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

12:10 UTC+2
Crimes of bad actors not our problem

We do get all of the rights and properties back, simply said, because C.S. has created original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use respectively works of art and these expressions of idea included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not the matter for which entities compete on a level playing field, because

Eventually, they all depend on the goodwill of C.S., though every entity concerned does know that we offer to provide the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies as compromise.

Share holders and fund investors have taken the risk with their investments themselves and have to comply with the

and therefore have to sue the companies, the asset managers, and the fund issuers, because it is not our problem, if

Is not it, chief managers, investment bankers, asset managers, and venture capitalist?

Therefore, we would like to recommend once again to file for insolvency after we filed the set of legal documents and reserved the first title to the bankruptcy assets to satisfy our damage compensations, which means selling the shares or transfering the shares together with all illegal materials and other legal obligations to us.

12:10 and 13:32 UTC+2
SOPR summarizes the state of affairs

First of all, please keep in mind that C.S. on the one side and our corporation with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and other subsidiaries, and also JVs on the other side are different legal entities.

So what is written between the lines? One idea is the establishment of Joint Ventures (JVs) and the JVs pay a significantly reduced royalty to C.S..

But at this point the problems go on.
The common practice is that one has in general and we have in particular to apply the same standard in case of virtually all big companies listed at the stock markets, because every entity concerned has to pay its damage compensations and give its fair share.
Another problem is the scope of these JVs in case of our corporation, while in case of the other Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) it is 100% of their companies or insolvency, simply said.
Just another problem is that other companies are conspiring and trying to establish cooperations to compete with our SOPR and JVs on a level playing field, which just does not exist as established by other entities and will not be established in this fraudulent and even serious criminal way.
For example, Nvidia has established illegal partnerships with Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, and Amazon Web Services, but also with other illegal Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), and with Meta (Facebook) and other providers of bionic technologies, goods, and services. We all do know what follows, because we have seen it before with Nvidia CUDA, Nvidia Drive, Data Science and Analytics (DSA) (e.g. Big Data Processing (BDP)), Nvidia Omniverse, Nvidia New General Catalogue, Meta (Facebook) graph this, big data that, Metaverse, Meta AI, and so on.

But at this point the problems go on.
One problem is that they neither want to pay damage compensations nor comply with the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) at all.
Just another problem is that they do want to change the status quo at all and want to buy C.S. and our corporation out with peanuts and glass pearls, form a level playing field to their advantage, which means they can exploit their size and abuse their market power, keep away smaller and new competitors or members of other cliques, and divide the market among themselves, keep the control over the stolen properties of C.S. and our corporation, and keep their cliques intact. We all do know what follows, because we have seen it for example with the founders of the companies Apple and Cisco.
Please do not forget that they failed with Agent-Based System, Multi-Agent System, Internet (of the next generation), World Wide Web (of the next generation), Active Networking (AN), Software-Defined Networking (SDN), Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Global Brain (GB), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), microService technologies (mSx), Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) (e.g. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), Service-Oriented Computing (SOC)), Cloud even 2 times, mobile computing, wearable computing, smartphone, and much more before November 2006. They even thought that some of these things would not be possible at all, had no concrete idea how the other things would look like, and had no clue how it could be realized, including the transformation from the old things to the new things.

Finally, we also would like to recall the fact, that a group of companies does not have the competences of the government or the federal authorities, specifically the market regulator, and therefore it does not matter, if they compete on a level playing field for rights and properties they do not have, specifically with the argument that they provide freedom of choice, innovation, and competition for benefit of the public in this fraudulent and even serious criminal way. That is only perverting the whole situation and hence total bull$#!+. :)
And conspiring with the government and federal authorities in this relation is another legal matter.

18:23 UTC+2
Ontonics Further step

We are pleased to announce the new projects

which are driven respectively piloted, and autonomous vehicles for the safe and secure transport of ... pupils.
In a frist move, the new school bus will be connected in a domain-specific way, which for example comprises the features to

like it is already done with vans of delievery services.

For sure, much more features are possible on the basis of our original and unique Ontoscope (Os) in its many stationary and mobile variants, including the handheld Ontoscope, also wrongly and illegally called smartphone and Artificial Intelligence (AI) phone, wearable Ontoscope, also wrongly and illegally called smartwatch and watch, and smartglasses, Ontoscope with Wheels (OwW), Ontoscope with Wings (OwW), and so on.

We would also like to get a fresh colour scheme for the paintwork.

02.October.2024

10:33 UTC+2
Bots not substantially similar but now basically identical

23:11 and 24:00 UTC+2
No level playing field in case of works of art ©

The legal situation and procedure are known in case of the

In September 2017, we submitted the first time the possibility to allow and license the performance and reproduction of our Ontologic System (OS). But since that time the only things they did and are still doing is to

• legalize those illegal activities,
• waive the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• compete a second time on a level playing field, which has been established by moving the goal posts, but now for the exclusive rights and properties, which we already do hold.

They all must be totally bonkers or genetically degenerated or both.
Howsoever, the demand of a level playing field implies that the initial situation does not provide a level playing field, which in turn implies a superior position of a market participant. :D
See also the note Fair goes first, but fairness without limits is unfair of the 10th of January 2023.

