Monday - still learning this app. just figured out I need to make this public. I don't think I will be able to remove the red X's. Monday I'm good. --see the rest to the right. I figured out saturday morning at 11:30 cool lateral moves, so no more plowing downward forever.

Monday I'm good. I purchased two books. One is a workbook, for which I await delivery. The other is a kindle book and so fantastic and so weird, that I love its fun kinkiness. It's called Plotto: The Master Book of All Plots. By "all' it literally means all that can be churned out on a mathematical type system or slide rule. A dime-novel writer wrote it in 1928 as systematized method for producing fiction and which debuted at the Plotto Studio in Boston. It is fun and informative. I began writing my masterplot. I did not do 10 on the tread. I did feed my dog. Sadly, I'm not often satisfied after a full day of 10th grade teaching. Hard to say if my students like me. This is my biggest and most important learning venture.

I think I see the tides of my poem novel better though, yet inarticulate, yet rising out of chaos.

What are the imperatives that close my poems? My so-called novel? The sometime puppy that I was feeding and that I rescued from Dollar General so they would not call the pound disappeared. She wouldn’t stay in my garage. I don’t know where she was staying, but she’d be on my deck in time to eat. A lady took her to the shelter. I’ll see if I can adopt her or what the shelter recommends. This was the picture the woman took. Possibly the woman’s home looked like the puppy’s real home?

Returning to these posts I have learned the power of journaling and the power of routine. Creativity resides within a structure.

And they will steal your past. And they will write on you the past of another. And we will be the scavengers of history.

WELL. The physical book of my ebook is $38. So instead I bought 3 other books nearby on Kindle for .99 cents each. One by the Plotto guy called Fiction Factory. The other by HL Mencken called American Language. Another by Willa Cather called Troll Garden. With social media we now live in Troll gardens of another kind. BTW the Plotto guy is John Milton Edwards AKA William Wallace Cook.

Beware the amoral scavenger of the past.

The master plot ensnares the protagonist, creating conflict and a situation where decisions must be made and concrete action taken. Ensnarement. Conflict. Action. Beware the amoral scavenger of the past.

The writing and publishing industry in early 1900, from the personal experience of an excellent writer, provides useful and engaging info to struggling writers of today. As a reader I was all in for this writer who innocently became ensnared and signed away all rights including his name. It ends sadly with a lengthy incomplete list of his work as a list of publishers and amount paid, with no titles because they owned the titles. A brilliant writer who got scammed, yet remained honorable & hopeful.

CLAUSE I.  A. Idealistic young man loses job, and in the newspaper want ads, finds an opening at a fiction factory. He is motivated by ideals and motivated by obligation.

CLAUSE II.  B. He takes the job with some misgivings and some conflict and misjudgment about whether the job conflicted with or conformed to his own ethos and beliefs about creativity and purposes for making things. In Plotto terms, he "embarks on an enterprise in which one obligation is opposed by another obligation. Clause 2 gives purpose. Darron finds his purpose, not just to write but to appeal to intellect and ethos after learning to plot.

1.     he balks and "cogitates" then he signs a contract, signing over all rights and rights to his name. In Plotto's terms, he has "followed a wrong course through mistaken judgment."

2.     He writes and learns plotting. They make suggestions to help him believe they are helping him make his story better according to what they and the market want. He can express his purpose, not just to write but to appeal to intellect and ethos. At first he "resists secretly" from honor "a discreditable mandate." He is asked to build a story from something he knows was written by another writer at the factory who has disappeared.

3.     (a) (1058) (1138) -- he seeks to buy back his contract from B (his boss Wallace) and it is in their negotiations that he falls for her. They have sex.

4.     In 298 (669) and (470) and (1154a - another writer "appeals to A for aid, A refuses [because of his love with B and obligation to her] but later "regrets when X mysteriously disappears.

5.     Before he disappears, X has lost ambition (935) (1065*) loses initiative, his ambition, becomes cog in wheel of employer**

6.     298 (e) (1410) he finds X - Darron comes across X as a homeless beggar. Darron knows the beggar is a brilliant writer. He takes him to his apartment to shower and X showers and they compare notes. and figure out they have been scammed. They can sing their swan songs in pity like Elvis's Unchained Melody

CLAUSE III.  C. Darron convinces Wallace that she is crushing creativity and breaking anti-trust laws and trying to hold an illegal monopoly on fiction.

The Creator

From Innovatorsmag.com

“Until recently the field of psychology has viewed creativity as a cognitive process centered on generating new ideas. The body was viewed as passive responder rather than an active generator of new ideas.  Over the past few decades, embodiment theory has had a significant impact on creativity research. ….

“Embodiment theory is based on the observation that certain emotions have physical sensation associated with them, such as tightness in the chest when we feel anxious. Embodiment involves connecting to our bodies in a way that allows us to feel grounded, centered and fully engaged in the present moment – which is a trigger for creative flow.”

