are primarily given and why the accompanying compilation, selection, composition, integration, unification, fusion, design, architecture, component, etc. are secondarily given, but still just as legally relevant by themselves, and the characteristics of a system, a scientific theory, an optimization, etc. are trinary given and secondary effects, which emerged out of the creative process.
In sum, we have sufficient substantial and covincing material.

We also concluded that certain considerations and legal constructs mentioned in the notes

can be harmonized or relaxed.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

22:08 UTC+1
Cerence already blacklisted

See the note Nuance Communications blacklisted of the 9th of January 2024.
The so-called Cerence automotive Large Language Model (CaLLM) and related integrations are not "Cerence's vision", but a part of our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), and the

crystal clearly prohibit to claim for our visions, creations, expressions of idea, compilations, architectures, competences, performances, achievements, and so on.
The same holds for the various business partners of Nuance Communications→Cerence.

We quote a report, which was publicized on the 24th of June 2024: "[...]
"Volkswagen has a long tradition of democratizing technologies. [...]," said [a] Member of the Volkswagen Brand Board of Management responsible for Development, in a Volkswagen announcement.
[...]"

Comment
So, so, and Porsche SE/Volkswagen also has a more than 2 decades long tradition of stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

The companies Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Renault, Kawasaki, Jaguar Land Rover, and Co. have to utilize the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

They do not want to respect our rights, accept our control over our properties, comply with the ToS, pay the damage compensations and the royalties, and do other actions.
They do not see us as a creator, a rights holder, a licensor, a market player, etc., but only as cash cow.
But that does not change the fact that in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) they do not have to make our decisions, to democratize our rights and properties, and to do anything else that damages our integrities and goals.

We already have stopped to talk about that new low and can only recommend to every entity once again to stay away from the subsymbolic brute force approach, specifically the connectionist approach with those pure LLMs on the one hand and to avoid further infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation on the other hand.
So much about democracy and rule-based law and order environment, which are already the social compromise, and also arts, culture, ethics, morality, and other useless stuff.

06.January.2025

Comment of the Day

"Some can build cars, and one can even catch rockets with sticks, but we can artificial gravity.", [C.S., Today]

17:37 UTC+1
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #33.6.5

We are very sure that our Society for Zero gravity Utilization and Generation (SZUG) and our Superbolt™ #6 N.N. (designation related to General Gravity™ with its subsidiary American Gravity™, or Hover™, etc.) of our Blitz Fund™ I created by our OntoLab™, The Lab of Visions™, and managed by our Ontonics™, The Hightech Office™, will be incredible hits in the P.R.China, India, Europe, and many other places worldwide.
It is a total disruption, which is even exceeding the worldwide success of our Ontoscope (Os), also wrongly called Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Apple iPhone, smartcar, and so on.
In fact, our Superbolt #6 expects to have around 2 billion customers instantly and another 2 billion after some few months.

The are reserved for exclusive utilization and exploitation by our

• Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) and
• OntoLab Vision Fund and Ontonics Blitz Fund Investment Program Partners (IPPs),

who know, heed, and show that it is always better to collaborate with us and therefore Sign, Pay, Comply (SPC) with our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions. Is not it, Jeff, Tim, and Warren?

See also the

11.January.2025

Question of the Day

"What is not really shameful in these days?", [C.S., Today]

16:10, 16:46, 19:04, and 20:43 UTC+1
Nothing, what Nvidia does with our AWs, is legal

ArtWork (AW) or work of art

The company Nvidia has no authorization to perform and reproduce certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS) and even distribute them under a different license, and to violate the rights and properties of C.S. and our company in other ways, specifically the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S..
Also note in this context, that the European moral rights and copyrights, and their international legal equivalences do not come under the statute of limitations, but only the claims for damage compensations, and the length of a statute of limitations depends on the sort of an infringement of said rights and is longer if such a violation is part of a criminal action.
Oddly enough, in Europe moral rights are inalienable, while in other jurisdictions certain contracts can be made. But for sure, we will not act in any way, that would interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exercise of our rights and the control of our properties.
Therefore, the customers of Nvidia have no legal security and their contracts with Nvidia are void.
And a legal loophole and a level playing field does not exist even not if millions already use illegal parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

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

By the way:

• Bayesian Statistics (BS),
• Machine Learning Model (MLM), and
• Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), including what is wrongly called Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM) and Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM), including Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Large Language Model (LLM), Large MultiModal Model (LMMM), Large Action Model (LAM), etc.,

as part of what is called by us the brute force approach, do not work, but nevertheless are included in our Evoos with its

• basic properties,
• Agent-Based System (ABS),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Multimodal User Interface (MUI),
• Conversational System (CS or ConS), Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), etc.,
• Cognitive System (CS or CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS), etc.,
• coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including
  • Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM) for transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, prompt engineering respectively cognitive processing,
  • Foundational Model (FM) (Foundation Model (FM)),
  • Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Foundational Model (FM) or Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale,
  • etc.,
• foundation of Generalized Evolutionary technologies (GEx),
• foundation of Integrated Evolutionary technologies (IEx),
• foundation of Ontologic Programming (OP), including
  • Logic Programming (LP),
  • Literate Programming (LP or LitP),
  • foundation of Natural Language Programming (NLP),
  • etc.,
• foundation of Ontologic Computing (OC), including
  • foundation of transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
  • foundation of bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
  • foundation of prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,
  • etc.,
• Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), including
  • Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
  • foundation of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
  • foundation of (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
  • Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
  • etc.,

  and our OS with its

• basic properties,
• Generalized Evolutionary technologies (GEx),
• Integrated Evolutionary technologies (IEx),
• Ontologic Programming (OP),
• Ontologic Computing (OC), including
  • transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
  • bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
  • prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,
• Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), including
  • Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
  • Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
  • (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
  • Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
  • etc.,
• and much more.

The only exceptions are the utilization of certain approaches in the fields of Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Natural Language Parsing (NLP) and Natural Language Generation (NLG)) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), which definitely are not and do not include the fields of chatbot, MUI, ConAS, CogAS, and so on.
And about our creations, compilations, compostions, integrations, architectures, and so on in relation to these fields and others we do not need to talk anymore.

• when we will get our control respectively properties back, our damage compensations, our royalties, and so on,
• when we will be asked about the spending of more than 300 billion U.S. Dollar by certain companies alone in their actual fiscal years, which are moneys and somehow also companies belonging to us,
• when we will have our last word, and
• when we will get an end of that freak show.

The answer "never" is generally unacceptable and unreasonable.

12.January.2025

00:27 adn 15:05 UTC+1
LibreOffice documentation is not correct

We quote a white paper, which is about the LibreOffice Technology and was publicized in February 2021: "LibreOffice Technology, the only software platform for personal productivity on the desktop, mobile and cloud
[...]
The goal of this evolutionary process was to create a single software platform for individual productivity on desktop, mobile and the cloud: the only approach able to offer users the interoperability features that enable transparent sharing of all content, and independence from single commercial vendors and vendor lock-in strategies.

The evolutionary process from product to platform
[...]"

Comment
In relation to the model-reflective Arrow System (AS) of the Distributed operating system (Dos) TUNES OS and our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), it should be obvious that our OM can also represent every format and Language Model (LM), including those formats and LMs based on the eXtensible Markup Language (XML), and therefore also the Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF), which is also known as the OpenDocument and based on the XML.

Furthermore, one of the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS) is having the characteristics of (mostly) being collaborative and the Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) integrates all in one, including Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) distributions, including the office productivity suite OpenOffice and its derivatives, which results in our Ontologic Office (OntoO).