In this conjunction, we finally found the right words for some of our legal arguments, specifically in case of the not working separation trick, which the bad actors applied since many years or maybe ever.
In a general case, we have documented multiple bottom-up plagiarisms and fakes, and acts of encircling and shielding of our top-down original.
In a particular case, we also have documented multiple plagiarisms and fakes of specific parts of our originals, which are assigned to the fields of

and were first separated and later integrated again in accordance to our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which integrates all in one (top-down).
Both activities show the causal link, the source of inspiration, the blueprint, and the substantial similarity, and also the implication and proof of the interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive morals rights of C.S., copyright infringement, abuse of market power, blackmailing, wire fraud, conspiracy, etc., etc., etc..

There can only be one original.

03.October.2024

01:21 and 08:00 UTC+2
Microsoft's dealbreaker means no Joint Venture

We can only repeat what everybody is seeing now in case of Microsoft, but also in case of many other companies:

Microsoft has already crossed all red lines and is still trying the impossible.
Microsoft is already making war against the public worldwide, because it refuses to comply with the national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters.

Furthermore, damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of a

16:53 UTC+2
SOPR does not accept TAI quality seals of others

In the legal scope of the ... Ontoverse (Ov) our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not accept quality seals, quality labels, seals of approval, and so on in relation to the

which are issued by other entities, specifically the usual fraudulent and even serious criminal ones.
This time we caught the whole bad cliques in the act. And after we sued the first members of those cliques, we will have a vast amount of correcting actions instantely and abruptly.

See also the notes

Ontologics 'R' Us, Cloud 3.0 'R' Us, Trusted Artificial Intelligence 'R' Us, Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence 'R' Us, Safety Bionics 'R' Us, and all related facilities (e.g. data centers, networks, etc.) and other means of control, which infringe the exclusive rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

04.October.2024

13:04 and 18:11 UTC+2
OpenAI gets no 2 years - Time is up for months

The company OpenAI got 6.6 billiion U.S. Dollar in a recent investment round and also got a loan 4 billion U.S. Dollar as loan from investment banks, which on the one side is somehow incomprehensible and ridiculous, and on the other side has already consequences, for sure.
Obviously, the entities concerned want to keep up the Artificial Intelligence (AI) bubble as long as possible and try once again the Amazon and Tesla Motors hidden Ponzi scheme. But this time the legal situation is different and we already have sufficient evidences to act, as made clear and clearly announced multiple time in the last months.
It is also obvious that they are preparing the IPO despite talking about schuldverschreibung and loans and our resistance in this specific action.
See also the notes

The projection of OpenAI is to generate 11.6 billion U.S. Dollar in revenue in 2025, while our projection is that

• Distributed System (DS) (e.g. what is wrongly and illegally called Cloud),
• MultiModal System (MMS),
• Information Retrival (IR) System (IRS) (e.g. Search System (SS) or Search Engine (SE)),
• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR),
• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW),
• Conversational System (CS or ConS),
• Cognitive System (CS or CogS), and
• some other fields,

and

We also would like to recall that the ANN approach is classified as Turing complete, but the Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or General Artificial Intelligence (GAI) approach based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is classified as Non-deterministic Polynomial time (NP) problem, and every attempt to solve the problems inherent to the system on the basis of logics, resilience or robustness (e.g. fault tolerance and trustworthiness (e.g. reliability, availabiltiy, safety, security, performability, etc.)), redundancy, etc. leads to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) (e.g. Genetic operating system (Gos), Genetic Programming operating system (GPos)) with its basic properties (evolutionary, reflective, holonic, fault-tolerant, distributed, etc.), Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), coherent Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. ANNLM (e.g. LLM)), transformative, generative, and creative Bioncis, and our Ontologic System (OS) with its basic properties (evolutionary, reflective, holonic, validated and verified, resilient, distributed, etc.), Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and Generalized Evolutionary technologies (GEx) and Integrated Evolutionary technologies (IEx) (e.g. or Unified Evolutionary technologies (UEx), Reflective Evolutionary technologies (REx), Generalized Genetic technologies (GGx) and Integrated Genetic technologies (IGx) (e.g. Unified Genetic technologies (UGx), Reflective Genetic technologies (RGx) (e.g. Generalized Genetic Programming (GGP) and Integrated Genetic Programming (IGP) (e.g. Unified Genetic Programming (UGP), Reflective Genetic Programming (RGP) (e.g. Genetic Programming technologies (GPx), Genetic Algorithm technologies (GAx), etc.))), Smodels and Generate 'n' Test (GnT) refers to all kinds of models, including Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Language Model (LM), Small Language Model (SLM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc., and is related to formal modeling, validation and verification, etc. in the OSA, which integrates all in one), as made clear in The Proposal, The Prototype, and other contents of the website of OntoLinux and the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims publicized on this website OntomaX.
Nix conversation, and also optimization, and cognition (e.g. thinking).

And for the sake of completeness we would also like to note that OpenAI

Finally, we quote a report: ""The path from $0 in revenue to nearly $4 $3.6 billion was clearly the fastest in history," [a managing director at an investment group] said. "Nobody's ever grown this fast at this scale, and they're doing it again straight out of the gate with only the first few evolutions of their product set.""

Comment
Total bull$#!+. Maybe we are allowed to recall that it was basically Microsoft with its illegal partial plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), which is wrongly and illegally called Copilot, and some other large bad actors, that are responsible for the revenue.

05.October.2024

09:14 and 14:17 UTC+2
SOPR never discussed fifty-fifty win-win

Old and new companies have core businesses, which are not substantially similar respectively are different to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

But due to the reasons that C.S. created the whole thing and no level playing field can exist in case of a work of art, the scope of the legally required provision of essential facilities is quite small.

