If they need money honestly Tencent is better than a lot of the alternatives who might be willing to invest.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.

I think the Berlin Interpretation is quite outdated and was not even good at the time, but I will defend it on this one point. It does not provide a threshold for what is and is not a roguelike, the Berlin Interpretation just lists criteria that are important to consider when determining how roguelike something is. The heap paradox is an exercise for the reader.

A roguelite is ostensibly something that has enough features of a roguelike to be noted, but not enough to be considered one. And I’d argue there is way more to what makes a roguelike than permadeath with no meta progression.

Also Slay the Spire has less meta progression than Issac. Hades is in a whole nother ball park.

Literally Bill Gates.

Who’s labor?

There are a lot of people who actively want to be called weird who are outright annoying.

Dicey Dungeons and Wingspan.

Minority Don’t Report

I didn’t think it was a choreographed publicity stunt. I just know Altman has used AI fear in the past to keep people from asking rational questions like “What can this actually do?” He obviously stands to gain from people thinking they are on the verge of agi. And someone looking for a new job in the field also has to gain from it.

As for the software thing, if it’s done by someone it won’t be openai and megacorporations following in its footsteps. They seem insistent at throwing more data (of diminishing quality) and more compute (an impractical amount) at the same style of models hoping they’ll reach some kind of tipping point.

This fear mongering is just beneficial to Altman. If his product is powerful enough to be a threat to humanity then it is also powerful enough to be capable of many useful things, things it has not proven itself to be capable of. Ironically spreading fear about its capabilities will likely raise investment, so if you actually are afraid of openai somehow arriving at agi that is dangerous then you should really be trying to convince people of its lack of real utility.

You’re kinda being toxic right now by purposefully misconstruing what I said so you can hit me with a cheap comeback.

Nobody is forced with a gun to play a game with a toxic community either, does that mean it’s not worth complaining about? Perhaps the article should mention the supposed tradeoffs required to police such a community. I say supposed because I’ve played far less toxic games than Vallorant and League that don’t require such invasive software. Perhaps Riot should do some introspection and ask why the games they make foster such bad behavior instead of harming nontoxic players with their policing methods.

It’s relevant because the article acts like strictness is a unimodal thing. Riot decides how far they want to push it and some people will fall on one side and believe chat is overly sanitized while others will fall on the opposite side and believe that chat is overly toxic.

This makes it sound like the only reason someone could take issue with Riot being zealous with their policing is because that person wants to see these toxic behaviors in their game. The article quickly mentions hardware bans like they are magic, even though something like harder to spoof hardware is one of the reasons Riot would give for requiring invasive software.

And similar to how I won’t accept a game requiring such invasive measures I also won’t accept an article glossing over these things. Just like there are many players who see no problem with toxic behavior there are also many players who don’t see any problem with Riot’s measures or are simply uninformed, and the article should be more informative.

I’m all for banning toxic players and cheaters, but the fact that they make you install a rootkit on your system to enable this is too much.

You are paying for way more than the sum of the parts when you order a cocktail, I’m not really sure why you’d suddenly be concerned about doing so when it comes to a mocktail.