We are also looking at the Libre Office Online server service in relation to what is wrongly called Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) and Cloud-native Computing (CnC), because it is considered to be one of the many unauthorized Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) (e.g. Office as a Service (OfficeaaS)) and therefore publicized under an illegal license.

And about our Ontoscope (Os), also wrongly called Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Apple iPhone, and so on, we even need to talk about.

Eventually, that illegal statement and similar statements have to be removed immediately.

We also do not think that personal productivity and individual productivity is an educational activity.

00:32 and 15:05 UTC+1
Opencoder LLM blacklisted

Large Language Model (LLM) based on our original and unique coherent Ontologic Model (OM)

The Copilot integrated in the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) Visual Studio Code (VS Code) of the company Microsoft is already considered an illegal plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) integrated in our Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx) (e.g. OntoBlender) and our other original and unique creations, expressions of idea, compilations, compositions, integrations, unifications, architectures, and so on. Obviously, the same holds for every alternative.

In relation to the model-reflective Arrow System (AS) of the Distributed operating system (Dos) TUNES OS integrated in our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), a Domain Specific Language (DSL) Model (DSLM), such as for software development, business engineering, engineering, automobility, finance, etc., is considered some kind of an ontology.
But only our Evoos with our OM and thus our OS also comprises subsymbolic, connectionist (neural), probabilistic, and statistic models, systems, and so on, including for example every Foundational Model (FM), Language Model (LM), Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), etc. based on the fields of Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), and so on.

They all come lightyears too late to the party.

19.January.2025

05:00 and 15:15 UTC+1
List of damages summary

We have summarized the list of damages of the

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 Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
We will not waive or even assign moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, and copyrights.

We made a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) offer, which will not get any better.
Every entity, that wishes to participate in this procedure, is encouraged to submit constructive arguments and more exact determinations, which are based on the apportioned compensation, profit, and value, but not on fantasy, continuation of blackmailing, conspiracy, criminal copyright infringement, violation of competition, etc., because the latter will only lead to suboptimal results.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

05:05 and 15:11 UTC+1
Further steps

We have reserved the next weeks for drafting, formulating, and finalizing the legal documents and have begun with reviewing the gathered materials, the structuring of the main document summarizing the case and a potential agreement, and working on some other topics.
The additional efforts of the last year have led to an intermediate state, where all points could be ticked off in relation to all the matters discussed in the past, such as

and also a draft, which is already substantial, consistent, sound, coherent, and harmonious and should result in a very good final work and starter for further activities.

20.January.2025

21:07 and 21:37 UTC+1
U.S.American solar power

In the near future, it will henceforth be the official policy of our corporation that there are only two energy sources, solar electricity and solar fusion.

We have the first one in at least 3 basic versions

and in several integrated versions of said basic versions laying around here in our OntoLab since around 6 years.

We are not ready with the second one, because its aneutronic version is still not operable, as we have also communicated some years ago.

We are also not sure if the cost of nuclear power is competitive, though the form factor is extremely attractive, specifically in case of the mobile and home energy reactor of Mr. Fusion.
But we are very sure that the points about the locations of production, first market launch, etc. are also quite interesting.

23:59 UTC+1
Clarification

We quote an inaugural address, which was held today: "[...]
Americans [...] put the universe of human knowledge into the palm of the human hand.
[...]"

Comment
Well, fact and fiction, creating and inventing and marketing others creations and inventions, and this and that are different.

The work of art is called Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov) and Ontoscope (Os), here in the handheld version, which is also wrongly and illegally called Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Apple iPhone, and so on, and has been created by C.S., who is not an U.S. American citizen.

22.January.2025

Comment of the Day

"They dissolve the ... as such."
... legislative, judicial, executive, democracy, common sense, state, society, right, order, freedom, moral, trust, security rationality, love, good, ...

07:30, 14:17, and 16:17 UTC+1
SOPR already prepared actions last year

We quote a report, which is about our Ontologic Net (ON) with its Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup), and our Ontologic Web (OW), and also the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies and was publicized by a public-law broadcaster of the U.K. today: "[...] Other partners in the project include tech giants Microsoft, Arm and Nvidia, according to statements by Softbank and OpenAI.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we add the information that in an update of the report the term partners was substituted with technology partners.

Because a certain news media and a public-law broadcaster of the F.R.Germany did not mention this quite important information at all and said news media also marked the term "company" at first and added another important information only several hours later, despite they were knowing all facts all the time and made several updates or publications, and another certain news media did not report about the project at all, which is unusual somehow, one of our considerations was that this note should be about the question if it still makes sense to ask the company Microsoft for an explanation, despite the whole case is self-explanatory, if one simply connects the dots respectively looks at some few relationships, general activities, and particular actions.
Additional informations will provide a better sight about the situation.
The situation has also been recognized with great astonishment and bemusement by virtually all persons, who are active in the related field, such as competitors, journalists, and so on.

Just for the record, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has not authorized anything and will not be substituted with anything. All the rest has been communicated again and again and more than only crystal clearly.
The latest about the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) is given in the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, such as the

and the other publications cited therein.

See also the

and the other publications cited therein.
And they said this clarification would be a waste of time, which was not, because it was made being very well informed and foresighted, obviously, as is the case for building and finalizing the case last year, while other built and did other things, also obviously.

14:70 UTC+1
Oracle blacklisted once again

This case is self-explanatory once again.

And this blacklisting is just for the usual reasons and also the formal reasons.

15:10 UTC+1
U.A.Emirates→MGX blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

And this blacklisting is just for the usual reasons and also the formal reasons.

15:10 and 16:10 UTC+1
SOPR demands complete legal actions

For sure, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not get over that direct assault on reality, because our leverage is just too long, so others have to get used to facts and not fictions, as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.
In general, there is no renegotiation of our terms and conditions, because the

are already the compromise, and the

are our voluntary offer and goodwill, which we do not have to show, but can withdraw at any time, as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.

In particular, the preconditions for the opening of our Ontologic System (OS) and the allowance and licensing of the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS is solely based on the legal clauses that

• copy of our OS,
• copy of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies,
• implementation of an infrastructure based on our OS,
• utilization of a Data Center (DC), SuperComputer (SC or SupC), etc. for the fields of cryptography and Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically for our Ontologic Model (OM), including Foundational Model (FM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), including Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM) and Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM), including Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Large Language Model (LLM), Large MultiModal Model (LMMM), Large Action Model (LAM), etc., and also Conversation Artificial Intelligence (CAI), Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), and other technologies, goods, and services based on them in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov),
• utilization, operation, connection, etc. of a Data Center (DC), SuperComputer (SC or SupC), etc. for other reasons in relation to OS in the legal scope of Ontoverse (Ov)
• anything else comparable to this subject matter,

constitutes an infringement of said universal compromise (see above) and results in the immediate withdrawal of our goodwill and opening of our OS, as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.
Therefore, that dirty trick based on data center and AI infrastructure does not work.

See also the

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) demands that all moral rights and copyrights are respected completely, including

as (already) specified by our SOPR, and as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) demands that all legally required actions are realized completely, including

as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided for the separation of the U.S.America into an individual space besides the spaces of the (billion of citizens)

as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly, as long as a legal deficit in relation to said universal compromise (see above) has not been cured in accordance with all demands of our SOPR.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) imposes a penalty, the higher of

as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly, as long as a legal deficit in relation to said universal compromise (see above) has not been cured in accordance with all demands of our SOPR.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is also considering the blacklisting of U.S.American companies, as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.
This means U.S.American companies would only be able to make businesses under a capricious U.S.American regime inside the U.S.America, if at all, and loose the access to markets with around 4.323 billion citzens and at least around 1.275 billion customers with noteable income.