As a societal compromise our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

which obviously is already much more than is legally required. As a compensation, our SOPR also crystal clearly reserved SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CV, CA, CL, NMP and NMU, CS, CS, ABS, MAS, SI, etc.), including SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS).

But they refuse to comply with the

specifically they do not want to

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

07.October.2024

00:00 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"Extremism cannot be relativized.", [C.S., Today]

Note that extremism comprises right-wing extremism, nationalism, islamism, zionism, and so on.

08.October.2024

15:35 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We worked on the last steps of the interplay of our range of

and their utilizations, specifically our undisclosed processing algorithms in the fields of high-performance computing and heterogeneous computing.

In this relation, we would like to recall that our NNCPUs abnd NNCs

Interested entities have the option to invest in our investment funds, each 0.1% for 1 billion U.S. Dollar.

18:31 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"McCulloch, W.S., and Pitts, W.H.: A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115-133. 1943."

And so the perceptron or McCulloch-Pitts neuron was invented in the field of Machine Learning (ML).

Just some more facts:

Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is only one of many fields.

09.October.2024

09:52 and 15:28 UTC+2
No Bitcoin and Co. in legal scope of OS with Ov

Ontologic System (OS)
Ontoverse (Ov)

We have the

We also demand damage compensation for related plagiarisms and fakes in the field of cryptography and finance.

Just a reminder.

16:01 UTC+2
Alphabet (Google)'s dealbreaker means no Joint Venture

We can only repeat what everybody is seeing now in case of Alphabet (Google), but also in case of many other companies:

Alphabet (Google) has already crossed all red lines and is still trying the impossible.
Alphabet (Google) is already making war against the public worldwide, because it refuses to comply with the national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters.

Furthermore, damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of a

16:30 UTC+2
SOPR considering 30% OAOS, 20% GC, CC, SC, DC HW

Ontologic Applications and Services (OAOS)
Grid Computing (GC or GridC)
Cluster Computing (CC or ClusterC)
Cloud Computing (CC or CloudC)
SuperComputing (SC or SupC)
Data Center (DC)
HardWare (HW)

As already discussed in the past, the so-called fast track option has become an obsolete general regulation and instead is a subject of individual negotiation and agreement reached with or without courts.
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided to demand that a payment of damage compensation has to be made only in cash and instantly.

License Model (LM)

Outstanding creativity, originality, quality, and quantity proven again and again have their price. :)

In addition, proper referencing respectively labelling is short before becoming mandatory (again).

We also would like to recall that our SOPR is the only collecting society for the royalties related to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
This means that no other entity is between our SOPR and the interested public.

Also, the

have still to be done before our SOPR allows and licenses the

Please take the details from the set of legal documents, which we intend to sent to the prosecutors and other entities concerned.

17:40 UTC+2
List of damages

Some estimations and preliminary decisions in relation to the payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value:

Cash only and without delay and deferral.

The remainder has to pay royalties in accordance with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

See also the note No level playing field in case of works of art © of the 2nd of October 2024.

19:38 UTC+2
OS is derivative, no royalties for others

Ontologic System (OS)

The copyright is not an absolute right, specifically it is not the right to stop the creation of a new expression of idea.

Vision, creation, expression of idea, compilation, composition, integration, unification, architecture, etc. of transformative, generative, creative Bionics, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Language Model (LM), Natural Language Processing (NLP), World Wide Web (WWW) scale, next generation, and successor.
Compare the legal situation with for example an image search engine.

An output of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) is only problematic, if said output

We also view activities of the Authors Gilde, MAFTA, and certain dubious copyright troll platforms as an interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. and our SOPR might blacklist entities and take other legal actions, if they act in bad faith.

11.October.2024

20:55 UTC+2
Creation, compilation, integration, architecture

Creation of Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS)
Compilation of prior art, Evolutionary operating system Components (EosC) and Ontologic System Components (OSC)
Architecture of integrating Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA)

We simply recall some tens examples of the hundred thousands, millions, or more items included in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov):

Guess why our Evoos and our OS are sui generis masterpieces.

15.October.2024

09:59 UTC+2
Nvidia selling chips with illegal activities

We can only repeat that investments in the company Nvidia are not safe, because the company is selling its processors, providing its services, and increasing its business value by applying fraudulent and even serious criminal activities, including

• essential parts and Ontologic System Components (OSC) of our OS, and
• compilations, arrangements, and integrations of said essential parts and OSC

according to the Ontologic System Architiecture (OSA),

See also the notes

16.October.2024

13:19 UTC+2
Apple selling goods and services with illegal activities

We can only repeat that investments in the company Apple are not safe, because the company is selling its goods, providing its services, and increasing its business value by applying fraudulent and even serious criminal activities, including

• essential parts, Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontoscope Components (OsC) of our OS, and
• compilations, arrangements, and integrations of said essential parts, OSC, and OsC

according to the Ontologic System Architiecture (OSA),

See also the notes

17.October.2024

12:27 UTC+2
New evidence in case of Blackrock and Co.

We got a very interesting and important evidence in case of the company Blackrock, which is even a door opener for more revealing insights. :)

19.October.2024

05:14 and 09:32 UTC+2
SOPR is neutral and does not forge alliances

We would like to recall that the regulations regarding the establishment of a Joint Venture (JV) included in the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) have been added to

Ultimately, we make decisions based on our artistic interests.

21.October.2024

18:04 UTC+2
Clarification #1

While cleaning up and correcting lists of basic properties and parts of our Evoos and our OS, and related claims, and preparing the set of legal documents for next actions, we recalled some very interesting facts.
In some cases these activities flipped from a false claim to our disadvantage, but simultaneously flopped to a correct claim for our advantage.

