P03 Locke @ p03locke @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

47

Comments

1,457

Joined

2 yr. ago

You really trust the US government to control your communications? Especially given the last 20 years?

No, I don't trust right-wing Nazis to control my communications. And I sure as fuck trust the government more than I trust greedy corporations. The problem is that the corporations have been fucking up the capitalistic/democratic balance for the last 50 years.

The raw SMTP landscape on the internet is such a shitshow. Setting up a SMTP server requires so many goddamn condoms that you might as well just give up and start using some other professional email service. Or you set it up just to forward email to a GMail account, and even then, Gmail bitches about how much spam you're forwarding it and blocks you for a time.

Capitalism will outlast copyright. They'll adapt. The rich have existed for millennia and there's no reason to think they would roll over as soon as copyright dies.

But, the more they push AI as their digital savior, the more copyright-free content they create. AI is just hastening copyright's demise.

The biggest problem with Ai is copyright.

FTFY. Copyright is a tool of the rich. It is not for you.

Yep, I can generate a bunch of funny pictures on Stable Diffusion in a couple of minutes.

I think that in a better world, image generation could’ve been used for prototyping, fun, or enabling art from those without the time to dedicate to a craft. It could’ve been a tool like any other. LLMs could’ve had better warnings against their hallucinations, or simply have been used less for overly-serious things due to a lack of incentive for it, leaving only the harmless situations.

I think that world still exists, but it's going to take corporations tripping over their hundreds of billions of dollars and burning it in a dumpster fire, before they realize that the technology isn't theirs to keep and own.

Legally, the one hosting the material is the one who is punished, not the downloader. Though, if they are using torrent software, they are both downloading and hosting. Copyright law doesn't give a shit why they're watching it.

If I downloaded pictures on the internet by visiting a web site, I'm not going to suddenly get punished because it's copyrighted. Otherwise, every one of us is now in trouble because of the linked article.

WEAR GOGGLES

Especially from places like RPS and Kotaku.

Everything is a remix of a copy of derivative works. They learn from other people, from other artists, from institutions that teach entire industries. Some of it had "informed consent", some of it was "borrowed" from other ideas without anybody's permission. We see legal battles on a monthly basis as to whether these four notes are too similar to these other four notes. Half of the movies are reboots, and some of them were actually itself another reboot a few times over.

"Good artist copy, great artist steal."

No human has truly had an original thought in their head ever. It's all stolen knowledge, whether we realize it's stolen or not. In the age of the Internet, we steal now more than ever. We pass memes to each other with stolen material. Journalists copy entire quotes from other journalists, who then create other articles about some guy's Twitter post, who actually got the idea from Reddit, and that article gets posted on Facebook. And then when it reaches Lemmy, we post the whole article because we don't want the paywall.

We practice Fair Use on a regular basis by using and remixing images and videos into other videos, but isn't that similar to an AI bot looking at an image, figuring out some weights from it, and throwing it away? I don't own this picture of Brian Eno, but it's certainly sitting in my browser cache, and Brian Eno and Getty Images didn't grant me "informed consent" to do anything with it. Did I steal it? Is it legally or morally unethical to have it sitting on my hard drive? If I photoshop it and turn it into a dragon with a mic on a mixing board, and then pass it around, is that legally or morally unethical? Fair Use says no.

It's folly to pretend that AI should be held to a standard that we ourselves aren't upholding.

I hate that nobody from within wants to actually solve this problem and everybody too stubborn and bloodstained to entertain reasonable solutions. It's even worse when people start evoking shitty religious excuses for genocide.

I don’t know of a single modern model that only used training data that was taken with informed consent from the creators of that data.

I don't know of a single modern human that only used training data that was taken with informed consent from the creators of that data.

So, make it not owned by the same people.

Support open-source models. Most of this shit are research papers.

Fable already came out, and it was a pretty mid game. Why are we doing this again?

They have conferences about ActivityPub. Why isn't W3C trying to fix this mess in newer backwards-incompatible versions? The time to do it is now, not later, because it would involve a major version and years of pushing for adoption. The lack of standardization of basic concepts is why integrations of different types of implementations is a broken mess, which is the whole fucking point of ActivityPub! Now, we have to compete with ATProto, which has different kinds of problems, and it's very possible that it just wins out and kills ActivityPub.

This reminds of the early days of SMTP, where there was zero thought behind security, and that created an entire spam industry.

PeerTube integration into Lemmy is still shit, poorly implemented, and rarely linked by Lemmy admins.

Huh? For £70 I’m getting

Based on what? You don't actually know until it gets released. Sure, past history and reputation are certainly things to factor in, but we've seen plenty of major gaming companies shit the bed, despite their reputations.

Wait until it launches and the reviews come in.

Release timing is always a critical thing to think about, whether you're talking about games, movies, TV series, or toys.

The portal gun doesn't really fit in a Half-Life game. The mechanics of the gun almost demand an enclosed space, with flat surfaces and puzzles that require the player to understand that they're solving a puzzle. The portal gun would break the outside world too easily, as players figure out how to just zoom past everything, and not follow the linear path that FPSs like Half-Life guide towards. Testing surfaces for game breaks and boundary checks would be a QA nightmare. It doesn't kill enemies in any useful way, which is the primary function of a FPS weapon.

It is a puzzle gun, in a puzzle game. And that's okay.

BG3 is the triplest of triple-A. It’s a four studio game with a budget in the hundreds of millions, a major IP license and half a decade of development.

The budget was $25 million for BG3, not hundreds of millions. It is not a "four-studio game". It's ties to D&D are far far easier to license than most IP, since it's literally called the Open Game License.

Concord cost $400 million. The latest CoD game cost $600 million. Starfield was $200 million. The latest Assassin's Creed was $300 million.

If anything, the AAA guys are still raking it in.

Ubisoft is in trouble. EA is in trouble. Games divisions for Sony, Microsoft, and WB are in trouble. These are all AAA studios, not the "middle of the pack".

Soon.

AAA studios are bleeding money out of every orifice because nobody gives a shit about their bland and boring games. BG3 was where the potentials started to show, but it's going to take another few years of studios tripping over themselves before the ones with actual cash are going to start investing elsewhere.