Herewith, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) also gives the unequivocal and thus unmistakable warning that we do not accept any limitation regarding the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and therefore we will not sign, sale, and so on any of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) also gives the unequivocal and thus unmistakable reminder that in case of a statute of limitations the

of an illegal plagiarism and fake of said AWs and IPs is not be possible, and the

will have to be done.
Certain illegal technologies, goods, and services of the fields of Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, etc.), Cybernetics, and Ontologics, which are based on said AWs and IPs, are still in the usual statute of limitations regarding the payment of damage compensations.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) also concluded that the continuation of its blacklist makes no sense anymore, because virtually all of the largest companies and other entities are already listed on it, so that more general clauses have been activated and are now effective.

By the way:

17:20, 19:50, and 24:00 UTC+1
Musk is not quite right and true about backers

We said that we will reinvest our royalties in the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies and that we will do so under every U.S.American administration, which is the reason why we have not called its construction by others a pipedream at least at this point. And the administration knows what a word of a sales(wo)man means.

And they got the initial money by stealing it from us or expecting to be able to steal it from us, and they will be getting the rest of the money by continuing with stealing it from us, as they are doing since so long with foundational and essential parts of our Ontologic System (OS).
And what they are trying to do is simply taking C.S. and our corporation with our collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) completely out of our business, our endeavour, and our ecosystem to do everything directly on their own, including the management, specifically the decision making, (re)financing, and operation.
And we could say more to this, but will leave it at that for the moment.

But honestly, despite the whole worldwide scandal is totally beyond and below ... everything, specifically for alleged democracies with a rule-based law and order environment, it is becoming a little entertaining.

We also would like to recall once again that we are neutral, which means that even the hidden Ponzi schemes Tesla Motors, Space Explorations Technologies (SpaceExiT), and Neuralink, and also X (Twitter) get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique works of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. under the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, as is the case with the P.R.China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, U.A. Emirates, and even Iran and Israel.

In the following, we make a breakdown (all billion U.S. Dollar) and share some more background information (all court-proof evidences):

• 24.3 billion U.S. Dollar in cash on balance sheet, but for everything, so maybe (well under) 10 billion U.S. Dollar allocated for that project, 40% or 19 billion U.S. Dollar have been reported,
• but other capital already collected (e.g. Saudi Arabia), so getting more is not so easy and secure
• venture captial fund backed by Saudi Arabia

• 10 billion U.S. Dollar on balance sheet, our money stolen, but requires 5 billion U.S. Dollar until October 2025, 40% or 19 billion U.S. Dollar have been reported,
• but getting more of our money is not so easy and secure
• backed by Microsoft, Nvidia, SoftBank, MGX, etc.

• 11 billion U.S. Dollar in cash on balance sheet, our money stolen

• 100 billion U.S. Dollar in capital commitments, but for all AI investments
• venture captial fund of U.A.Emirates

• 80 billion U.S. Dollar in cash on balance sheet, our money stolen, 40% or 32 billion U.S. Dollar allocated for U.S.A., but suggested to be only for Microsoft's own data center, AI infrastructure and not for that project, related messages look like a glowing candle to test our reaction and emotional threshold, and also reported to only be partner and then technological partner of that project, whatever that means in the end as the true initiator of that project once again, involved in very similar data center, AI infrastructure investment project
• Microsoft is the biggest customer of Nvidia, the biggest backer of OpenAI, and a supporter of former archenemy Oracle (Larry Ellison is close to Musk), and also for example SAP, Renault, Porsche SE/Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover, and many other competitors worldwide affected by our corporation
• Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Masayoshi Son (SoftBank), and P. al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saud (Saudi Arabia, also investor of Musk's X.AI Corporation) once again huddled in London, U.K., in the last summer of 2024,
• etc., etc., etc.

• 99.999999% our money stolen
• also stealing our processors

• maybe some cash on balance sheet, but allocated for core business
• also stealing our processors

So, the medium of such announcements, which is 6.75% or 33.75 billion U.S. Dollar of the investment volume announced, seems to be realistic and become effective, and 47.5 billion U.S. Dollar have been reported.

As we said, they do not want to give us our shares and moneys, but reinvest our moneys without us directly and also manage our infrastructure, which is part of the realization of our work of art, which eventually means that their steal our properties.
And we have another orchrestrated activity with another involvement of at least 3 capricious governments.
We also have a lot of other activities, which were also carried out to damage our rights and properties and to support other entities, so that our momentum should be destroyed.

We will find out the facts in one way or another in the next weeks or months.
At least, we got crystal clear answers in relation to proposed joint ventures.

They also have no license for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., and therefore no legal security, and also no competence, and no trustworthiness.
Hopefully, we do not need to explain why we even do not explain them how to avoid their mistakes, but let them die stupid.

Self-explanatory and as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly, that a Joint Venture Partner (JVP), if it might have come into existence, which does not look like as such, is not allowed to provide facilities, technologies, goods, and services to an entity, which threatens the integrities of C.S. and our corporation, or even is already blacklisted.
Oh, our SOPR has stopped with the blacklist.

23.January.2025

21:22 UTC+1
Our new tool or agent is called Prosecutor

Sam Altman is totally incompetent in every aspect, social, legal, economical, and technological, as the whole world could see since December 2022 with that illegal partial plagiarism and fake of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) implemented as a worthless hallucinating Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS) and the construction of a useless and totally overpriced Grid Computing (GC) environment, which is outdated before it is finished.

Some years ago, OpenAI was designed and established by Sam Altman and Elon Musk together with 9 more individuals, and is still executed as a serious criminal vehicle to steal the properties of C.S..
There is absolutely no doubt in this and therefore must be viewed as court-proof and the case is already built and drafted (just read this website of OntomaX), and will be finished and sent to entities concerned in the next weeks. We even do call the bad actors out by their names and they cannot sue against this, because everything we say is just the truth, documented facts, evidences, etc., etc., etc., which should not get on the desks of the prosecutors and judges worldwide.

Some months ago, he met the president of the previous U.S.American administration in the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.America, he met with the most important politicians at the AI Safety World Summit in the U.K., he met with the most important commissioners of the European Commission and the most important politicians of the European Union in Bruxelles, Royaume de Belgique, and he met all the other most important people at other locations and events, because of his alleged existential threat of AI against the existence of humanity and the allegedly absolutely indisputable requirement for AI rules, regulations, guardrails, etc..

Some days ago, he met the president of the actual U.S.American administration in the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.America, because of his protection of national economy, national security, national sovereignty, and for sure his creation of so many jobs, and also his alleged existential threat of the P.R.China against U.S.America and the allegedly absolutely indisputable requirement to withdraw all of these AI rules, regulations, guardrails, which where vigorously promoted and pushed forward by himself only some months earlier.
And that ... person should become the operator of the "most important project of this era", the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

We could not find another one, who is more qualified to protect humanity, and AI, and of course everything else.
Forget it, forget him, that emperor Eugenius for stupid politicians and customers, who also ruled for only 2 years.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Open letter on artificial intelligence (2015): "In January 2015, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and dozens of artificial intelligence experts[1] signed an open letter on artificial intelligence[2] calling for research on the societal impacts of AI. The letter affirmed that society can reap great potential benefits from artificial intelligence, but called for concrete research on how to prevent certain potential "pitfalls": artificial intelligence has the potential to eradicate disease and poverty, but researchers must not create something which is unsafe or uncontrollable.[1] The four-paragraph letter, titled "Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence: An Open Letter", lays out detailed research priorities in an accompanying twelve-page document.[3]

Background
By 2014, both physicist Stephen Hawking and business [man] Elon Musk had publicly voiced the opinion that superhuman artificial intelligence could provide incalculable benefits, but could also end the human race if deployed incautiously. At the time, Hawking and Musk both sat on the scientific advisory board for the Future of Life Institute, an organisation working to "mitigate existential risks facing humanity". The institute drafted an open letter directed to the broader AI research community,[4] and circulated it to the attendees of its first conference in Puerto Rico during the first weekend of 2015.[5] The letter was made public on January 12.[6]

[...]"