Me: this is like empiricism. We learn through our 5 senses. Empirically is experience. I don’t know if it’s true that researchers see creativity as purely cognitive? I didn’t get that from Starko or just didn’t think about it.

Another thing I forgot in my definition for creative individuals project is problem solving and curiosity. Curiosity and sensual experience are two things AI doesn’t have.

Adaptability and creativity are key in this age of AI. Is AI stealing our creativity?

Tim Brunel 2017 essay online says “Seth Godin says, “The question each of us has to ask is simple (but difficult): What can I become quite good at that’s really difficult for a computer to do one day soon? How can I become so resilient, so human and such a linchpin that shifts in technology won’t be able to catch up?”

And that “As Grudin puts it in The Grace of Great Things, “One must cultivate a leaning for the problematic, a chronic attraction to things that do not totally fit, agree or make sense. …To think creatively is to walk at the edge of chaos. In thinking the original, we risk thinking the ridiculous.”

From ISSUES National Academy of Sciences online

“Ownership Dilemmas in an Age of Creative Machines”

“it may be inevitable that smart machines will become central to creativity and innovation, activities often considered to represent the highest form of human intelligence”

I’m quoting all this

“AI technologies challenge the fundamental building blocks of existing intellectual property (IP) laws and institutions, which are misaligned with AI-driven innovation on multiple fronts. IP rights are intended to provide incentives for innovators to engage in creative endeavors and to bring the fruits of these activities to society, while simultaneously balancing the need for market competition and dissemination of new knowledge. IP laws put human inventors and creators at the center of the creative process, reflecting deep-rooted assumptions about the inherent humanness of creativity. These assumptions have now been overturned by advances in computational creativity.”

“what GANs are made for. Generative Adversarial Networks belong to the set of generative models. It means that they are able to produce / to generate (we’ll see how) new content”

It starts with generating random variables. Computers are deterministic so true randomness may not be possible.

GANS generate very complex random variables. “Once the architecture of the network has been designed, we still need to train it. In the next two sections, we will discuss two ways to train these generative networks, including the idea of adversarial training behind GANs!”

COPYRIGHT

According to the US Copyright Office, a work must be the product of “human authorship” to be entitled to copyright protection. Similarly, US patent law requires that each patent application should name the inventor, defined as “a person [who] contributes to the conception of the invention.” These provisions would appear to constrain the available options for IP protection of machine-created innovations.

The issue, at least for the foreseeable future, is not that AI deserves some kind of moral personhood. Instead, the question is how one assigns ownership over AI-created (or cocreated) artifacts in such a way as to strike the right balance in IP policy between private innovation incentives and social knowledge recombination.

You can let it fall in public domain OR

..,purely computer-generated creative artifacts are a myth. When it comes to IP protections, they argue, the work-for-hire doctrine, in which an employer owns all rights to the creation of an employee, can be used to assign copyright to owners for creative works produced by AI

IP-negative spaces, wherein IP rights have traditionally been very limited or absent. These spaces include fields such as fashion, cuisine, tattoo artistry, graffiti, financial services, and sports.

Innovators in IP-negative spaces may also derive value and motivation from the fame and respect of peers, which may offset (to a degree) their need for financial rewards.

Moreover, due to these reputational benefits, and simply by being first to market, these innovators may earn returns from their innovations even without strong IP rights. For example, fashion designers might rely on their personal reputations as innovators and trendsetters to run profitable businesses, despite having no formal IP protection for their innovative designs.

Possibly…robots should be treated simply as other technological tools that might enhance creativity and productivity (e.g., software packages or printers). The IP resulting from AI would then vest in the human coinventors or collaborators of creative machines (semiautonomous)

appropriate for settings in which the role of these collaborating humans is quite significant, particularly in adapting the creative output to the tastes and values of the intended audience and when the context itself is one that is not characterized by significant IP-negative features

To use the example of an AI-produced painting, the algorithm developer and the artist using the AI to create a painting could both be granted IP rights

innovators to co-own the creative output of their AI systems would better calibrate the innovators’ incentives to the ultimate value their products generate. This alignment may be especially valuable when upstream incentives are needed to encourage the development of better computationally creative technologies for a given domain, such as portraiture or musical composition. Such a policy likely will not be appropriate for IP-negative spaces

AI is predicated on data. It does not have my personal experience. aI could learn by itself the logical rules by which we make decisions. I think it does follow formal logic.

If AI wins, it doesn’t know it won. It doesn’t know what winning is. It doesn’t know what owning an idea and seeing what its fruition means to the creator. It does not know it knows.

This is the selfie a monkey took and the courts decided the monkey had no copyright because only a human owns a copyright