He's saying that the only corporations with the fighting power to take on legal battles will end up being the big ones. So we may end up in a situation where AI will only be in the hands of the mega wealthy, instead of in the hands of regular people.
You keep referencing the community as if I wasn't aware. I made a comment yesterday here in this very thread referencing it, so I clearly know this is a place for unpopular opinions, that's why I'm debating in good faith and that's why I said in my previous comment it was ironic.
But no, please re-read what I said, that you started the post with an assumption, and you presented it as fact. That's not debatable, you stated that games aren't supposed to be realistic. You didn't back that up with an argument, you just repeated how you think games should be perceived and then proceeded to trash a popular franchise as an example.
Like I said, I mean no animosity towards you. But I chimed in literally because this community invites to debate
I expressed my counter argument in my first comment. You then replied with a non-answer, trying to justify your lack of argument with the community name.
And let me be clear, I'm not criticizing you, I'm criticizing your debating. You started the original post making an assumption and stating it as fact while failing to provide a compelling argument to back it up, so when people inevitably try to discuss it, you did hide behind the curtain of 'it's my opinion, I'm not harming anyone'. Which makes it the more ironic when you brought to attention the community name in response to me calling you out.
Yeah, which invites people to discuss and to offer counter-arguments. So why are you on the defensive about it?
When you open up a topic for discussion and people have a different opinion than you, usually instead of resorting to 'is my opinion, deal with it', people often offer a footing for their argument to stand on.
To answer your first question first, empathy is a social skill and if you truly want to understand other people's opinions, it's a skill you must hone. No one is saying you must be empathic, but if you want to truly get why some people like it more when they can immerse themselves in a piece of art, then you do need to be able to try to walk in their shoes.
Regarding your second point, you framed the original post as a fact of life and not an opinion ('games are not supposed to be realistic' vs 'i think games shouldn't be realistic') so don't be surprised when people argue against your opinion as if it were fact.
I personally don't enjoy games like COD, but it's disingenuous to believe one of the most lucrative franchises to exist, played and enjoyed by billions worldwide, is garbage. You may not like it, but you can't declare it a garbage game as it certainly has its appeal. Doing so reeks of 'old-man-yelling-at-kids-to-get-off-his-lawn'.
As for your other point, it is certainly an unpopular opinion. For a lot of people gaming is an escape from reality, yes, but video games as an artistic expression can also represent reality and even mirror it. I don't know what you mean by 'realism'; is it graphical fidelity? Is it mechanics and its level of abstraction to model our world? There is certainly a conversation to be had here, but I would say how closely a game should mirror real life should depend on what type of game we are talking about, after all.
That might have been the case where you live. Here there are always more 2d screenings than 3d (including on opening night), since people here think think of 3d as more of a gimmick and usually not worth the extra price
No, what he is trying to say, playing devil's advocate, is that he genuinely may not have known what his subordinates did, which is right. It is a possibility. What I said in my comment is arguing that even if that were the case, not knowing the underdoings of his closest people is not a sign of a strong leader. In any case, I personally believe that he is lying and that he knows very well on what his people were working.
It also wouldn't be okey if he wasn't aware of what his top people were doing. Any respectable leader would at least be aware of their tasks.
In any case, yes, he is lying though.
The parenthesis is not there to provide the cited source, but rather to specify what to do with the time that is given to us (watch the fellowship of the ring)
It's always the classic not-rule to take-away-your-children slippery slope, they always warned us of that in school