Comment
The Future of Life Institute is another highly dubious organization established by Elon Musk together with other individuals before the establishment of the OpenAI Incorporated Non-Profit Organization (NPO).

We also quote the document titled "Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence" and publicized on the 11th of January 2015: "[...]
2.3 Computer Science Research for Robust AI
[...]
1. Verification: how to prove that a system satisfies certain desired formal properties. (\Did I build the system right?") 3. Security: how to prevent intentional manipulation by unauthorized parties.
4. Control: how to enable meaningful human control over an AI system after it begins to operate. (\OK, I built the system wrong, can I fix it?")

2.3.1 Verification
By verification, we mean methods that yield high confidence that a system will satisfy a set of formal constraints. When possible, it is desirable for systems in safety-critical situations, e.g. self-driving cars, to be verifiable.
Formal verification of software has advanced significantly in recent years: examples include the seL4 kernel [43], a complete, general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been mathematically checked against a formal specification to give a strong guarantee against crashes and unsafe operations, and [C.S.'] "clean-slate, formal methods-based approach" to a set of high-assurance software tools [24]. Not only should it be possible to build AI systems on top of verified substrates; it should also be possible to verify the designs of the AI systems themselves, particularly if they follow a "componentized architecture", in which guarantees about individual components can be combined according to their connections to yield properties of the overall system. This mirrors is the agent architectures used in [our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC)], which separate an agent into distinct modules (predictive models, state estimates, utility functions, policies, learning elements, etc.), and has analogues in some formal results on control system designs. Research on richer kinds of agents - for example, agents with layered architectures, anytime components, overlapping deliberative and reactive elements, metalevel control, etc. - could contribute to the creation of verifiable agents, but we lack the formal \algebra" to properly define, explore, and rank the space of designs. [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!]
[...] Work in adaptive control theory [7], the theory of so-called cyberphysical systems [57], and verification of hybrid or robotic systems [2, 90] is highly relevant but also faces the same difficulties. And of course all these issues are laid on top of the standard problem of proving that a given software artifact does in fact correctly implement, say, a reinforcement learning algorithm of the intended type. Some work has been done for verifying neural network applications [61, 80, 70] and the notion of partial programs [4, 78] allows the designer to impose arbitrary "structural" constraints on behavior, but much remains to be done before it will be possible to have high confidence that a learning agent will learn to satisfy its design criteria in realistic contexts.[HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!] [HyperBingo!!!]

2.3.2 Validity
A verification theorem for an agent design [...]. [HyperBingo!!!]

[...]"

Comment
It is one of the most criminal and hateful plargiarism and fake, which we have ever seen and which was precisely organized, targeted, and fabricated by a group of a conspirators with the goal to demonstrate the disregard of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and destroy the works of art and reputation of C.S. completely.
Alone this short quote already shows in virtually every single sentence one evidence after the other of that crystal clear copyright infringement, which we already discussed in the past.

It also shows that one cannot trust in very-well known scientists. In most of the cases, which we have observed and analyzed, we saw again and again that the fabrication of many plagiarisms and fakes paired with a significant amount of criminal energy was the true reason for their high level of awareness.
In this context, the open letter and the collective action of its signatories must also be seen and evaluated. They all knew what they were doing.

We also quote the list of signatories of said open letter: "[The first 86] Prominent Signatories [of around 8000 to 11250 (list points added):]

Comment
Any known bad actor missing? We leave it to our fans and readers to pick those entities mentioned all the time on this website od OntomaX.

The letter should not be confused with its other letter titled "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter" and published in March 2023.

If one takes a look at the Future of Life Institute, S. Hawkins and E. Musk, the list of Open Letter signatories, and the company OpenAI, then one can also see how it changed from Deep Learning until 2015 to Large Language Model (LLM) at the time, when we were publicating in 2016 in relation to integrated (unified and hybrid) subsymbolic and symbolic system, symbolic processing connectionist system or Artificial Neural Network (ANN), ANNLM, LLM, FGRP 2.0, DESPAIR 2.0.

In this sense: Artificial Intelligence: A Stolen Approach.

In our case, the whole endeavour shows no happiness, no harmony, and no frictionless progress, because the other entities, that depend on our goodwill, specifically to open our works of art, because exceptions of the moral right respectively Lanham (Trademark) right and the copyright do not apply or do not work for them, do not want to take our offer under the obviously truly absolutely indisputable Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR). And we are already drafting the next message of our SOPR to address this matter.

These are not our monkeys, these are not our circuses, but we do know all those clowns.

24.January.2025

05:30 and 19:52 UTC+1
Stargate cancelled, or U.S.A. blacklisted, or OS closed

United States of America (U.S.A.)
Ontologic System (OS)

Or no copyright and patent right and freedom of expression anymore. :(

Prior art includes

but only in specific variants and not more, specifically not all the expressions of idea, compilations, compositions, integrations, unifications, designs, architectures, components, and so on created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), included in the legal scope of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and exploited (e.g. commercialized (e.g. monetized)) exclusively by our collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S..

The statements that the so-called Stargate project

are true.
Therefore, Stargate will not continue in this form and becomes respectively is part of our SOPR to 100%.
See also the note Our new tool or agent is called Prosecutor of the 23rd of January 2025 (yesterday).

The U.S.American administration gives no money and therefore seems not to be responsible in this specific regard.
But OpenAI thanked the U.S.American administration for an important support and making something possible, which is something, that must have happened recently, because that illegal project and related talks with Microsoft, SoftBank, and MGX already started around 1 year ago according to OpenAI and hence at the time, when the previous U.S.American administration was active.
There is also no emergency, our SOPR is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS and also already provides the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, and all has not and in fact nothing has to be built in the U.S.America.
At this moment, any action against all U.S.American entities by our SOPR would not be fair and reasonable. This is one of the reasons for the first "or" in the headline.

An online encyclopedia: "Göring urged Hitler not to go too far with his gamble of playing off the English against the Poles, to which Hitler replied that throughout his life he had always played vabanque."
Howsoever, Microsoft, Nvidia, Oracle, SoftBank, Tesla Motors, and Co. are not entitled respectively are not in the position to ask the power question.
But Alphabet (Google), Amazon, and Co. are not paragons or idols either.
They all are va banque (all in) and naked (complete transparency, no trump cards in hand).

At first,

As Soon As Possible Or Better Said Immediately (ASAPOBSI). This provides legal security, avoids any misconceptions, and ensures harmony.
Then we can talk how it goes on.

At first, Microsoft becomes a subsidiary of our corporation to at least 90%. And then we can talk if Microsoft, BlackRock, and Co. will continue in this form alone and in collaboration.
These data centers and infrastructure investment vehicles ... are the same like that illegal Stargate project.