One example is the Open Agent Architecture (OAA), which is a Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) (Multi-Agent System (MAS), MAS agency or Agent Society (AS), and Distributed Problem Solving (DPS)) with Multimodal User Interface (MUI), is based on the BlackBoard Architecture (BBA), and was mentioned in relation to BBA for communication and coordination respectively orchestration in the context of Agent-Based operating system (ABos).
This shows once again that mobile MAS, Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agent architecture, Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), collaboration, interaction, and coordination, BBA, MUI, NLP, Agent Communication Language (ACL) as extension of Prolog, ontology, etc. are included in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and integrated with our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), model-level reflective Knowledge Graph (KG) and Language Model (LM), Conversational Agent System (CAS), Immobot, etc..
Also note DPS and Problem Solving Environment (PSE) are included in our Ontologic System (OS).

Another example is the Java-based Agent Framework for MultiAgent Systems (JAFMAS), which is a DAI focusing on coherence and coordination.
This shows once again that speech act, directed and topic- or subject-based, broadcast, and multicast communications, topic- or subject-based addressing respectively publish-subscribe messaging, action requesting respectively service provisioning, and federation and BlackBoard Architecture (BBA) are included in our Evoos and integrated with its other basic properties.
We also quote the related document titled "Many-to-Many Invocation: A New Object Oriented Paradigm for Ad Hoc Collaborative Systems" and publicized on the 16th of July 2002: "[...]

8.3 Distributed Systems Architecture
[...]
The spontaneous client-server architecture eliminates the need for preconfigured addresses by providing a discovery mechanism. Jini Network Technology [1] is a good example. [...] While this architecture does not require server addresses to be known ahead of time, applications are more complicated to develop because they must discover and interact with the lookup service in addition to their normal functions. [...]
Keeping the spontaneous discovery of services while eliminating the central servers results in a [serverless] peer-to-peer architecture. M2MI is a peer-to-peer architecture oriented around one-to-many and many-to-many communication (although it also supports one-to-one communication). Unlike an application in a client-server architecture, an M2MI-based collaborative application runs collectively in all the participating devices, not on a central server. [...]

8.4 Collaborative Middleware
[...] Some frameworks, such as Proem [29 [Architectural issues in supporting ad-hoc collaboration with wearable computers. June 2000], 30 [When peer-to-peer comes face-to-face: Collaborative peer-to-peer computing in mobile ad hoc networks. August 2001]] and JXTA [24], follow a protocol-centric paradigm in which a standard set of message formats (nowadays typically XML-based) is defined to let devices discover each other, exchange data and events, and otherwise interact with each other. [...]
Other frameworks follow a data-centric paradigm. In one.world [16 [Programming for pervasive computing environments. June 2001]], data are stored in tuples, and applications interact by reading and writing each other's tuples and sending each other events consisting of tuples. Lime [33 [Lime: A middleware for physical and logical mobility. April 2001]] is based on \transiently shared tuple spaces" in which each device has a local tuple space, nearby devices merge their local tuple spaces into a shared global tuple space, and applications interact by reading and writing tuples in the shared space.
Different middleware frameworks offer different levels of abstraction. M2MI offers a low-level, method call oriented abstraction. A shared tuple space offers a high-level, data oriented abstraction. [...]"

Comment
Obviously, the authors came a little late to the party.

Being precise, our Evoos and our OS are more than what we described as Java JiniOS, which shows once again something completely different and totally new.
Indeed, the integration of the fields of

• Wireless Ad hoc NETwork (WANET),
  • Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET), and
  • Vehicular Ad hoc NETwork (VANET),
• mesh network,
• sensor network, and
• sensor-actuator network,

• hybrid Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (hMANET),

• Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC),
  • unstructured Peer-to-Peer (uP2P),
  • structured Peer-to-Peer (sP2P), and
  • hybrid Peer-to-Peer (hP2P), and also
  • Many-to-Many Computing (M2MC)

• Collaborative Virtual Environment (CVE) and
• Massively Multi-user Virtual Environment (MMVE)
  • Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) and
  • Massively Multiplayer Mixed Reality Online Costume Role-Playing Game (MMMROCRPG),

in accordance with the Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) also implies as a side effect once again that communication-centric, protocol-centric, data-centric, method call-, action-, service-, or function-centric, and other Information-Centric Networking (ICN) architectures were also created as parts of our Resource-Centric Networking (RCN) architecture included in our Evoos and our OS, because we made the overlay (network, service, agent, etc.) middleware underlay (Distributed System (DS) (e.g. Distributed operating system (Dos))) functionality, and this even in a totally different dimension. Bingo!!!

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

In the course of this clean up and preparation, we also looked at the Arrow System (AS) of the TUNES OS once again for some specific details. And while we were rereading the related document, we got the conclusion that the prompt engineering or simply prompting is an application of Evoos and is OS (see the Clarification #2 of today). Bingo!!!

18:47 UTC+2
Clarification #2

*** Work in progress - some links missing, better wording ***

In the Clarification of the ... we discussed the general internal working of ANNLM (e.g. LLM).
In the note These 'R' Us, still of the 19th of February 2024 we looked at the connectionist (neural) probabilistic Language Model (LM) once again and noted "syntax, semantics and "ontology"".
In the note % + %, % OAOS, % HW #11 of the 24th of May 2024 we discussed the general software and hardware paradigms of the business paradigm of Bionic, Cybernetic, and Ontologic (BCO) SuperComputing (SC or SupC) (BCOSC) and Networking.
In this Clarification we discuss the general prompt engineering in the context of model-level reflection and provide more evidences that Foundational Model (FM) (e.g. Foundation Model (FM)), Large Language Model (LLM), and so on, and also many ways of their utilization have been created by C.S. with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

We quote once again the document titled "Arrow System" and publicized in April 1999: "[...]

