One of the most persistent logical fallacies surrounding generative AI is the idea that it operates like a high-tech scrapbook, simply cutting, pasting, and collaging pieces of its training data to form an output. According to a new study out of MIT CSAIL published yesterday in Nature Communications, this assumption is mathematically false.

The research, led by Zheng Dai and David Gifford, thoroughly dismantles the idea that an AI-generated image can be traced back to a specific artist or photograph. They identified a measurable phenomenon called attribution decay: as generative models scale up their training data, the causal link between any single training example and the final output effectively vanishes.

The Science of "What If?"

To prove this without relying on rough estimations, the MIT team surgically altered the model itself to prove it past than just looking at the outputs.

They built an architecture called a diffusion ensemble. Instead of one massive model, the ensemble is composed of smaller independent components, each trained on different slices of data. This setup allowed the researchers to perform exact ablation: literally turning off the parts of the model that had "seen" a specific image, or every piece of art by a specific artist, without having to retrain the entire system from scratch.

They were testing a counterfactual universe: What would this model produce if it had never, ever seen this specific piece of data?

The result? At scale, nothing changes. You can remove a specific image, all the works of a given creator, or every photo of a specific person, and the model still generates the exact same output. The counterfactual radius (the measurable difference between the original output and the output generated without the targeted training data) shrinks to near zero.

True Synthesis Over Derivation

This isn't unexpected, as it is a feature of how diffusion models map statistical patterns rather than memorizing pixels. When a dataset is small, the model relies heavily on individual data points. But as the dataset grows into the millions or billions, the features required to generate an image become distributively and redundantly encoded.

The implications here are massive, cutting straight through the noise of current legal and privacy debates:

• Copyright and Fair Use: If removing an artist's entire portfolio from the training data changes absolutely nothing about the generated output, it becomes legally and logically impossible to claim that the output is a derivative work of that specific artist. As Gifford notes, these models are creating truly novel works, not copies.
• Built-in Privacy: The sheer volume of data naturally protects individuals. The model becomes causally independent of the people used to train it, effectively anonymizing the output.

Read more at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/the-end-of-the-collage-fallacy-mit-study-proves-that-ai-art-has-no-single-author

First and foremost, ProfessionalAIArtist/Toychicafeetlicker (aka PAIA) is showing signs of planning a mass sh****g targeting women, and has been talking about this for days without intervention by the BTP server known as TotalGraphiteDeath.

Secondly, this report was compiled with the help of two former Admin who had brought these concerns to EBK/PlecoChan (the server owner and BTP leader) who refused to take action…thusly they have worked with a portion of the WittyCommittee to expose this wrongdoing. The names that have been left unredacted are either: A)Directly responsible, B)Server/Sub Leaders, C) Coco_melonFan who stepped away on their own accord, and should be noted.

The name of the whistleblowers is ***u\evilvedal*** who is willing to come forth to expose this and to publicly condemn it.

It was expressed to the Committee members that they only stayed in order to get this report out. They do not deserve to be brigaded or messaged in anyway (good or bad), but they deserve to be noted for their opposition to this. Considering they are two of the top three mods for the breakthepencil subreddit, this is a significant report.

Thirdly, the fact that a single group is making clone subreddits and alt accounts to ensnare Antis as well as Pros is disturbing. The narrative of ***Break the Pencil*** and *Break the Keyboard* are being engineered by the same person is astonishing…the outright admission that he wants to funnel people into his group is conspiracy enough to make month-long undercover ops as an anti should raise some red flags even among people who don’t care about the “online drama” of it all.

Lastly, there was over a hundred screenshots to go through and pare down into something less overwhelming, then organized into category, then redacted to protect the sources—who eventually gave permission to *”Say my name”* anyways—and then compile into a sheet that was both not too overwhelming, and comprehensive enough to not require a dozen or more pages.

*This report was compiled by, and reviewed by the WittyCommittee and is not the sole work of the person posting the report.

👏 PROPERTY 👏 RIGHTS 👏 ARE 👏 NOT 👏 EQUAL 👏 TO 👏 BODILY 👏 AUTONOMY👏

Take it from them.

Get it out there. Do it. Don't let anyone stop you. Become a creator

.

.