At first, OpenAI becomes a subsidiary of our corporation to at least 99.999999%. And then we can talk if OpenAI provides operation services for our SOPR, does something else, or ceases and desists all public activities and disappears.

At first SoftBank and its backers, and MGX pay damage compensations. And then we can talk if SoftBank and its backers, MGX, and Co. will continue in this form alone and in collaboration, invest in our investment programs, as crystal clearly demanded in the past, and if SoftBank provides financial management services for our SOPR, does something else, or ceases and desists all illegal activities and disappears.

They do not want that we enjoy the rights and control the properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically they do not want to give us our moneys, our damage compensations, and our royalties, and transfer our original and unique materials and their illegal materials, which implies that they do not want us.

That takes a game, which is already impossible to play, further to the extreme.
This is a very serious situation for all founders, managers, and other entities concerned and involved for many reasons, including basic and individual freedoms.

"Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter of the music band Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham in relation to a 2 second sample of the song "Metall auf Metall" of the album T.E.E., 2019]
Indeed, we have a delay with the set of legal documents and actions. If one cannot wait anymore, then: Ask or leave. Make or break. Do or die. Win or loose.

And it is also customary that we decide where our moneys are reinvested as the true holder of the rights and properties. We are not harassed, intimidated, tricked, bribed, hindered, or howsoever in any other way.

An out-of-court agreement, a joint venture establishment, discounted royalties of 7% and 17%, and so on are not the goal of our SOPR anymore, as well already said in January 2024 and once again in November 2024 or so.
Then Alphabet (Google) and Amazon did some more things again so we only waited for Microsoft. Nvidia and SoftBank did some more things and more things surfaced, that Microsoft and Oracle did. The data center trick to take away our controls and competences was the last thing that Microsoft did to make our decision.
That was definitely the last chance for a lot of persons, we have not expected anything else to happen and therefore built the legal case in the last years.
Eventually, we were proven right in everything.

Bad actors should not and cannot claim that we acted in bad faith, because we still are the good actors, no communications have happened, or being more precise, all communications were refused by the bad actors, and we can change our minds and contracts as we want to. They do not have any signed contract, agreement, or other legally relevant document, and if they claim otherwise, then they have to explain to the judges, why they have not signed and payed the damages and royalities, but instead still acted in fraudulent and even serious criminal ways.
Eventually, nothing has worked in relation to an ordinary license agreement, business partnership, and out-of-court agreement. Instead, every entity concerned continued with copying, stealing, conspiring, lobbying, and taking C.S. for a ride, as discussed again and again more than only crystal clearly.

To avoid that governments with their federal agencies, ministries, secret services, courts, judges, prosecutors, etc. will continue their interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harming of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and their respectively our legal actions being prepared and executed in the very near future, for example by a capricious politician, Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Justice (DoJ), a always fraudulent and even serious criminally acting Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a zionist federal prosecutor or attorney general==bundesstaatsanwält, a corrupt prosecutor, and so on, we decided to increase the transparency and the scope of entities informed first hand even further by adding Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as much as needed. They will get directly the same set of legal documents as the bad actors and the courts.

We respectively our SOPR are also considering to close our OS again, though opening our OS and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS did not work, it has not happened at all, and therefore the opening has not become a reality, so to say.
We just have none of the incentives of an earlier licensing partnership, which could also be observed with the continuously becoming stricter terms and conditions, heigher of royalties, and larger scope of permissions.
With that data center bubble in general, and Stargate project in particular, which is nothing else than stealing the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SORP and our other Societies and more or less the rest of our corporation, their is no benefit for us in opening our OS. We must sue to get the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation back and then we will get everything, 100%.
Do not blame us. So is business. :)

Because an executive order regarding a national emergency in relation to Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI)) is total nonsense and will also fail the test at the courts rather quickly, if not to say immediately, and the U.S.American administration seems to be very interested in a rule-based law and order environment, where deals are possible at all, we demand that the U.S.American administration supports us when

• all properties of us, including company shares, including share capital or capital stocks, including voting and prefered shares, or common and preferred stocks,
• all illegal materials,
• etc. (all remains in the respective country or union of state),

Green? SuperGreen?? Greener than Green!

By the way: We already have invested more than anybody else in history, and therefore we do not need to invest anymore at least for the next 1 million years or more. Now it is the other side's turn.

25.January.2025

00:38 UTC+1
Meta (Fb) gets no license for CAI, CAS based on LLM, ANN, FM, OM, etc.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will give the company Meta (Facebook) no allowance and license for a so-called Conversation Artificial Intelligence (CAI), Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), and other technologies, goods, and services, which are based on our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including Foundational Model (FM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), including Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM) and Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM), including Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Large Language Model (LLM), Large MultiModal Model (LMMM), Large Action Model (LAM), etc., the integration with the fields of Distributed Computing (DC), SuperComputing (SC or SupC), Grid Computing (GC or GridC), Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC), what is wrongly called Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), Mobile Computing (MC), Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Virtuality (AV), Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), and Metaverse, and also Ontoscope (Os), also wrongly called Android Smartphone, Apple iPhone, and so on due to the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, and copyrights of C.S. for the original and unique, personal, etc. expressions of idea, compilations, compositions, integrations, unifications, designs, architectures, components, and so on.

Our SOPR also demands the payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value, the transfer of all illegal materials, and all other legally required actions.
If the company Meta (Facebook) still refuses to comply with the

which are already the compromise, and the

which are our voluntary offer and goodwill, which again we do not have to show, but can withdraw at any time,
then we will switch off its illegal technologies, goods, and services, specifically its unauthorized Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) on the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, on all of our Ontoscopes, including our iRaiment Rayfarer and MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer smartglasses, and on all other means of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) worldwide, such as what is wrongly and illegally called web services, microservices, serverless, as a Service, telco, etc. clouds, and so on. Promised. Period.

02:37 UTC+1
Completed list of damages now

We have a technology since around 5 years or longer in the stock of our OntoLab, The Lab of Visions, which makes us independent of the company ASML Holding and something more, so to say at this moment.
And we have advanced designs for manufacturing plants.
And we have processor architectures, which others do not have, including the companies Intel, Arm, Nvidia, AMD, Apple, and so on.
And we will construct the first factory in the P.R.China, if that does not work in the U.S.America as it has to since more than 25 years.

And this is only 1 of some 100s very surprising things, besides our Ontologic System (OS), including for example what is called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or General Artificial Intelligence (GAI), which we do have since years, or better said 2 decades, and which allows us to realize our New World Order, including turning the economy of the U.S.America, the European Union, the P.R.China, etc., etc., etc. upside down as part of a total disruption never seen before.
And we do intend to set our accents extremely precisely to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
No marketing blah blah blah, and no mentalist psychic magic, as usual and as everybody knows from us.

The U.S.American administration should have an interest in being nice and moving our whole matter in the right direction As Soon As Possible Or Better Said Immediately (ASABOBSI).
Thank you very much. :)

26.January.2025

01:41 and 04:02 UTC+1
C.S. is allowed, OpenAI and Co. are not

C.S. does not need to ask other artists for using their works as part of the derivative, transformative, new, original and unique, personal expressions of idea created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), specifically for

and

even on a Word Wide Web (WWW) scale (in OS, specifically Ontologic Web (OW) with its Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0)) (see also Global Brain of the first generation (GB 1.0) and Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW)).