4.1.2 A Homo-iconic System
Any application of arrows to other arrows constitutes model-level reflection. The arrow construct itself forms the basis for reflection via object-level / context-level distinction. This common construct has such little semantics implicit to its definition. Therefore, though much information that agents would considered unreachable because it is sub-structural or crosscutting to the model specified by the semantics of ordinary languages; it is reified easily in this new system for first-order reuse. This allows the Arrow system to act as an effective meta-system language providing inter-language translation up to the limits of computability via a uniform modeling mechanism.
[...]

4.1.3 Not a Language
The Arrow system blurs the distinction between context type and other types. Essentially, the system renders all types in terms of arrows. Only a context can yield meaning for a given arrow. Such a context is due to a type of abstract virtual machine built dynamically by the environment from the specifications of ontologies.
[...]

4.7 Contexts
Arrows rely on variation in context for meaning. However, variation in context is not under the state-update von Neumann permissive model or its derivatives. The system may and shall provide the simple dynamic semantics of the functional paradigm as well as the clean semantics of declarational specification. In this way, an ontology specification introduced to the system results in the incremental modification of the current knowledge base until the state of the system realizes perceived ontology. Because of this, agents can manage the interaction of various ontologies in a manner heretofore unattainable.
The general paradigm for using arrows as a tool for modeling inform relational metaphor. In the Arrow system, we would identify a binary ordered relation as a set of arrows. [...]
[...]

4.8 Meaning
Meaning describes the dynamic effect of information received relative to the current frame of knowledge. Similarly, truth within a system of logic is local to a knowledge frame.
[...]

4.9 Dynamics
The Arrow system as described above is static (or kinematic at best). It remains to define the dynamics of the Arrow system. The Arrow system is a general-purpose information system that expresses contexts, ontologies, and language models as first-order concepts. It may range over many logics as context modification systems. These properties enable a novel means of expressing system dynamics.
[...]
[...] the primary purpose of the system is to translate information between contexts in order to promote overall system utility. To maximize its capabilities to do so, it provides maximum visibility for all information in the system relative to the context of the agent requesting the information. Simply removing any scope restriction stipulations for the system's arrows provides maximum visibility: from a context-neutral perspective, any arrow may reference any other arrow without compromising system integrity. However, the nature of the target context's logical model directly affects the kind of information that the context may support.
[...]
The total system's semantics are of a functional paradigm, but at an information level, not simply at an execution level. In this way, information transformations are the fundamental abstraction type at the user level for the system. The constraint for such actions in this sense is to conserve information as bounded by user choice: the user may specify a heuristic that discards certain information types as noise. [...] Therefore, these information transformations map an existing arrow information state to a new one.
[...]

4.10 User Interface
[...]
The system models the ontological frame that the user employs, and interacts with the user based on that group of ontologies. In model-level terms, the system speaks directly to the ontology, and merely passes the conversation along to the user for review. The user, in turn, acts for the ontology in communicating with the system.
[...]

4.12 Constructive Implementation
[...]
Text identifiers constitute information that is only interpretable by the user. As such, the information belongs to the domains associated with user interface within the appropriate part of the system. This information subsumes what usually comprises the documentation for a programming system, traditionally maintained solely by the user. In the Arrow system, a more enlightened view exists, placing this domain under the system's model-level reflective capabilities. Formal theories of the understanding of natural human language may assist in translating ontologies into human-readable documentation, and this process itself is of course available for improvement under the system design. [...]

5 Conclusions
[...] The central concept of the system design is to increase the capabilities of the system to analyze and act to improve its performance and utility by generalizing the system's modeling capabilities in a meaningful way. The anticipated result is the greater overall freedom in the use and re-use of information for arbitrary purposes [...]. [...]"

Comment
Evoos

• Cybernetics,
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Soft Computing (SC)
  • Fuzzy Logic (FL),
  • Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
  • Probabilistic Model (PM or ProM), and
  • Genetic Algorithm (GA),
• Computational Intelligence (CI),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC)
  • Genetic Algorithm (GA),
  • Genetic Programming (GP),
  • etc.,
• Generalized Evolutionary technologies (GEx),
  • Genetic Programming technologies (GPx),
• Integrated Evolutionary technologies (IEx),
• Holonic Agent System (HAS),
• Cognitive System (CS or CogS),
• Synergetic System (SS or SynS),
  • Synergetic Computer respectively Synergetic Computing (SC or SynC), and
• BioHolonic System (BHS),
  • Autonomic Cognitive Computer respectively Autonomic Cognitive Computing (ACC or ACogC),
• Autonomic technologies (Ax)
  • Autonomic Computing (AC),
• Autonomous System (AS),
• Robotic Automation technologies (RAx) or Robotic Process Automation technologies (RPAx),
• Robotic System (RS),
  • Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immbot),
• Cybernetical Intelligence (CI or CybI),
• Resource-Oriented technologies (ROx),
  • Resource-Oriented Computing (ROC),
• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx),
• Multimodal System (MS or MMS),
  • Multimodal User Interface (MUI),
• Conversational System (CS or ConS),
• and much more

to the model-level reflective Arrow System (AS) with Knowledge Graph (KG) and Language Model (LM), and the Distributed operating systems (Doss) TUNES OS and Aperion (Apertos (Muse)) (see also the operating system (os) of the Sony Artificial Intelligence roBOt (AIBO)).