The launch of AnimeGen represents a significant milestone in the fusion of artificial intelligence with traditional media production. Created by the Tokyo-based AI startup AIdeaLab and supported by the Japanese government through the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) as part of the GENIAC initiative, this specialized video generation model is now freely available under an Apache-2.0 license.

The model was developed by fine-tuning Alibaba's open-source Wan 2.2 diffusion architecture to focus on anime line art, cel-shading aesthetics, and motion dynamics, providing Japan with a powerful creative tool. Beyond just a software release, this government-backed initiative reflects a strong institutional endorsement: Artificial intelligence is increasingly recognized as a valuable and empowering tool for both professional studios and independent creators, rather than a substitute for human creativity.

AnimeGen's open-source and progressive approach starkly contrasts with closed, proprietary AI platforms. By offering unrestricted access to the underlying weights and releasing tools on Hugging Face, such as text-to-video, image-to-video, and frame interpolation models, the developers have democratized animation capabilities.

Creators can run these models locally on consumer hardware, ensuring complete data privacy without needing to send proprietary character sheets or sketches to third-party cloud servers. This freedom is transformative for indie animators, solo game developers, and boutique agencies who previously faced financial barriers when producing anime sequences.

Additionally, the open framework fosters community-driven refinement, allowing artists to train custom adaptations that maintain specific visual identities across complex projects.

Within professional workflows, AnimeGen is being adopted as a supportive accelerator. Japan's animation industry has long faced challenging schedules, significant labor shortages, and increasing budgets. In this context, studio directors are less interested in creating entire episodes from text prompts and more focused on specific automation.

Tools like AnimeGen's frame interpolation tackle industrial bottlenecks by automating the repetitive task of in-betweening, producing smooth transition frames between detailed keyframes crafted by human animators. By transferring this computational load to algorithms, experienced artists can concentrate on high-level art direction, dynamic character choreography, and expressive storytelling, enhancing what is achievable within strict episodic deadlines.

You can read more at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/japan-releases-animegen-a-free-open-source-ai-model-signaling-a-new-era-for-anime-production

On the night of July 15–16, 2026, Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists targeted a Microsoft data center construction site in Amsterdam's Westport industrial area. Operatives threw balloons filled with a corrosive chemical mixture onto open concrete foundations, marking a shift from civil disobedience to direct physical sabotage against AI infrastructure.

According to Extinction Rebellion and the Tech Workers Coalition, activists used a chemical cocktail designed to degrade concrete and steel: acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium chloride (salt), and acrylic paint.

XR stated that acetic acid dissolves calcium compounds in concrete, lowering its pH. Hydrogen peroxide accelerates internal steel rebar rusting once the alkaline layer is compromised, while salt acts as a corrosion catalyst. Operatives executed the action overnight when the site was empty, wearing respirators and mixing chemicals on-site to avoid accidental exposure.

The facility is being built near Sloterdijk Station by developer Pure DC to be leased by Microsoft. Pure DC confirmed that balloons containing suspected corrosive substances were thrown onto the property.

Pure DC condemned the sabotage as "irresponsible and dangerous," noting that corrosive substances posed severe burn risks to workers and first responders. Initial assessments revealed no structural damage and no operational delay to the timeline. However, the developer confirmed it would pursue legal prosecution for criminal damage. The Amsterdam police have opened an investigation.

You can read more at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/climate-group-attacks-data-centre-construction-site-with-acid-balloons

New goomba fallacy template alert

I hate hate. We are all great people. We deserve to be happy and we can make others happy. We can be better.

If it wasn't for some of the hate some people spew, I don't think I would be as pro AI as I am.

FAQ:

1. Criticism is not hate?

A: "We need to k*ll AI artists" is not criticism. Is hate. Blaming of AI misuse and ostracizing people for using or supporting AI is not criticism. Criticism would be "Your use of AI is holding you back. There are clear patterns of algorithmic nonsense in here, here and there."

2. It's ok to hate on bad people?

A: It's never ok to hate. Hate is destructive. It harms more than it protects. It damages more than it restores. It hurts you and it hurts the hated on. This is not even considering what a terrible justification it is that "it is ok to do bad things to the people I consider bad"

3. YOU ARE NOT OPPRESSED?

A: Never said that. For some reason this is a frequently asked question. Hate is hate. It can be part of oppression but is not oppression on its own.

