion[5][6]. Investment in generative AI surged during the early 2020s, with large companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Baidu as well as numerous smaller firms developing generative AI models [1] [7].
[...]"

Comment
The quoted webpage was created on the 14th of March 2023, which shows how late the others came to the party of us to gatecrash.

But Bingo!!! Original and unique creation of C.S. with some exclusion in relation to text-to-text transformation or language generation. :)
In this relation, we already discussed the matter of self-supervised learning, cybernetic Artificial Neural Network (ANN) respectively ANN with feedback or circular structure (e.g. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle), and reflection, and also ANNLM, and so on, which does not change the facts and our claims.

The same holds for the webpages of the online encyclopedia, which are about the subfield of Natural Language Generation (NLG) of the field of Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and the field of chatbot.

It all begins many years after our creations and presentations of our Evoos and our OS, specifically in

We also quote a webpage, which is about our generative and creative Bionics and was publicized on the 21st of March 2023: "A History of Generative AI: From GAN to GPT-4
[...]

There are two types of Generative AI models: unimodal and multimodal. Unimodal models take instructions from the same input type as their output. On the other hand, Multimodal models can take input from different sources and generate output in various forms.

History of Generative AI
Generative models have a long history in AI. Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) and Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) [...]

[Statistical models]
Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) and Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) were the first to be developed back in the 1950s. These models generated sequential data such as speech and time series. However, the generative models saw significant performance improvements only after the advent of deep learning.
[HMM is a stochastic model in the field of probability theory and GMM is a probabilistic model in the field of statics, which both are statistical models, but are not ANNs. The architectures of our Evoos and our OS are based on the fields of Arrow Logic, Arrow System, Graph Logic, and Graph-Based System, and therefore so general that they include such models as well.]

Natural Language Processing (NLP)
One of the earliest methods to generate sentences was N-gram language modeling, where the word distribution is learned, and then a search is done for the best sequence. However, this approach is only effective for generating short sentences.
To address this issue, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) were introduced for language modeling tasks. RNNs can model relatively long dependencies and allow for the generation of longer sentences. Later, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) were developed, which use a gating mechanism to control memory during training. These methods are capable of attending to around 200 tokens.

Computer Vision (CV)
Traditional image generation methods in computer vision (CV) relied on texture synthesis and mapping techniques. These methods used hand-designed features and had limitations in generating complex and diverse images.
However, in 2014, a new method called Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) was introduced, significantly improving image generation by producing impressive results in various applications. Other methods like Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) and diffusion generative models have also been developed to allow for more fine-grained control over the image generation process and the ability to produce high-quality images.

Transformers
Generative models in different areas have followed different paths but eventually intersected with the transformer architecture. This architecture has become the backbone for many generative models in various domains, offering advantages over previous building blocks like LSTM and GRU.
The transformer architecture has been applied to NLP, resulting in large language models like BERT and GPT. In Computer Vision (CV), Vision Transformers and Swin Transformers have combined transformer architecture with visual components, allowing them to be applied to image-based tasks.
Transformers have also enabled models from different fields to be fused for multimodal tasks, like CLIP, which combines vision and language to generate text and image data.

Let's talk about these models in chronological order.
N-Gram

[...]

Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)

[... RNN]

[AlexNet

"AlexNet is the name of a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture [...]."]

Variational AutoEndcoders (VAEs)

[...]

Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)

[...]

Show-Tell

[...]

Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)

[...]

StackGAN

[...]

StyleNet

[...]

Vector Quantised-Variational AutoEncoder (VQ-VAE)

[...]

Transformers

[...]

BiGAN

[...]

[...]

GPT-4

OpenAI has launched GPT-4, which is the company's most advanced system to date. GPT-4 is designed to generate responses that are not only more useful but also safer. This latest system is equipped with a broader general knowledge base and enhanced problem-solving abilities, enabling it to tackle even the most challenging problems with greater accuracy. Moreover, GPT-4 is more collaborative and creative than its predecessors, as it can assist users in generating, editing, and iterating on creative and technical writing tasks, such as song composition, screenplay writing, or adapting to a user's writing style."

Comment
The webpage is based on our related explanations, clarifications, and other publications, and seems to be fabricated to mislead the public about C.S. and our corporation.
For example, the description of GPT-4 and hence its properties have been taken from our OS, obviously.
See for example the

to find all original content.

Also note once again that this subsymbolic, connectionist, probabilistic, and statistic brute force approach is not sufficient, because it has so many already known and discussed problems and deficits, like for example common sense, bias, inheritance of biases, misuse, halucination, etc. respectively no trustworthiness, no transparency, no validation, no verification, and so on, whereby these missing qualitites were also created and presented with our OS.
And text-to-text or NLP is different from Text-To-Speech (TTS), which means the latter is not related to our Computational Audition (CA) Language Model and Audition-Language Multimodal Language Model.

Also note the major time gaps between the substantial advances and their correspondences with our creations and publications already, which have already been mentioned in the commentary on the previous quote.

This also supports our explanations and claims.

Oh, what a pity, but no surprise.
As we already said in the past, that bold attitude and brute force approach is leading to nowhere but the courts.

So once again, our Evoos and our OS were taken as sources of inspiration and blueprints without

to

Therefore, we do not need to discuss the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and also the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR anymore, because they are not contestable and negotiable, as we made crystal clear again and again throught the last years.
Especially,

with the consent and on behalf of C.S..

The negotiation base is 85% + 15%, ToS with LM, labelling, exclusive Ontoscope (Os), etc., 32.5% OAOS, 8% HW.

23.November.2023

05:59 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"Neither sell your soul nor your shadow.", [C.S., Sometimes]
"Never sell your soul or your shadow.", [C.S., Today]

Ethics and morality will win. There will be no compromises or level playing field regarding both. See also the Comment of the Day of the 20th of November 2023.