Just substitute

With Evoos we did both with our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and as integrated subsymbolic and symbolic systems. Wow!!!

See

The reason why we have not publicized the purely subsymbolic, connectionist (neural), probabilistic, and statistic realization and also stopped the further development of our Evoos in exactly this direction, which we later designated as the brute force approach, is quite simple and has already been discussed by others and us: quantity respectively probabilistics, statistics, emergence, fantasy, hallucination, etc. of Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Swarm Computing (SC), but not quality respectively logics, validation and verification, transparency, rationality, trust, etc..
See also once again the notes

We also recall that our Evoos is based on the field of Bioholonics (e.g. "Autonomic Cognitive Computer" (ACogC) and the work titled "The Society of Mind"), which again is based on on the fields of bionics, cybernetics, and synergetics, and also the field of ontologics, and so on.
See also once again the

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject prompt engineering: "Prompt engineering is the process of structuring an instruction that can be interpreted and understood by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model.[1][2] A prompt is natural language text describing the task that an AI should perform:[3] a prompt for a text-to-text language model can be a query [...] a command [...] or a longer statement including context, instructions,[6] and conversation history.
[...]

In-context learning
Prompt engineering is enabled by in-context learning, defined as a model's ability to temporarily learn from prompts. The ability for in-context learning is an emergent ability[14] of large language models. In-context learning itself is an emergent property of model scale, meaning breaks[15] in downstream scaling laws occur such that its efficacy increases at a different rate in larger models than in smaller models.[16][17]
In contrast to training and fine-tuning for each specific task, which are not temporary, what has been learnt during in-context learning is of a temporary nature. It does not carry the temporary contexts or biases, except the ones already present in the (pre)training dataset, from one conversation to the other.[18] This result of "mesa-optimization"[19][20] within transformer layers, is a form of meta-learning or "learning to learn".[21]

History
In 2018, researchers first proposed that all previously separate tasks in [Natural Language Processing (]NLP[)] could be cast as a question answering problem over a context. In addition, they trained a first single, joint, multi-task model that would answer any task-related question like "What is the sentiment" or "Translate this sentence to German" or "Who is the president?"[22]
In 2021, researchers fine-tuned one generatively pretrained model (T0) on performing 12 NLP tasks (using 62 datasets, as each task can have multiple datasets). The model showed good performance on new tasks, surpassing models trained directly on just performing one task (without pretraining). To solve a task, T0 is given the task in a structured prompt, for example If {{premise}} is true, is it also true that {{hypothesis}}? ||| {{entailed}}. is the prompt used for making T0 solve entailment.[23]
[...]"

We also quote once again an online encyclopedia about the subject Large Language Model (LLM) once again: "A large language model (LLM) is a language model notable for its ability to achieve general-purpose language generation and understanding. [...]
"Larger sized [Large Language] models [(LLMs)...] however, can be prompt-engineered to achieve similar results.[6] are thought to acquire knowledge about syntax, semantics and "ontology" inherent in human language corpora".

Comment
When viewed in relation to the Arrow System (AS) and described in its specialist terms, then an LLM, Foundational Model (FM) (e.g. Foundation Model (FM)) (e.g. Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)) is (model-level) reflective and interactive, and constitutes an ontological frame, group of ontologies, knowledge base, and context, and a prompt constitutes an ontology (specification), translation respectively transformation of information between contexts, and variation in context for meaning.
Also note that a Command Line Interface (CLI) or an operating system is a Text User Interface (TUI) with a prompt.
And AS with Bionics, and Natural Language (NL) as Agent Communication Language (ACL) are parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) anyway.

OSA integrates all in one, such as

on the scale of the Interconnected network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW), and observable universe.
Speak with the web. Talk to the Web.
See the Clarification of the 2nd of August 2024 (keywork Arrow System).

22.October.2024

11:33 and 11:44 UTC+2
Investigations::Car #

The new "brain" of the F80
In addition to estimating the yaw angle in real time, SSC 9.0 now also calculates the speed of the center of gravity and calculates both values with an accuracy of less than 1 degree and 1 km/h respectively. In this way, the new calculator improves the performance of all dynamic control systems, such as traction control.
The eManettino positions "Performance" and "Qualify" [of the little rotary switch on the steering wheel] give the driver access to a completely new function that is a first not only for Ferrari, but for the entire automotive industry: "Boost Optimization", a technology that records the race track on which the F80 is driving. Boost Optimization then delivers additional power in those sections of the track where it is needed most. After selecting the function, the driver first drives an exploration lap, during which the system identifies the bends and straights of the track and collects the data it needs to optimize the power output. At the end of the lap, the vehicle is then ready to provide additional power automatically and without further intervention by the driver."

Comment
Advanced Active Aerodynamics™ is the one thing, Active Suspension™ is the other thing, and "Fun to drive on plein air" and "Defining fun to drive" with "pure emotions" is just another thing (see also the Comment of the Day of the 26th of May 2008 to find Fun to Drive™).
But

• Advanced Active Aerodynamics™,
• Active Wing™, and
• Active Underbody™

together with

definitely is not an invention of the company Ferrari, as is the case for the company Porsche and other companies, "that is a first [...] for the entire automotive industry", but an already 15 years old creation, performance, and protected work of art and performance of our business division Style of Speed™, so that we now have sufficient evidences, which show that our creations, inventions, and publications have been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint without proper referencing respectively citation with attribution, designation, and also without allowance for presentation, modification, performance, and reproduction, which still constitutes an infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and a violation of several related laws on planet Earth, even in case of Ferrari and the rest of the automotive industry.