See also once again the related

is directly generated, assembled, updated, customized, referenced and linked, up- and downloaded, and available for use eventually.
Conceptually, it functions like a sea or sphere of signs or symbols for example. In the moment a user touches it, holds a finger into it, looks at it, or only thinks about it[, talks to it, or prompts it respectively adds any ontology to it], some of the [signs or] symbols arrange at the related spot in the right way (see the Picture of the Day of the 4th of October 2008 for example [(showing the Sphere)]).The resulting arrangement or form is already the desired function, which is executed in the subsequent step (see also the Clarification of the 29th of April 2016). Practically, it functions in uncountable many amazing ways: [....]"

The Sphere has been referenced

See also the

We also recall that our OS is multimodal, real, virtual, synthetical, cyber-physical, parionical, and so on.
As we said in the past, we described our OS top-down in a holistic way and the term every shows another time the top-down approach, which integrates all in one and also provides what is called god view.
Copyrighted expression of idea, compilation, composition, integration, unification, design, architecture, component, and so on.

Obviously, the documented fact is that the companies Microsoft, OpenAI, Alphabet (Google), Deep Mind, Meta (Facebook), et al are neither the creators nor the authorized implementers of the related part of our Evoos and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), which is wrongly and illegally called chatbot, Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI), ChatGPT, Copilot, Google Intelligence, Samsung Intelligence, Apple Intelligence, Huawei Intelligence, and whatsoever, but serious criminal plagiarists.
In addition to that comes our

• microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA),

• Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC), including
  • Many-to-Many Computing (M2MC),

• ServerLess Architecture (SLA) and ServerLess Computing (SLC) (e.g. infrastructure management services),

Indeed, the complete list is very long.
Copyrighted sui generis work of art.
Court-proof worldwide.

And after more than 2 years, all those violators are already unable to pay the damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value. Look at the stock markets and their market capitalization, and their estimated values after some few rounds of venture capital. Nobody will give them such a big credit, if possible at all, which means they have to declare insolvency. And in the course of the legally required procedure, we will get the companies as compensations having the biggest title by far and the first title, even before all investors and banks. This is common practice worldwide. It is that easy.

And we find it to be only a bottomless impudence and arrogance, and a blatant inference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) of C.S. that governments in the U.S.America, the U.K., the European Union (EU), and in other regions want to allow fraudulent and even serious criminal entities to do the same like C.S. as well by even claiming that their new laws would protect the copyright of said other artists, while simultaneously ignorring and refusing to protect the (same) rights (e.g. freedom of expression, citation, presentation, exploitation, modification, etc.) and properties (e.g. copyright, digital assets, etc.) of C.S. and our corporation since more than 2 decades.

27.January.2025

08:02, 26:16, and 27:52 UTC+1
DeepSeek blacklisted

Its (reasoning, multilingual) Large Language Model (LLM) is based on our original and unique coherent Ontologic Model (OM), its agent or virtual assistiant is based on our Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and its training procedure is based on other basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS).

Their are very nasty, fraudulent, and even serious criminal entities, who are applying every dirty trick, including those discussed on this website of OntomaX and are infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, as a quick look at the first 2 sections of the first chapter and the reference list of one of its more relevant and recent document has shown.
Therefore, one has to take a close look at their claims, specifically the claims about the training procedures, the training costs, and also the quality of the illegal Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNMs), and conduct own validations and verifications of each of them.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject DeepSeek in the version at 18:32: "[...]
The founder of DeepSeek, Liang Wenfeng, has close ties to the Communist Party.
[...]"

Comment
We also would like to know, who is really financing DeepSeek, because the development and the provision of that illegal partial plagiarism and fake of our OntoBot for a fee, which is 90 to 95% less expensive than comparable plagiarism and fakes, still cost a lot of money.
See also the Clarification Bionics Economics Special of today.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject DeepSeek in the version at 23:59: "[...]
DeepSeek LLM
[...]
They were trained on clusters of A100 and H800 Nvidia GPUs, connected by InfiniBand, NVLink, NVSwitch.[20]
[...]
The architecture was essentially the same as those of the Llama series [of Meta (Facebook)]. They used the pre-norm decoder-only Transformer with RMSNorm as the normalization, SwiGLU [activation function] in the feedforward layers, rotary positional embedding (RoPE), and grouped-query attention (GQA). Both had vocabulary size 102400 (byte-level BPE) and context length of 4096. They trained on 2 trillion tokens of English and Chinese text obtained by deduplicating the Common Crawl.[24]

[...]

R1
[...]
[...] The company also released some "DeepSeek-R1-Distill" models, which are not based on R1, but instead are similar to other open-weight models like LLaMA [of Meta (Facebook)] and Qwen [of Alibaba], fine-tuned on synthetic data generated by R1.
[...]

[...]"

Comment
DeepSeek took the illegal Large Language Model (LLM) Llama and other so-called (pre-trained) (decoder-only) transformers with (multi-head) attention mechanism as initial ontological frame (here also called context) and used the Mixture of Experts (MoE) approach and the illegal prompt engineering (here also called question-answering problem over a context) (e.g. chain of thought, tree of thought, and program of thought) as to add new ontologies (here also called questioning as part of prompting) (see also ontological relativism and Cybernetic Logic (CL or CybL) (e.g. Contextual Logic (CL or ContextL), formalized context or formalized contextual dependence, or context transcendence formalization, or context as formal object, etc.)), in an iterative and incremental process Reinforcement Learning (RL) based on the other plagiarism titled "Math-shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations" (2023), which obviously is based on our coherent, model-reflective Ontologic Model (OM) and therefore based on the basic properties of our Evoos and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle and therefore based on the basic properties of OS, including Quality Management (QM) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), and also (mostly) being validated and verified, and specification- and proof-carrying, and so on.
After we already showed that its plagiarisms and fakes include an illegal reproduction of an essential part of our

• Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM) for transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, prompt engineering respectively cognitive processing,
• Foundational Model (FM) (Foundation Model (FM)),
• Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Foundational Model (FM) or Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale,
• etc.,

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI) or said in other words cybernetic reflection between NI and AI, and
• prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,

• what is wrongly and illegally called Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• what is wrongly and illegally called (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered Search Engine or AI Search Engine (AISE)
• what is wrongly called AI-powered chatbot or AI chatbot,
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered assistant or AI assistant, or intelligent assistant,
• what is wrongly and illegally called Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI) or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,
• etc.,

and its training process is based on an illegal performance of other essential parts of our Ontologic System (OS) (e.g. Quality Management (QM), validation and verification, etc.), we also noted something more with that illegal unified LLM, also wrongly and illegally called Reasoning Language Model (RLM).

DeepSeek shows at runtime what is described as the process of thinking of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) system, specifically the process of thinking through respectively reasoning over a first generated answer with low quality before responding respectively providing an inferred result with higher quality to a question in the Natural Language (NL) and thus the process of thinking of the Natural Intelligence (NI) explicitly as intermediate steps following the phrase "You think as you speak, and vice versa" and cybernetic reflection of user, which is always used by us in relation to our OM, our OC with our Bridge from NI to AI, and our OB with our CAI.
This can only be done, if the underlying system works respectively processes on the language level, which implies that it is based on the

Please note that

See also the

and the other publications cited therein.

We also would like to recall that we always explained that it could also be done without explicit ontology and thus without RDF, OWL, XML, etc, which again is our Ontologics and our Ontologic Programming (OP) and Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigms.
This is also related to Turing completeness of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and has also been mentioned in The Proposal and discussed in relation to our OM, including FM, Capability and Operational Model (COM), LLM, etc..
Note that a

Howsoever, we note that

Eventually, this fraudulent and even serious plagiarist DeepSeek showed once again that our Evoos and our OS were taken as sources of inspriation and blueprints worldwide and therefore constitute sui generis works of art, which are always moral right respectively Lanham (Trademark) right and copyright protected worldwide. It has become that simple.

