|
A new iPad Air has made the decision a little more complicated.
|
|
X will suspend creators from its revenue sharing program if they post AI-generated videos depicting armed conflicts without disclosing they were made with AI. Head of product Nikita Bier announced the policy change on March 3, saying first-time violators will be cut off for 90 days and repeat offenders would be permanently removed from the program.
During times of war, it is critical that people have access to authentic information on the ground. With today's AI technologies,…
— Nikita Bier (@nikitabier) March 3, 2026
The policy is notably narrow, applying only to creators enrolled in the platform's revenue sharing program and only to AI-generated videos of armed conflicts, not AI content in general or non-monetized accounts. Violations will be flagged through Community Notes, X's crowd-sourced fact-checking system, or by detecting metadata from generative AI tools. Bier framed the change as necessary "during times of war," though the current conflict unfolding between the United States, Israel and Iran has not been formally, or at least not legally, declared a war. Of course, the US has not formally declared war since 1942.
|
|
 Anthropic is aiming to lure customers from ChatGPT and Gemini with a new memory import tool that's available to free users as of today. Conversations and memories from other AI providers can be imported into Claude, so new users will not need to start from scratch.
|
|
As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand.
The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him.
With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even ?if it later overturns the Copyright Office's test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the
|
|