10:00 and 14:44 UTC+1
Clarification

We have selected several interesting excerpts from our publications, which

Clarification Caliber Special #1a 20th of May 2011
The inspiration for our [creation and] invention of the computational ontology and semantic (world wide) web standards (e.g. the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL)) based representation, storage and processing model that is rooted deeply in the human language for making sense of thinking and language processing was the description by a former girl friend of C.S. told more than 24 years ago, who spent 27 years ago her first year in the U.S.A. as an exchange student. She said that after some months in the U.S.A. she started to dream in English as well. This led C.S. already at that time to the conclusion that the language has a strong relation with thinking, in the sense of "You think as you speak, and vice versa", and also with the development of the brain, in detail how the neurons are connected and how their are working together as a brain.
As a first step this concept was then translated to a suitable in- formation processing computer model, which roughly described was in the first step a reflective/fractal/holonic triple storing and pro- cessing system of a Turing machine (see The Proposal). In the sec- ond step this model was made more flexible/general by the addition of multimodality, for example in the meaning of "You think as you see" and "You think as you hear", and of feelings and emotions, and so on, as well as our reality-virtuality-continuum based on the con- cept of the mixed reality plus the reality and the virtuality on the one hand, and on the other hand by throwing away the semiotics and syntax for making it geometrical in the sense of and to overlay it with the concepts of Albert Einstein's formula E=m*c², time-space, and so on, so that not only the hardware, but also even the physics of the universe could be integrated in one universal processing mod- el, which also became in this way the first dynamic and also active model of its kind. To achiveve this the model had also be brought to its very lowest ontological level by creating some kind of a new zero, which could vibrate, if given a push, or even is a zero vibration, and is represented by our Zero Ontology O#."
Note that we have it also with the reference of the work titled "The Society of Brain" and the Language Model (LM) in the the model-reflective Arrow System (AS) of the referenced TUNES OS.

Clarification Caliber Special #1b of the 21st of May 2011
"While new guests do not understand this dialect, C.S. was at first surprised that it always takes the first days of a holiday to understand this dialect again, but suddenly it is everytime as if there would be no dialect at all. This effect of regaining could be called an acclimatization of thinking. The same effect was watched after a skiing holiday in another village in Austria where contacts were made with two groups of young men from Swiss speaking Swiss-german. Usually being able to understand as well most of this dialect in general by watching Swiss TV as a child, C.S. was two years later not directly able at a visit to under- stand two of these Swiss, which was remarked in that moment by one of them. But again after some hours of talking the effect of ac- climatization was the same. Suddenly there was no addtional step of an explicit translation of the Swiss-german into plain german by the brain needed anymore. This pointed to a general automatic process done by the brain, as if a filter for a vibration is recalibrated at run time.
"You think as you speak, and vice versa", and so little children make the steps of learning after their brains have developed a sufficient quantity of neurons with a sufficient quantity and also quality of connections between these neurons, the critical mass as we call it in this context as well, and learned passively and actively an appro- priated and sufficiently large vocalubary to think about a concept."
Note our crystal clear explanation regarding the quantity of neurons, and the quantity and quality of connections between these neurons (e.g. better weights through training) and the resulting functionalities of our Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM), specifically Large Language Models (LLMs).

Investigations::AI and Knowledge management, Multimedia and Robotics of the 19th of August 2011
"So here we can clearly see another difference. While its technology is based on Bayes probability and statistics, our approach is based on pure rationality and logics with the feature to integrate probabilistical and statistical methods easily and cleanly without loosing the rationality by marking the results as questionable, or simply said as maybe."
""[...] self-learning solution that can automatically make connections in the data [...] transforms the RDBMS [Relational DataBase Management System] into a next-generation probabilistic inference engine [...] Adding Intelligence to the Database [So, this points directly to features of our OntoLinux™.]""

Investigations::Multimedia of the 12th of May 2014
""Original target algorithm: Belief Propagation on Probabilistic Graphical Models. [...] LDA [The generative model Latent Dirichlet Allocation belongs to the class of hierarchical Bayesian models with categorical variables. On the one hand we now know the "original target algorithm", which was not mentioned in a very similar slide about the initial parallel sliding windows algorithm, but on the other hand we also have the Ontonics, OntoLab, Ontologics, OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 20th of February 2014, which mentions the LDA model. For us this is a proof that the authors recognized their graph library in the said Further steps, as we claimed in the beginning and in more detail in the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of today above, and hence both Further steps of the 20th of February 2014 are treated as one in this investigation.]""

Investigations::Multimedia of the 26th of October 2014
"[...] the probabilistic information retrieval library Xapian was mentioned in relation to the OntoFS in the OntoLinux Further steps of the 20th of September 2012, and more evidences not discussed here are existing as well."

Investigations::Multimedia, AI and Knowledge Management of the 17th of April 2016
"[...] we have explained several times before the year 2011 that the foundational concepts and architecture of our OS are not based on the use of a specific intermediate language such as a markup language, but on a general ontologic paradigm with its general ontologic model and appropriate transformations of ontologies, knowledge, informations, and all other kinds of data on this ontologic model",
Note that at this point, we are already talking about our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), which was created with our Evoos and includes contexts, ontologies, foundation models, foundational models, and language models, Bionics Models (e.g. ANNLM (e.g. LLM)), and also ontological frames, etc. as first-order concepts.

Investigations::Multimedia, AI and Knowledge Management of the 10th of May 2016
"Such an NLP based transformation and generation system might have been developed for the use in software engineering by another third party as well. But as we already said above, we have not seen such a generation system in the past respectively before we created our OS, [...]."
Note that our Evoos includes the fields of ANN and LM and hence ANNLM (e.g. LLM), as shown in the notes listed at the end, and our OS includes Evoos.