DeepSeek's optimization seems to be real. They just took out an element of the Reinforcement Learning (RL), here Direct policy search, here policy gradient methods, here "The Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is a minor variant of [the Proximal Policy Optimization (]PPO[)] that omits the value function estimator V." Any questions?
They also did some other things, but they belong to the many general requirements and options of this specific field.
And it works and the result is as worse as the other illegal RLLMs.
But eventually, what they do is not new, but ... We are very sorry, but we do not publicate highly sensitive matters since 2014.

But the company DeepSeek has presented no innovation, but merely a

• coherent Ontologic Model (OM).
• foundation of Ontologic Programming (OP) paradigm, and
• foundation of Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigm, including
  • transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
  • bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI) or said in other words cybernetic reflection between NI and AI, and
  • prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,
• foundation of Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), including
  • Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
  • Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
  • (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
  • Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
  • etc.,

and

and also

We have a saying for this: Even a blind hen finds a grain of corn from time to time.
In this case someone found just one small rice corn. :D

08:02, 26:16, and 27:52 UTC+1
Clarification Bionics Economics Special

The development and the provision of another illegal partial plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) is 90 to 95% less expensive than comparable plagiarism and fakes (see the note DeepSeek blacklisted of today).

"The emergence of DeepSeek from China has cast doubt on the whole tech/AI ecosystem and the massive spending going on." said a market strategist.

The opinion that such a decrease of the development cost will lead to an increase of the distribution and in the following to an increase of overall productivity as a consequence seems not to be correct, because we do not see any increase in overall productivity after more than 2 years of the launch of those illegal partial plagiarisms and fakes of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and said cost reduction will not change the result of this observation. Those plagiarisms and fakes are already available for a reasonable fee, which by the way is also illegal, because it is not the only valid License Model (LM) of our SOPR.

How stupid have certain entities in the U.S.America, European Union, and other regions become in the last decade? They already train our OMs without processors of Nvidia and give the resulting Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs) away for free, though the latter is also done by other brainless companies.
All those data centers, that are constructed with the moneys stolen from us, already are 50 to 66.67% too expensive today.
For the record, we told you so, because we knew that this will happen with that brute force approach based on ANN and the pure variant of the so-called Large Language Model (LLM) since around 2005 and therefore

But without reasonable reaction.
And they have nothing produced, but only burned several 100 billion U.S. Dollar for nothing else than producing hot air. 10 years of generating pure bull$#!+ and halluzination, and even getting allegedly precious scientific prizes for that. Fact not fiction.

We also note that all those start-ups are insolvent by design, including OpenAI and Anthropic, because of the low or even negative Return of Investment (RoI) and their redundancy, superfluousness, and thus irrelevance for large companies.
And the large companies also have a subproblem by the latest developments, which is part of their big problem with us.

Howsoever, the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are not affected by this and we demand the payment of damage compensations and the transfer of all illegal materials anyway.
For sure, we do have included the developments in the estimations of the distributions or ratios of company shares, because we do known exactly what the others are stealing, where they are, where they are heading to, and where they finally arrive with their plagiarisms and fakes of the related parts of our original and unqiue works of art.

Also very important, we have also proven once again that our proposals, offers, and other legal matters, specifically the absolutely 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), are quite attractive and have become even more attractive, indeed.

At this point, we do not believe that the whole AI industry is telling fairytales worldwide to mislead investors and get their moneys.

We also have the impression that governments, commissions, and other political entities should better change their advisers.

So much about the entire Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem with its supply chain and the venture captial industry.

By the way:

09:48 and 23:18 UTC+1
OntoBank is more monetary authority

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)
Ontologic Bank (OntoBank)

A monetary authority has the control over the

but no knowledge about the identities of the users.

A commercial bank manages these wallets in the same way like it does with the accounts for the real money, so to say, and thus the Know Your Customer (KYC) guidelines and regulations in financial service are effective. For this, a commercial bank asks its respective monetary authority to set up and take down a wallet and red its log file of transaction respectively ledger.
This works worldwide, if legal. For example, a European commercial bank can ask the U.S.American Federal Reserve System (Fed) to do these tasks.
But we have a separation between countries, economic zones, trade unions, and so on, where the transactions are realized by utilizing our Ontologic Exchange (OntoEx) hubs of our OFinS. One of the main reasons for the establishment of these OntoEx hubs is that our SOPR wants to collect our royalties and penalties, which can also be enforced through this means, if required.
But our OntoEx hubs cannot be misused for the enforcement of a sanction of a government and other geopolitical actions, specifically due to the reason that such an action would violate the neutrality of our SOPR.
We also recall that our OntoEx provides the exclusive and mandatory platform for the exchange of other digital and virtual currencies, including cryptocurrencies and our own OntoCoin™, OntoTaler™, and Quantum Coin™ (Qoin™).

The log files and ledgers can be utilized to make a rollback of a transaction.

Transactions are anonymous, but the commercial bank of a user is able to read the log file of transaction respectively ledger of a wallet, if legal, and thus anti-money laundry is effective.

A user respectively owner of a wallet is able to share personal data with a service provider and configure appropriate access roles and rules in the IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) of our SOPR.

The wallet has a limit, which is sufficiently high for an ordinary user. If a transaction higher than this limit has to be done, for example in case of buying a wedding ring, car, or a real estate, a business bank managing the user wallet is able to manage such a high volume transaction, as usual.

A wallet and a transaction do not cost a fee, but anonymous data accessible by the respective monetary authority, which will not be connected with other data in such a way, that an identifying profile of a user can be created indirectly, which a commercial bank has, as usual.
Our SOPR uses these anonymous data to finance the wallets, transactions, applications, and other technologies, goods, and services related. But we do not care and bother about what others do.

It is like real and dirty cash and regulated creation of money.

28.January.2025

02:28, 05:06, 07:39, and 11:06 UTC+1
Clarification

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reasoning Language Model (RLM): "Reasoning language models are artificial intelligence systems that combine natural language processing with structured reasoning capabilities. These models are usually constructed by prompting [or prompt engineering], supervised finetuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) initialized with pretrained language models."

Comment
Since at least 1993, others and we have always said that the brute force approach on the basis of the field of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is a failure by design for many various reasons.
In the meantime, proponents of the brute force approach and fraudulent plagiarists came to what is (wrongly and illegally) called Reasoning Language Model (RLM), which is nothing else than a unified system, connectionist symbol processing system, or subsymbolic Artificial Intelligence (AI) system, ..., or integrated connectionist model.
And the way of construction and utilization is the reason why RLMs of others are considered to be 100% included in our Evoos with its

• foundation of transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• foundation of bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
• foundation of prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• foundation of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• foundation of (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
• etc.,

and 100% included in our OS with its

and therefore are considered to be illegal OMs by us, as we also explained in detail in relation to the fields of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and prompt engineering,

And if somebody adds the fields of

then it should be very easy to see that we are in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), which in this context of the fields of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and Natural Language Reasoning (NLR), and also Language Model (LM), specifically LM based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and also Natural Intelligence (NI) is always the case since some few years.