Ferrari has to comply with the

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

We also have our models RE in the variant RSQ and RQ (see Audi RSQ concept) from the movie "I, Robot", which again were also taken as source of inspiration for the Audi e-tron 2009 concept, and speeders related to the movie saga "Star Wars" and spinners related to the movie saga "Blade Runner", which again were also taken as source of inspiration for the movie "Blade Runner 2049" among other parts of our Ontologic System (OS).

And we often showed models with the

including the

when virtually everybody else said at that time they are "crap", as was the case with the top mount or swan neck mount of the rear wing.

Moreover, we already discussed our "robotaxi variant of the model ETE" and our "original and unique Taxisharing club/society/association respectively Taxi Community" in August and October 2013. ©

Last but not least, we would like to recall the creation and use of our trademarks
Cabby™,
Robotcab™,
Robocab™, which is the reason Tesla Motors cannot claim our trademark besides its illegal claim of robotaxi as its trademark,
Cabbot™,
Cabot™,
eCabby™,
eCab™,
and so on.

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

Tesla Motors has to comply with the

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

In both cases and similar cases all dirty tricks have been exhausted and that freak show is over for good.
So much about another "principled" company, that "understands that integrity and creativity are essential if we are to realise the potential of Artificial Intelligence [(AI) and Robotics, and so on]" and "[the] must [to] challenge the content kleptocracy [and all other forms of it]".