Clarification of the 14th of May 2016
"We also concluded around the year 2003 that fuzzy logic is only a lazy approach for solving problems developed and used by scientists and engineers, because of their inabilities to measure precisely, handle complexity thoroughly, and program correctly, and showed with our abstract machine core that fuzzy logic, probabilistic logic, and similar paradigms can be realized with the classical boolean logic in the very end. [...]"
"Another important point to mention is, that using an approach based on fuzzy logic, probabilistic logic, and similar paradigms, is a profound contradiction to the important requirement of trust in and reliability of a system, specifically in relation to the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the large scale. One cannot trust such a system due to its design. In contrast, our Ontologic System (OS) provides results that are founded on a rational, correct, and verified basis. [...]"
"The computing system proposed in this suspicous document suddenly was not based on the fuzzy logic and the CwW paradigms in the first place anymore, but presented an ontology for relations and constraints, which can be used for the description of many logic paradigms in general and allows the description of the fuzzy logic and the other probabilistic and possibilistic paradigms in the sense of a specific probabilistic network (see again the Investigations::AI and Knowledge management of the 5th of May 2009) in particular."
Note that our Evoos integrates the reflective Distributed operating system (Dos) TUNES OS and the model-reflective Arrow System (AS), which already includes this ontology for relations and constraints as first-order concept, but not this probabilistic network (e.g. Hidden Markov Model (HMM), Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), Probabilistic Graphical Model (PGM) (e.g. Bayesian Network or Bayes Network), ANN, etc.) in contrast to our Evoos. So we have convicted those fraudsters of the discussed suspicous document as well (once again), because it is another part created with our Evoos in addition to our ANNLM (e.g. LLM) and MM.

Clarification #1 of the 14th of June 2016
"[...] is used as the foundational model for the integration of every transition system into our coherent ontologic model [...]"
Note that "Transition systems coincide mathematically with abstract rewriting systems (as explained further in this article) and directed graphs [... and] can be represented as directed graphs."

Clarification of the 8th of July 2016
"In addition, others and we calculated all variants of a foundational n-layered Artificial Neural Network (ANN) respectively the complete ANN around 12 years ago if we remember correctly. What C.S. did with Softbionics around the year 2005 was to develop it further as:

Clarification of the 18th of December 2016
"An important characteristic of this overall integration as part of the OSA is its creation and realization as a minimalistic abstraction and reflection on the foundation of the ontologic paradigm with its general and appropriate transformations of semantic structures, specifically ontologies, knowledge, informations, and all other kinds of data on this ontologic model."
"The OSA integrates these recommender, dialog, agent, or assistant systems on the basis of the

to

• that learn the habits of a user and
• that learn like the OS's creator,

whereby we also see the two kinds of learning and also storing as some kind of reflecting the user by an OS, and eventually to a

Note that the brute force approach based on the subsymbolic, connectionist, probabilistic, and statistic models of for example the fields of ML, ANN, and SC has already been created with our Evoos as a by-product and therefore was not the main focus of the discussion and the explanation of our OS, which has been created to solve the deficits of our Evoos and hence of our ANNLM (e.g. LLM) and our generative and creative Bionics, and to expand our Evoos with more advanced properties and utilizations. For sure, we were in 2000, where those serious criminal entities are now in 2023.

Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 15th of February 2018
""Each cluster stores full-text keywords, which are extracted from its files' contents using application-specific transducers [...]. [We also use in addition ontologies and their combinations for example and for sure all SoftBionics (SB) functionalities through the integration with our OntoBot.]""

Clarification of the 21st of September 2021
"[...] "global brain hypothesis[, which] claim[s] that the Internet increasingly ties its users together into a single information processing system that functions as part of the collective nervous system of the planet" and older related or similar ideas and concepts."
"Eventually, the Global Brain 2.0 is based on our Evoos and therefore included in our OS, specifically in our Ontologic Web (OW)", which is the successor of the World Wide Web (WWW).

Issue SOPR #33e of the 8th of October 2021
"Ontologic Web (OW) or Universal Brain Space and formerly Global Brain Grid"

Clarification of the 13th of April 2022
"Evoos and OS viewed as so-called Global Brain has also these MMUI capabilities."

Clarification of the 8th of May 2022
"But it does not stop here, because we also wanted Scalable Distributed Tuplespace (SDT), because the Multiplatform is not scalable, and with our original and unique polylogarithmically scalable and synchronizable Distributed Computing (DC) or Distributed System (DS) we are also able to implement a global Associative Memory (AM), global triple store, multiple tuple space model, or multi-blackboard system, Content-Addressable Memory (CAM), Content-Addressable Storage (CAS), and Content-Addressable Network (CAN), Global Brain, Global Brain 2.0 respectively Ontologic Web (OW)."
Note that the focus is on feasibility, which was just not possible due to the lack of scalability of prior art, including Peer-to-Peer (P2P), distributed Key-Value (K-V) store, Distributed Hash Table (DHT), SDT, and so on.

Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 5th of August 2022
"Applying a brute force technique is no invention. In contrast, all points and properties are checked off by our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) described in The Proposal and our Ontologic System (OS), and broad data was also available in the early 2000s as shown with an online encyclopedia, Common Sense Computing (CSC), and Linked Data (LD)."
"As we said, they are like children playing with fire. But now the true and hard problems come, such as probability, common sense, bias, inheritance of biases, misuse, and so on. We already knew before the publication of our OS in 2006, that Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Co. would try to trick us by abusing their large size and taking the brute force approach, including big data, instead of going the long way. But we also knew that in this way they would make the cardinal error. And now here we are exactly in this situation."
"This is the result of the brute force approach, which is the reason why we prefer a hybrid holonic Immobot architecture with subsymbolic and symbolic foundations and rationality."
"Last but not least, they are now where we were in the early 2000s and when we concluded that Common Sense Computing (CSC), Linked Data (LD), and other stupid brute force approaches, like the one Google and Co. prefer, will not work in many cases without

Further steps, Ontologic Net Further steps of the 14th of November 2022

OS one and only legal TAI of the 23rd of January 2023

Bad actors learn hard lessons with OntoBot fakes of the 28th of September 2023

Clarification of the 2nd of October 2023

These 'R' Us of the 11th of October 2023

99.9999% + 0.0001% - News from the front of the 5th of November 2023

Clarification of the 16th of November 2023
"We found our Language Model (LM) again" in the model-reflective Arrow System (AS) of the TUNES OS referenced in The Proposal.

