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.

Then shouldn’t it either be changed to “of any cause” or terminate after “dying”.

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I think the Berlin Interpretation is quite outdated and was not even good at the time, but I will defend it on this one point.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.

Played the first two, cringy and tedious. And this is coming from someone who loves plenty of pulp and grindy games.

Better that only you know than everybody knows but nobody wants to talk about it. Communal shame is terrifying. Here’s an excerpt from the story Guts.

This friend of mine, he waits months under a black cloud, waiting for his folks to confront him. And they never do. Ever. Even now he’s grown up, that invisible carrot hangs over every Christmas dinner, every birthday party. Every Easter egg hunt with his kids, his parents’ grandkids, that ghost carrot is hovering over all of them.

Dicey Dungeons and Wingspan.

Minority Don’t Report

Are people using what is essentially old Google Pagerank to determine how relevant articles are? It should be known by now that such a system is highly abusable.

There are different skills than just physical execution. Pokemon isn’t easy because RNG or because it’s turn based, it’s easy because the NPC team compositions are awful, the AI sucks, and the game only has very lenient soft caps on grinding. A mod like Radical Red solves these things, and I’ve played other turn based games with plenty of RNG which require lots of skill.

Once I started using Lemmy I never touched Reddit again. So I guess Lemmy.

YES

At least if we go off the Lemmy definition. I don’t self identify.

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 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.