4. Both sides hate though?

A: Hate is everywhere. I also dislike hateful speech and actions in the AI users.

Linux creator Linus Torvalds has delivered a decisive message to the open-source community regarding the growing use of artificial intelligence in software development: the Linux kernel is not anti-AI, and its direction will continue to be guided by technical merit rather than ideological resistance.

In a detailed statement published overnight on the Linux kernel mailing list, Torvalds directly addressed rising friction among developers over large language models (LLMs) and automated tooling. His comments follow recent recommendations from open-source organizations like the Software Freedom Conservancy and increasing community debate surrounding Sashiko, an AI-powered code review tool actively evaluating kernel mailing list submissions.

Pushing back against individuals arguing for a blanket rejection of these technologies, Torvalds was unequivocal about his position as top-level maintainer.

"I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level maintainer," Torvalds wrote. "Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away."

To Torvalds, artificial intelligence is simply another utility in the modern developer's toolkit, one whose practical value is no longer up for debate.

"AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one," he stated. "It may not have been that 'clearly' even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today. There are other questions around AI (like what the economy of it will actually look like in the end), but 'is it useful' is no longer one of those questions. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it."

Read the rest at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/linus-torvalds-linux-is-not-an-anti-ai-project

Extract from ainightwatch.com

“Artificial intelligence means it’s much easier for us to make movies. (...) If you like it, it’s good, If you don’t, it’s bad. That’s all there is to it. (...) Art is an emotional medium, whether it’s movies or plays or paintings.”

In a rare interview published during the Cannes Film Festival, 81-year-old cinema pioneer George Lucas weighed in on the technological shifts currently reshaping Hollywood, explicitly embracing generative artificial intelligence. While discussing the final construction stages of his billion-dollar Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Exposition Park, Los Angeles, the creator of Star Wars dismissed industry hesitation around automated production tools. Instead of viewing AI as a threat to artistic integrity, Lucas framed the technology as an inevitable and necessary evolution in filmmaking.

Lucas, whose career has been defined by pushing against institutional and technological boundaries, compared contemporary skepticism surrounding AI to historical resistance against early automobiles. He noted that clinging to traditional production methods is akin to believing the horse and buggy is superior simply because modern cars require gas, break down, or can eventually be weaponized into military tanks. To Lucas, technological advancements inevitably bring complex societal problems, but stopping them is impossible. As he stated directly, artificial intelligence simply makes it easier for filmmakers to execute their visions, representing an unavoidable leap forward that defines the future of the medium.

Addressing widespread industry concerns regarding deepfakes, unauthorized replication, and digital authenticity, Lucas offered a technocratic perspective on regulation and verification. He argued that generative systems themselves will ultimately provide the solutions to the problems they generate, asserting that AI is better equipped than human cognition to trace digital provenance and identify fabricated content. Rather than calling for industry-wide bans or strict gatekeeping, he emphasized personal legal accountability. In his view, creators must remain entirely responsible for what they produce and should face standard legal consequences if their usage crosses into illegal territory, exactly as they would in physical life.

This stance reflects a consistent throughline across Lucas’s six-decade career. From founding Industrial Light & Magic to pioneering digital cinematography and non-linear editing at a time when purists insisted on celluloid film, Lucas has consistently treated technical instruments as secondary to the core mission of storytelling. He reiterated that cinema is fundamentally the moving image, an idea rather than a specific physical format. His overarching philosophy, which also serves as the guiding principle for his expansive new museum housing everything from comic panels to pulp illustrations, rejects traditional cultural hierarchies in favor of emotional resonance. What matters to the audience, he argues, is the emotional impact of the narrative, regardless of the machinery used to render it.

Despite his historical track record as a digital pioneer, Lucas’s comments immediately ignited fierce debate across online creative communities and social media platforms. For many working artists, animators, and writers currently navigating job insecurity and widespread data scraping, comparing generative algorithms to the natural evolution of the motion picture camera feels disconnected from ground-level economic realities. While Lucas views artificial intelligence simply as a faster, more accessible tool for filmmakers with a story to tell, the intense online backlash underscores the divide between legacy innovators viewing technology from a macro perspective and contemporary creators facing the immediate disruptions of automated media.

https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/george-lucas-embraces-generative-ai-as-the-future-of-cinema-sparking-online-debate