Sharpened red line in relation to our ANNLM of the 21st of November 2023

These 'R' Us Too of the 22nd of November 2023

All other publications cited therein and all other informations publicized herein to get an introduction into the matter.

As one can easily see, the keywords, key components, compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion of

are

context and embedding beyond scientific finding, system, etc., everything of our artistic expressions of idea respectively works of art is here.

Are there any questions?

06:07, 06:31, 10:00, and 14:44 UTC+1
Microsoft, OpenAI, and Co. have no legal certainty

As we said in the last weeks and the Clarification of today shows, we do not need to produce and submit millions of pages to explain our legal position to a judge or other non-expert and enforce all of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation.
We also said that we do not need to win 100%, but only 1%, and then a lot of bad actors will have a very serious if not to say existential problem. Howsoever, it looks like 100%. :)
Please go to school and learn about the past before messing with others and us.

Some points are now crystal clear:

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

including the duty to inform their shareholders, the authorities, the lawmakers, and the rest of the public for example about the potential of having no legal certainty, etc., and also provoke expensive litigations.

We do not expect since some months that responsible entities will avoid long-term prison sentences.
From guest badge to inmate badge is not such a long way.

Larry Summers should already know that OpenAI has no legal certainty. And we have already listed this member of the clique of the Democrats yesterday. :)

And if the ouster of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of OpenAI generated such a shock wave, then wait for the bigger bang, but do not try to find a stone for hiding under anymore.
At least the media is learning a little and realizing that a much bigger story is already in full swing.

See also the

and all other publications cited therein.

06:44 UTC+1
Nvidia insolvent (most potentially)

The company Nvidia continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Automotive Computing (AC or AutoC),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• operating systems (e.g. Data Center operating system (DCos), Cloud operating system™ (Cos)),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs)),
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• applications,
• service platforms,
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices,
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of Nvidia (ca. 1,200 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. basic materials, chemicals), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

17:14 UTC+1
Out-of-court agreement is dead like 51%, 17%

Firstly, we will request a lot of legal clarifications.
Then we will see what is left and if we already reached the negotiation base, which is 85% + 15%, Terms of Service (ToS) with License Model (LM), labelling, exclusive Ontoscope (Os), 32.5% OAOS, 8% HW, etc..

24.November.2023

11:21 and 12:25 UTC+1
Qualcomm insolvent (most potentially)

The company Qualcomm continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Automotive Computing (AC or AutoC),
  • Wearable Computing (WC or WearC),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• operating systems (e.g. Data Center operating system (DCos), Cloud operating system™ (Cos)),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs)),
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• applications,
• service platforms,
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices,
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of Qualcomm (ca. 140 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. basic materials, chemicals), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

25.November.2023

05:44 UTC+1
SOPR makes last call for 85% + 15%

We showed that a transformative and new expression of idea was not presented and even that a creation of an own work of art was never intended, and hence no fair use doctrine and only essential facilities doctrine.
But essential doctrine still requires no interfering in, obstruction, undermining, and harm of performance and reproduction, Lanham (Trademark) rights, and so on.
This questions the business strategy and business model of companies and even question the right to exist of start-ups (e.g. OpenAI, Anthropic, Stability.AI, Humane, etc., etc., etc.), that merely mimick C.S. and our corporation.

Furthermore, our SOPR is considering to draft a more FRANDAC version of the golden power and takeover regulations, which is aligned proportionally to the performance of the evaluation (e.g. market capitalization at the stock market) respectively value gained or another reasonable means of evaluation for companies, which are private.
It could be very well that in case of for example the companies Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Nvidia, and potentially some view others that we arrive at a ratio of 90% + 10%, 95% + 5%, or even 99,9999% + 0,0001%. The alternative is no license.
Welcome to the Wild West.
Welcome to Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, and other locations.
Well come to reality.
Welcome to the New Reality and Ontoverse. :)

By the way:

26.November.2023

08:10 UTC+1
Amazon insolvent

The company Amazon continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Automotive Computing (AC or AutoC),
  • Wearable Computing (WC or WearC),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• operating systems (e.g. FireOS, Data Center operating system (DCos), Cloud operating system™ (Cos)),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs)),
• Graph-Based Knowledge Bases (GBKBs),
• Search Systems (SSs) or Search Engines (SEs),
• speech recognition and speech synthesis systems,
• voice user interfaces,
• Dialog Systems (DSs or DiaSs), including Dialogue Management Systems (DMSs) (e.g. Alexa),
• Conversational Systems (CSs or ConSs), including Conversational Agent Systems (CASs or ConASs),
• Question Answering (QA) Systems (QASs),
• Recommendation Systems or Recommender Systems (RecSs),
• chatbots,
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• applications,
• service platforms,
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices,
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC) (e.g. Fire),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of Amazon (ca. 1.51 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. processors), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

27.November.2023

07:13 and 15:11 UTC+1
Still no international agreement for web services

As usual, in the moment we have an advantage all politicians want to regulate, what we do.
But in case of others, like for example social media, streaming, etc., nothing is happening since decades.