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

24:00 and 26:20 UTC+1
U.S.American companies violating executive order

U.S.American companies, that are active in the field of Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, etc.), are violating the executive order, which is titled "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence" and became effective on the 23rd of January 2025,
by giving away what is wrongly and illegally called

as illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

See also the note

29.January.2025

>Question of the Day

"What is not really disgusting in these days?", [C.S., Today]

See also the

00:42 and 01:18 UTC+1
SAP, T-Mobile US around 75% and 86%

The company SAP depends on our

of our Ontologic System (OS).
Accordingly, payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and its business value or market capitalization increased, which has reached a ratio of around 1:4 or around 75% for us and 25% for it. Otherwise the lights and nets will be switched off. :)

The company T-Mobile US depends on our

(see also for example the note 5G is already our 5G NG, 5G NR, 6G - ToS apply of the 19th of September 2024),

for internal and external operations.
Accordingly, payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and its business value or market capitalization increased, which has reached a ratio of around 1:7 or around 86% for us and 14% for it. Otherwise the lights and nets will be switched off. :)

11:11, 14:14, 15:30, and 23:00 UTC+1
And next blow for Altman, Zuckerberg, and Co.

Sam Altman does not get that his criminal scheme OpenAI is finally over, as is the case for Mark Zuckerberg and his criminal scheme Meta (Facebook), and other bad actors and their criminal schemes.
The Foundational Models (FMs) (Foundation Models (FMs)), Capability and Operational Models (COMs), Large Language Models (LLMs), Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), Reasoning Language Models (RLMs), etc. are already (partial) plagiarisms and fakes of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), as is the case with our

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and what is wrongly and illegally called
• prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• what is wrongly and illegally called Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• what is wrongly and illegally called (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered Search Engine or AI Search Engine (AISE),
• what is wrongly called AI-powered chatbot or AI chatbot,
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered assistant or AI assistant, or intelligent assistant,
• what is wrongly and illegally called Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI) or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,
• etc.,

And from the point of doing business and market power all these models were always irrelevant as illegal plagiarisms and fakes and are becoming even worthless, because they all have to be in our

But this does not mean that they can be given away for free under a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) license or other licenses, which have not been authorized by our SOPR.
The expression of idea, compilation, composition, integration, unification, design, architecture, component, and so on are relevant, but not a specific LLM of another entity. All those illegal LLMs will be our LLMs and our Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) anyway in the not so far away future due to all the many legal reasons. :)

All those LLMs and other plagiarisms and fakes based on them even have to become more and more similar to our Evoos and our OS, which makes it more and more easier to prove the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, though this has already become relatively easy.

And our training approach is even less expensive than the recent one and we could tell a lot more, but ... We are very sorry, but we do not publicate highly sensitive matters since 2014.
"Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter of the music band Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham in relation to a 2 second sample of the song "Metall auf Metall" of the album T.E.E., 2019]

At least one public-law broadcaster of the F.R.Germany reported the following (quote and translation): "For example, the analysts of the Bank of America wrote that AI progress, which is primarily due to optimization and not to increased computing resources, shows that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still in its infancy. In addition, media rumors about the allegedly much more cost-effective development of the DeepSeek models are "misleading and overlook the overall picture."" despite all are knowing our publications and thus the facts that quality does not improve and big optimizations only come in the beginning, but not so often.
Guess why large investment banks are on our list of damages.
AI is dead. Long live AI. Long live OS.

We also quote a report, which is about OpenAI, DeepSeek, and Terms of Service (ToS): "OpenAI says it is reviewing evidence that the Chinese start-up DeepSeek broke its terms of service by harvesting large amounts of data from its A.I technologies.
The San Francisco-based start-up [...] said that DeepSeek may have used data generated by OpenAI technologies to teach similar skills to its own systems.
This process, called [knowledge] distillation, is common across the A.I. field. But OpenAI's terms of service say that the company does not allow anyone to use data generated by its systems to build technologies that compete in the same market.
"We know that groups in the P.R.C. are actively working to use methods, including what's known as [knowledge] distillation, to replicate advanced U.S. A.I. models," OpenAI spokeswoman Liz Bourgeois said in a statement emailed to The New York Times, referring to the People's Republic of China.
"We are aware of and reviewing indications that DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models, and will share information as we know more," she said. "We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology and will continue working closely with the U.S. government to protect the most capable models being built here.""

Comment
Nice standard formulation of Lanham (Trademark) rights. We formulated the same in a different way by the preconditions respectively legal clauses that imitating C.S., exploiting our goodwill, and conducting other activites have to be avoided or stopped for opening our OS and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, which did not happen.
So let us try to formulate such a clause as well, so that Microsoft, OpenAI, Meta (Facebook), and Co. get an impression how high the damage compensations will be:

The Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) say that C.S. and our corporation do not allow anyone to use

which are based on the expressions of idea, compilations, compositions, integrations, unifications, designs, architectures, components, and so on (e.g. Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA)) created by C.S. and are in the legal scope of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, to build facilities, technologies, goods, and service, that compete in the same market. :þ

"Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter of the music band Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham in relation to a 2 second sample of the song "Metall auf Metall" of the album T.E.E., 2019]

Do our fans and readers notice how the bad actors are getting snottier and snottier, more and more blatant, and increasingly stubborn, because they cannot get their way and can no longer use their dirty tricks?
Get used to the simple fact that there will be no democratization or expropriation of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., and definitely not on the basis of plagiarisms and fakes, including illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and so on.

See also the notes

22:23 UTC+1
Meta (Fb) FOSS strategy will be validated at courts

The fraudulent and even serious criminal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) strategy of the company Meta (Facebook) will be validated at the courts worldwide.
The facts are that all those Large Language Models (LLMs) have a causal link to our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and even the improved training procedure was in large parts stolen from our OS, and the company DeepSeek made only some minor and obvious improvements (see the note DeepSeek blacklisted of the 27th of January 2025 keywords DeepSeek LLM and QM).
In fact, all these facts have nothing to to do with illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) .

We even have a court-proof argument, why Meta (Facebook) is doing that. Simply look once again at the message OS is ON of the 9th of May 2016 to find the list point:

See also the note

Do not fall prey to Mark Zuckerberg, Yann LeCun, Ragavan Srinivasan, and Co.. They already have a certain track record.
See also the note Our new tool or agent is called Prosecutor of the 23rd of January 2025 keyword open letter).

31.January.2025

02:51, 03:59, and 05:16 UTC+1
SoftBank and OpenAI already blacklisted

If the company SoftBank might be investing in the company OpenAI, then it would only invest in a

Even if there would be something legal at OpenAI, which would be 0.000001% of its activities, its illegal licensing revenue decreased by 90% some days ago and will become 0 U.S. Dollar in the next future.
SoftBank and OpenAI will not continue with the infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation in addition to a first crystal clear evidence of conspiracy and investment fraud, and a potentially next crystal clear evidence of conspiracy and investment fraud.

The

just work in a different way than such entities think.

OpenAI 99.999999% JV of us? And for sure that illegal Stargate 'R' Us to 100%. Indeed, this would change a lot.
But no investment in our SOPR and our other Societies, and their infrastructures is possible and any investment in OpenAI makes no sense at all (see above).
Investments can only be made in our Superunicorns and Superbolts of the investment program series OntoLab Vision Fund and Blitz Fund of Ontonics.

See also the note

By the way:

• are the holder of the worldwide rights and properties in relation to the relevant original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S.,
• have already spent a ridiculously high amount in the U.S.America,
• will not increase our investments, and
• will not invest all in the U.S.America,

and he cannot risk that he will loose our support, so to say, and we will invest in other countries more than planned.