17:14 UTC+2
~~~~ **** ~~~~

Nobody steals it, controls it, barters it away==verschachert es at the stock market.
Therefore

but

25.October.2024

23:01 UTC+2
Georg von Holtzbrinck with Digital Science, Metaphacts et al. blacklisted

no Graph DataBase (GDB) and Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG) with integrated subsymbolic and symbolic system, specifically unified subsymbolic and symbolic system, also known as connectionist symbol processing system, or subsymbolic Artificial Intelligence (AI) system, ... or integrated connectionist model (e.g. neuro-symbolic AI) and definitely not with Arrow System (AS) (ontological frame (group of ontologies, context), ontology (specification), Language Model (LM), etc.) of the TUNES OS, ontology-based system, and ontologics (see also the Clarification of today)

Similar works are also just only plagiarisms and fakes, which come 25 or 18 years too late.
In this conjunction, it is also highly suspicious that a copilot as application has been suggested.

That company Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Co. KG with its subsidiaries and subsubsidiaries can be a member of the lying press and democratize knowledge, but it will not disrespect and democratize the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, as it applies to any other entity.

23:01 and 25:25 UTC+2
Clarification

The integration of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. Foundational Model (FM) (Foundation Model (FM)), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANN) (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)))) and ontology learning in addition to a workflow and an Integrated Development Environment (IDE), and also the further integration with formal modeling, validation and verification, and other formal methods, and also automated knowledge engineering (e.g. ontology development), knowledge management (e.g. knowledge graph management), ontological inference engine (e.g. (Web Ontology Language (OWL)) reasoner), and so on are already parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

But the whole approach, which is using a quantitative respectively probabilistics, statistics, fantasizing, hallucinating, etc. ANNLM (e.g. LLM) to generate a qualitative structure respectively what is wrongly called a formalizing, validated and verified, transparent, rational, trustworthy, etc. ontology and using said structure (user ontology, specification) to train said LLM (ontological frame, context), means nothing else than putting the cart before the horse or throwing dice to create an axiom system respectively perverting the whole reason / approach why an ontology exists at all and therefore is utter nonsense, not to say crap, and a sign of total incompetence.
Eventually, a formalized hallucination is still a hallucination and therefore a (pure) LLM does not learn a (logical) ontology, but one has to begin with a semantic structure (e.g. ontology) to get a unified or integrated LLM, or symbol processing LLM.
This also holds for the claim that fiddling around with a subsymbolic approach based on the Web Ontology Language (OWL) would be worse than fiddling around with a subsymbolic approach based on the Terse RDF Triple Language (Turtle). No, this result is only just another crystal clear sign of incompetence and also shows that the plagiarists have not understood anything as is the case with the plagiarists in the fields of logic-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emergence-driven Artificial Neural Network (ANN).

See also the

And to recall some facts, the pure brute force approach was always dead by design, and somehow was never realized completely, because the presented ANNLMs and related utilizations and integrations were always variants of our coherent OM and parts of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), and our Ontologic System (OS).
The Transformer Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) is also dead, but the successors, which we have seen so far, are also based on our Evoos and our OS, and cannot solve the basic problems no matter how clever an Artificial Neural Network Graph (ANNG) is designed.

So much about the chaos theory and the difference between chaos and order.

In the last years, we also showed multiple times that even the field of LLM and related utilizations and integrations are to a significant extend plagiarisms of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

Eventually, all Research and Development (R&D) in this field were already in the grey zone more than 2 decades ago and are now in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), because the pure ANNLM is reduced more and more to a

Bingo!!!

We have seen such an R&D before with the mobile devices and the field of Grid Computing (GC), Cloud Computing (CC), and even the Interconnected Network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW), Global Brain (GB), and so on.
Somehow, this also reminds us of the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), and the utter nonsense of Linked Data (LD) and Decentralized Web (DWeb).
Stay away from everybody, who is promoting LD, LLM, and the related AI crap. Most of them, including those ANN, SWWW, ontology, and DWeb trolls, are those, who failed again and again in more than the last 3 decades in these fields, and all of them only want to steal our quality masterpieces by fabricating quantity plagiarisms, because of their plain incompetencies in every respect.

Oh, yes, do not forget to mention: Compliance with the

specifically the

is always required worldwide.

26.October.2024

Comment of the Day

Resource-Centric Networking™ (RCN)

31.October.2024

12:49 UTC+1
SOPR considering pricing models partially illegal

According to the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR no middleman or intermediariy exists between our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and an end user or end customer respectively an end licensee regarding the utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Socities.

Specifically, the subscription-based pricing models are not legal as practiced, because

Or said in other words, 2 contracts are required.

13:32 UTC+1
Clarification

We came across old stuff of a plagiarist publicized since the year 2001 in relation to the fields of

in additon to the fields of

White papers were publicized by plagiarists in 2001 to 2005, so at least 1 year after the presentation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos). They continued with stealing of for example our Ontologic System Components (OSC), specifically our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), Ontologic Scope (OntoScope), and OntoBlender.
"Community [...] Ai Open Lab" So, so, that reminds us of something.

Howsoever, we got more very significant evidence that (the foundation of) Large Language Model (LLM) has been created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and much more.
See also the Clarification #2 of the 21st of October 2024.

It is so long ago, when we worked on this in 1999 and found all those fraudsters in the following years.
But now it is very nice to have those plagiarisms and fakes as facts, proofs, evidences, etc. for our claims. :D

We have several areas or segments to discuss, which are exemplary:

and also

It should be obvious for everybody, that after the Interconnected network (Internet) and the World Wide Web (WWW) comes our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), including our Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup).
Furthermore, we have a continues and seamless simulation of an oridinary technological progress or development, with a vast amount of evidences, which undeniable show that the masterpieces created by C.S., our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), have been taken and are still taken as sources of inspiration and blueprints all the time.
Therefore, exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S., and other rights of C.S. and our corporation are effective and do apply.
We get all of our rights and properties, reputations, momenta, etc. back. There is no debate about this.
See also the notes ~~~~ **** ~~~~ of the 22nd of October 2024.

12:54 and 17:16 UTC+1
Without damage compensations no licenses

Do not risk rulings of the courts, because we have already announced that we will put them into practice 1:1, which will have effects on the essential facilities and more as well.

The reinvestments of unpaid damage compensations and royalties in data centers of the companies Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Amazon have been noticed and will only be considered as legal, if the issue with the overall legal situation has been resolved, or otherwise they will be viewed and handled as

But Nvidia, Meta (Facebook), OpenAI, and others seem not to be in line.

And damage compensations have to be payed by every entity, that infringed the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

The following image shows the change in combined value over the past year of the member companies of the Bad Seven vs. the rest of the S&P 500 index:

The following image shows the revenue generated by the company Alphabet (Google) with the Google Cloud Platform worldwide in the years 2017 to 2023:

The following image shows the revenue generated by the company Microsoft in various segments worldwide in the years 2012 to 2023:

The following image shows the revenue generated by the company IBM in various segments in the years 2010 to 2023:

Find more information on the websites of Statista and other data and service providers.

So obviously, sufficient data exist to calculate the damage compensations very easily and precisely.
The difference between the Bad Seven vs. the rest of the S&P 500 of 18% is for sure.
The impact by segments is for sure as well.

But we also note that

See also the note SOPR refined demands of the 3rd of January 2024, specifically the black line in the shown image.
Even the whole 49% is for sure and over the many years much more.

Also very interesting and important to note in this context are the management mistakes of IBM, which performed not like the other companies, as can be seen by the areas or segments shown in the image above and the stock performance and the black line shown in the image on the 3rd of January 2024. IBM's performance is exemplary for a company, which failed to manage the stealing of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, so to say. Ahhh-hmmmmmm :D
difference between IBM's Watson and our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot),

Eventually, the negotiations are only about details of the higher of apportioned compensations, profits, and values, customary contracts, and transaction modalities.

12:57 and 21:51 UTC+1
Microsoft - OpenAI partnership 'super beneficial'?

We had the opinion that it would be interesting to note some recent reports.

We quote the titled of a first report: "Microsoft says OpenAI partnership has been 'super beneficial'"

Comment
Honestly, it is much too early to make such a statement with all the outstanding undecided and unresolved legal issues.
As it is already very well known in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT), automotive, engineering, finance, media, and other industrial sectors since several years, both companies have no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and therefore they just do not have a legal security in addition to a lot of other very serious stuff.

We quote the titled of a second report: "OpenAI Teams Up with Broadcom and [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (]TSMC[)] to Develop Custom AI Chips"

Comment
OpenAI also wants to compete with Nvidia chips.
The argument for the establishment of this specific partnership is that Broadcom is a very good customer of TSMC, which would open the door to TSMC's production facilities for OpenAI.

We quote the titled of a third report: "OpenAI wants to compete with Google [Search]"

Comment
OpenAI also wants to compete with Microsoft Bing and Copilot, which are also based on our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), like Google Search.

Very nice and 'super beneficial' behaviour of a company to attack companies, which invested in it as the first ones.
This raises once again the question why Microsoft and Nvidia still support that fake company. And two answer already given to this question are that

for damaging the goals and integrities of C.S. and our corporation, extorting concessions and blackmailing and forcing them in other ways, or even destroying them. :)
Well, it will not become cheaper for them.

See also the