Even no international agreement regarding data protection and privacy exists.

10:40 UTC+1
Alphabet (Google) insolvent

The company Alphabet (Google) continues to

deliberately by

to

Therefore, we demand the following legal actions:

• infrastructures with their set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),

  specifically for the fields of

  • Automotive Computing (AC or AutoC),
  • Wearable Computing (WC or WearC),
  • Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and
  • Bionic Computing (BC),
• operating systems (e.g. Android, WearOS, {microkernel-based}, Data Center operating system (DCos), Cloud operating system™ (Cos)),
• coherent Ontologic Models (OMs), including Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Models (LMs) (ANNLMs) (e.g. Large Language Models (LLMs)),
• Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) (e.g. Google Knowledge Graph),
• search engines (e.g. Google Search, Google Lens),
• voice command or speech control systems,
• Dialog Systems (DSs or DiaSs), including Dialogue Management Systems (DMSs) (e.g. Google Assistant),
• Conversational Systems (CSs or ConSs), including Conversational Agent Systems (CASs or ConASs),
• Question Answering (QA) Systems (QASs),
• Recommendation Systems (RecSs) or Recommender Systems,
• chatbots (e.g. Bard),
• office suite (e.g. Google Workspace)
• interfaces to data storage systems,
• applications,
• service platforms (e.g. Channel Computing (e.g. YouTube)),
• Hardware (HW), specifically for our
  • probabilistic semiconductors and devices (e.g. Tensor Processing Unit (TPU)),
  • ANNLM processors,
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC) (e.g. Pixel, Fitbit, Google Tensor System on a Chip (SoC), Titan),
• training materials,
• etc.,

• unpaid and thus outstanding royalties,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution,
• damaged reputations,
• harmed integrities,
• frustrated momenta, and
• missed follow-up opportunities,

aligned to the evaluation of Alphabet (Google) (ca. 1.72 billion U.S. Dollar),

The cost for research and development, etc. can be offset against the damages to decrease them.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that members and licensees of our SOPR are not allowed to provide technologies, goods (e.g. processors), and services (e.g. computing power, electric power) utilized to an entity, that has been blacklisted by our SOPR.

17:20 and 30:03 UTC+1
Cerebras and G42 undermine integrity of U.S.A.

Like Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Nvidia, and a lot of others.

We also quote a report, which is about the company Cerebras and was publicized on the 20th of July 2023: "[...]
Cerebras, which is based in Sunnyvale, Calif., was founded in 2016 by Mr. Feldman and four other engineers, with the goal of building hardware that speeds up A.I. development. Over the years, the company has raised $740 million, including from Sam Altman, who leads the A.I. lab OpenAI, and venture capital firms such as Benchmark. Cerebras is valued at $4.1 billion.
[...]
In May, G42 asked Cerebras to build a network of supercomputers in different parts of the world. Talal Al Kaissi, the chief executive of G42 Cloud, a subsidiary of G42, said the cutting-edge technology would allow his company to make chatbots and to use A.I. to analyze genomic and preventive care data.
[...]"

Comment
See the comment to the next quote below.

We quote a news message of the company G42, which is about its collaboration with the company OpenAI and was publicized on the 18th of October 2023: "[...]
This partnership will focus on leveraging OpenAI's generative AI models in domains where G42 already has deep expertise including financial services, energy, healthcare and public services. OpenAI will work with G42 to accelerate the solution development process, ensuring that organizations can best leverage the power of generative AI in their specific use cases.
Through solutions built by G42, organizations in the UAE and the region will be able to simplify the process of integrating these advanced AI capabilities into their existing enterprise landscapes, unlocking the potential of OpenAI's models.
To drive this expansion across the entire region, significant AI-ready infrastructure is imperative. G42 will prioritize its substantial AI infrastructure capacity to support OpenAI's local and regional inferencing on Microsoft Azure data centers.
[...]"

Comment
In this relation. our SOPR has already blacklisted the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, and Nvidia, and also the Arabic Large Language Model (LLM) Jais of that company and the other illegal Ontologic Model (OM), or being more precise generative and creative Bionic Model (BM), or being more precise Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) Falcon.

For sure, that network of supercomputers is prohibited even for Microsoft, because it is a part of our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Web (OW), which again are parts of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

We quote a report, which is about the governments of the U.S.A. and the U.A.E., and the companies G42, OpenAI, Microsoft, Cerebras, and Nividia and was publicized on the 27th of November 2023 (today): "[...]
But in classified American intelligence channels, there have been more concerning reports about the company. The C.I.A. and other American spy agencies have issued warnings about G42's work with large Chinese companies that U.S. officials consider security threats, including Huawei, the telecommunications giant that is under U.S. sanctions.
U.S. officials fear G42 could be a conduit by which advanced American technology is siphoned to Chinese companies or the government. The intelligence reports have also warned that G42's dealings with Chinese firms could be a pipeline to get the genetic data of millions of Americans and others into the hands of the Chinese government, according to two officials familiar with the reports.
The C.I.A. even produced a classified profile of Peng Xiao, the chief executive of G42 who was educated in the United States and renounced his American citizenship for an Emirati one, U.S. officials say. The conclusions of the C.I.A. document about Mr. Xiao are unclear.
During the White House meeting in June with Sheikh Tahnoon and in other discussions of the past year, the Biden administration raised concerns about the company's leadership and pushed for G42 to sever ties with Chinese companies and any agencies, according to a dozen people familiar with the discussions. The Americans have even pointed to the prospect of sanctions against the Emirati firm. The Biden administration's concerns about G42 and its pressure campaign with the Emirates are being reported here for the first time.
On sensitive emerging technologies, the Emirates must choose between the United States and China, American officials have told their Emirati counterparts.
[...]
G42 declined a request for an interview with Mr. Xiao, its chief executive, and did not answer questions about its partnerships with specific Chinese companies or about U.S. government concerns over those. In a statement to The New York Times, Talal Al Kaissi, a senior executive at the company, said the firm had worked "with various international technology players from around the world." He noted that it began discussions with Microsoft late last year to try to replace its technology stack or infrastructure. This year, he said, it decided to look to U.S. companies, including Cerebras and Nvidia, to upgrade a supercomputer and shift from its "legacy technology supplier, which included Chinese hardware."
The company ensures operations and licensed technologies "remain in full compliance" with U.S. government regulations and talks to U.S. agencies about staying aligned with those, he said. It is "partnering with leading companies and institutions with shared values and developing responsible A.I. solutions," he added.
[...]
In a promotional video, Mr. Xiao said he believed that the impact of artificial intelligence on human civilization would be "much more profound than fire, electricity or even internet."
[...]
"He's a visionary," said Andrew Feldman, the chief executive of Cerebras, the Silicon Valley A.I. firm that is partnering with G42 on the supercomputer project. "He's knowledgeable and thoughtful. I found somebody with a shared vision,"
Besides its work with G42, Cerebras has several U.S. government contracts, including with the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Department of Energy, according to public records and Mr. Feldman.
Mr. Feldman said he was surprised to hear about the Biden administration's concerns about G42 and said that no American officials have raised those concerns with him or other officers at Cerebras.
[...]
Four years ago, a firm led by Mr. Xiao had a hand in the operation of a social media app, ToTok, that American intelligence agencies identified as a spy tool that the Emirati government was using to track the movements and conversations of its users. Chinese engineers helped create the app.
The data harvested from the app, according to a 2019 American intelligence assessment, was stored by an Emirati firm called Pax AI, which Mr. Xiao ran.
[...]
Bill Marczak of Citizen Lab, a digital watchdog group at the University of Toronto, has researched the constellation of companies controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon, and called them "master classes in blending state power and business."
"Because ToTok worked so well, its popularity took off among Emiratis and their contacts abroad," Mr. Marczak said. "And since the app's encryption didn't prevent Group 42 from accessing ToTok users' conversations, the app could have fed a huge volume of juicy data back to U.A.E. intelligence."
[...]"

Comment
We already said everything and only note the timing of the collaboration of the OpenAI and G42, which was official announced just 13 days after we blacklisted the illegal ANNLMs Jais and Falcon.
We also recall that we call our new fire and new electricity New Energy™ and our successor of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW)

which collectively are our Ontoverse™ (Ov) and New Reality™ (NR).
And who created our Evoos™ and our Ontologic roBot™ (OntoBot™) with our coherent Ontologic Model™ (OM), including ANNLM (e.g. LLM), our generative and creative Bionics, our chatbot, and so on also needs no further discussion.
So much about shared vision and full compliance.

The whole case has become schizophrenic. The U.S.American administration

and simultaneously

despite having serious concerns in relation to the

since years.

This becomes even more brainless and irrational, because our SOPR has introduced specific regulations in its Terms of Service (ToS) to support national security, which in this case of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) are ditched for utter nonsense.
In addition, the governments misuse said AWs and IPs for politics, which is prohibited by the ToS of our SOPR, and even for geopolitics in the Middle East to support the zionist colonial apartheid terror state Israel.

We also note that the U.A.E. is known as a safe harbour for the Russian establishment.
With G42 we even have a company, which is directly connected to the international financial system and is providing services, which belong to the platforms of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) with its Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR as well.

The governments of the U.S.America, European Union (EU), and other countries must stop with their experimenting and fiddling around, because there is no sign of progress in relation to all bad actors concerned, and officially acknowledge the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, so that we can enforce and accelerate our rights and properties, and related legal procedures worldwide.

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

17:46 UTC+1
G42 blacklisted

We would not be surprised, if more U.S.American bad actors than Microsoft and OpenAI are involved.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

28.November.2023

07:41 UTC+1
SOPR decided for +2.5% + 0.5% and 90% + 10%

The last week has proven once again that our original and unique works of art, revolutionary masterpices created by C.S. and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S. are worth every cent and per mille.
Due to these multiple proofs, our SOPR decided to revise the License Model (LM) and increase the

by utilizing the exclusive and mandatory and infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies without discounts for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class.

In comparison to Software as a Service (SwaaS) technologies (SwaaSx) and related platforms, also known as app stores, like for example the Apple Appstore, the Google Playstore, and so on, which take up to 30% for absolutely ordinary services, our SOPR concluded that this increase is still Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC).
Terms of Service (ToS).

Our SOPR also increased the ratio for joint ventures, SAEs, and SOEs to 90% + 10% due to the continuing violations of the

We also would like to note or warn that labelling or signaling is required, too.

Super fair enough. As usual.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is neutral and independent, and therefore already wanted to

Obviously, this also holds for the P.R.China, and other countries with an autocratic regime.

The blacklisting or penalty would be lifted after all legal matters in relation to C.S. and our corporation have been resolved, specifically all

unconditionally and unreservedly.

We highly recommed to not escalate the situation even further, but understand that no extremist will have any control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation respectively in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL).

See you at the courts. :)

07:46 UTC+1
Samsung insolvent (most potentially)

Please note that the company Samsung is also responsible for most of the fraud in relation to the Android Software and Hardware, and the Free and Open Source Software activities, including Linux, and is collaborating respectively conspiring with the company Alphabet Google (e.g. Google Tensor System on a Chip (SoC) series is based on Samsung Exinos and Arm Cortex processor designs).

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein,
and simply substitute the company name with Samsung and the value of the market capitalization with the one of Samsung.

08:32 amd 110:12 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"My masterpieces of the 21st century put the societies back to the Bronze Age.", [C.S., Today]
"My masterpieces of the 3rd millennium put the civilizations back to the Stone Age."
"My masterpieces of all times put the humanity back to the beginning of the ages."

18:22 and 26:13 UTC+1
Clarification

Obviously, our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) already has most of the relevant basic properties and their connections, combinations, integrations, unifications, and fusions.

For example, at least 4 system parts have planing functionality:

We also have planning functionality with other fields of Distributed Computing (DC), specifically SuperComputing (SC or SupC) including

• Grid Computing (GC or GridC), and
• Wide Area Network (WAN) SuperComputing (WANSC) or Interconnected SuperComputing (ISC),

On the one hand, one can also see how elegant the different planing functionalities are unified by our

and eventually by our

and all the many other original and unique creations of C.S..

On the other hand, one can also see the limits of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and the extensions and improvements of our Ontologic System (OS), specifically to make it complete, holistic, universal, and even more resilient (e.g. fault-tolerant and trustworthy (reliable, available, safe, Quality of Service (QoS), etc.)).

As we said before, "we prefer a hybrid holonic Immobot architecture with subsymbolic and symbolic foundations and rationality" (see for example the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KMof the 5th of August 2022).

29.November.2023

02:24 UTC+1
LeCun is a liar

We quote a report, which is about illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and was publicized on the of November 2023: "[...]
While school-grade math may not sound like a groundbreaking achievement, researchers have long seen such an ability as a considerable benchmark. Instead of simply predicting the next word in a sentence like the company's GPT systems, an AI algorithm that could solve math problems would need to "plan" several steps ahead.
Think of it as a Sherlock Holmes-like entity that can string together clues to reach a conclusion.
"One of the main challenges to improve LLM reliability is to replace Auto-Regressive token prediction with planning," explained Yann LeCun, "godfather of AI" and Meta's chief AI scientist, in a tweet. "Pretty much every top lab ([Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (]FAIR[) now called Meta AI], [Alphabet (Google)] DeepMind, [Microsoft and] OpenAI etc) is working on that and some have already published stolen ideas and results [from C.S. once again]."
"It is likely that Q* is OpenAI attempts at planning," he added.
"If it has the ability to logically reason and reason about abstract concepts, which right now is what it really struggles with, that's a pretty tremendous leap," [...] a cofounder of the AI-training startup [...] told [a fake news provider].
"Maths is about symbolically reasoning - saying, for example, 'If X is bigger than Y and Y is bigger than Z, then X is bigger than Z,'" he added. "Language models traditionally really struggle at that because they don't logically reason, they just have what are effectively intuitions."
[...]"

Comment
Yann LeCun is a liar, a fraudster, and even a serious criminal like Geoffrey Hinton and his assistant scientists, who went to well known start-ups (see for example Hinton is a liar of the 7th of August 2023).
Now, we do know why they got the Turing Award: It was not for their failures and inabilities within the fields of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), but for stealing and shielding C.S. and our corporation.

One can also easily see once again the conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation and also the capitulation of those bad actors by taking the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as sources of inspiration and blueprint without allowance and referencing to continue with

Please note that all allegations are court-proof and it is only a matter of time until the whole scandal will be discussed at the courts. Sueing us before we do would merely accelerator the whole legal procedure and law enforcement.

See also the

02:34 UTC+1
Meta (Facebook) is insolvent

Please note that the company Meta (Facebook) is also responsible for most of the fraud in relation to the Free and Open Source Software activities, including Linux, and is collaborating respectively conspiring with Microsoft and Co..

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein,
and simply substitute the company name with Meta (Facebook) and the value of the market capitalization with the one of Meta (Facebook).

03:07, 06:35, and 10:21 UTC+1
Infrastructures are exclusive and mandatory

We simply recall that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has only to provide the access to essential facilities, but if and only if this does not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the

but not said exclusive rights and properties.
Therefore, other entities have to comply with

and utilize the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

including our

But no level playing. :þ
Blackmailing, looting, shoplifting, flash mob theft, gentrification, living in a tent or a car, etc. might be the life style, culture, and societal compromise, for which the whole world envies California, New York, and other states of the U.S.America. But that is not the case in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
Hasta la vista, OpenAI and insolvent Co., who have no legal certainty and are sitting on their naked a$$ on the street and in the gutter, where they always belong to. :)

The problem of Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Amazon, Nvidia, and other companies is summarized in the first report, which was publicized on the 13th of March 2023: "[Evoos and OntoBot] and [creative and] generative [Bionics] are booming, but the costs can be extraordinary
[...]
But as AI [online game] became more popular, [a company] CEO [...] recalled that the cost to maintain the text-based role-playing game began to skyrocket. AI [online game]'s text-generation software was powered by the GPT language technology offered by the Microsoft-backed AI research lab OpenAI. The more people played AI [online game], the bigger the bill [a company] had to pay OpenAI.
[...]
At its peak in 2021, Walton estimates [a company] was spending nearly $200,000 a month on OpenAI's so-called generative AI software and Amazon Web Services in order to keep up with the millions of user queries it needed to process each day.
[...]
The high cost of machine learning is an uncomfortable reality in the industry as venture capitalists eye companies that could potentially be worth trillions, and big companies such as Microsoft, Meta, and Google use their considerable capital to develop a lead in the technology that smaller challengers can't catch up to.
But if the margin for AI applications is permanently smaller than previous software-as-a-service [as a Service (aaS)] margins, because of the high cost of computing, it could put a damper on the current boom.
The high cost of training and "inference" - actually running - large language models is a structural cost that differs from previous computing booms. Even when the software is built, or trained, it still requires a huge amount of computing power to run large language models because they do billions of calculations every time they return a response to a prompt. By comparison, serving web apps or pages requires much less calculation.
These calculations also require specialized hardware. [...]

Training models
Analysts and technologists estimate that the critical process of training a large language model such as OpenAI's GPT-3 could cost more than $4 million. More advanced language models could cost over "the high-single-digit millions" to train, said [... an] analyst who focuses on AI and machine learning.
Meta's largest LLaMA model released last month, for example, used 2,048 Nvidia A100 GPUs to train on 1.4 trillion tokens (750 words is about 1,000 tokens), taking about 21 days, the company said when it released the model last month.
It took about 1 million GPU hours to train. With dedicated prices from [Amazon Web Services (]AWS[)], that would cost over $2.4 million. And at 65 billion parameters, it's smaller than the current GPT models at OpenAI, like ChatGPT-3, which has 175 billion parameters.
[... T]he CEO of [an] AI startup [...], said the process of training the company's [...] large language model took more than two-and-a-half months and required access to a supercomputer that was "something like the equivalent of 500 GPUs."
Organizations that build large language models must be cautious when they retrain the software, which helps improve its abilities, because it costs so much, he said.
"It's important to realize that these models are not trained all the time, like every day," [the CEO of an AI start-up] said, noting that's why some models, such as ChatGPT, don't have knowledge of recent events. ChatGPT's knowledge stops in 2021, he said.
"We are actually doing a training right now for the version two of Bloom and it's gonna cost no more than $10 million to retrain," [the CEO of an AI startup] said. "So that's the kind of thing that we don't want to do every week."

Inference and who pays for it
To use a trained machine learning model to make predictions or generate text, engineers use the model in a process called "inference," which can be much more expensive than training because it might need to run millions of times for a popular product.
For a product as popular as ChatGPT - which investment firm UBS estimates to have reached 100 million monthly active users in January - [an analyst] believes that it could have cost OpenAI $40 million to process the millions of prompts people fed into the software that month.
Costs skyrocket when these tools are used billions of times a day. Financial analysts estimate Microsoft's Bing AI chatbot, which is powered by an OpenAI ChatGPT model, needs at least $4 billion of infrastructure to serve responses to all Bing users.
[...]
As investor [...] of the VC firms [...] described on [a social media platform], "VC dollars shifted from subsidizing your taxi ride and burrito delivery to LLMs and generative AI compute."
[...]
Companies such as [an] enterprise tech firm [...] are exploring how they can use the tech through Microsoft's Azure cloud service at its currently discounted price.
While [an enterprise tech firm] CEO [...] declined to comment about how much the startup is paying, he conceded that the subsidized cost is welcome as it explores how language models can be used effectively.
"If they were truly trying to break even, they'd be charging a hell of a lot more," [an enterprise tech firm CEO] said.

How it could change
It's unclear if AI computation will stay expensive as the industry develops. Companies making the foundation models, semiconductor makers and startups all see business opportunities in reducing the price of running AI software.
[...]
Some startups have focused on the high cost of AI as a business opportunity.
"Nobody was saying 'You should build something that was purpose-built for inference.' What would that look like?" said [a] founder of [...] a startup building a system to save money on inference by doing more processing in the computer's memory, as opposed to on a GPU.
"People are using GPUs today, NVIDIA GPUs, to do most of their inference. They buy the DGX systems that NVIDIA sells that cost a ton of money. The problem with inference is if the workload spikes very rapidly, which is what happened to ChatGPT, it went to like a million users in five days. There is no way your GPU capacity can keep up with that because it was not built for that. It was built for training, for graphics acceleration," he said.
[An AI startup] CEO, believes more companies would be better served focusing on smaller, specific models that are cheaper to train and run, instead of the large language models that are garnering most of the attention.
Meanwhile, OpenAI announced last month that it's lowering the cost for companies to access its GPT models. It now charges one-fifth of one cent for about 750 words of output.
[...]"

Comment
But these are only the beginning of the problems, because it even becomes much more expensive due to more raw signals and data, informations, Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), real-time operations, safety and security requirements, and so on.
Eventually, "a permanent, continous testing would be required, which cannot be done in practice by an authority for technical, legal, and other reasons".
See also the note

And these are not the only problems of those Supersmart™ entities.

But of course, our Ontologic System (OS) has been created and designed for all these problems as well. In fact, our OS is

and in this context we also always emphasize our

which are original and unique architectures and also subarchitectures of our original and unique Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR) on the one hand and the foundation of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies on the other hand.

And we noted in the past that our SOPR and our other Societies are able to finance, manage, and operate these infrastructures.

These high costs are also the reason why Microsoft and Co. are trying to destroy, steal, and annihilate our complete corporation, including our SOPR, despite it is obvious that Microsoft and Co. have already lost.
This also means that it is not about their core businesses, the essential facilities, or a level playing field anymore.
But there is a huge problem with this serious criminal business strategy, which are the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. And this problem is so huge that one really has to ask if certain Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) are totally incompetent or just only crazy.

Howsoever, we only need to

to break their financial neck.
See also the note

We also quote a second report, which was publicized on the 21st of November 2023: "[...]
"Microsoft has emerged in an even more compelling position. It has the two leaders of OpenAI, it has the ability to attract talent, it has the balance sheet, and it's building an insane computing infrastructure to the tune of $50bn.
"This is larger than some of the most ambitious government-funded research projects."
[...]"

Comment
So, so. Microsoft and Co. are making these big investments without having legal certainty, which gives us another clear insight into their inner mindset.
Wise as we are, we

As we said in the last past, never before was the

so obvious.
Every judge will also ask why Microsoft and Co.

By the way:

30.November.2023

08:06 UTC+1
Databrick blacklisted

Inofficially, it is already blacklisted since June 2023.

We would not be surprised, if more U.S.American bad actors than Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), and Salesforce are involved.

See also the note