• 62 Posts
  • 125 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2024年7月26日

help-circle

































  • We remember the best 10% of old games but compare them to 100% of new games, including the 90% that are crap.

    While I think there’s truth to this, with regards to single player games, I think multiplayer games have had a notable shift toward “service” that gives players less agency to keep games alive.

    There are dozens of old PC games with moderately active gaming communities, like CS1.6 and the like. Newer games tend to get “shutdown” and the services are no longer available. Users have to have enough passion for these games to be willing to completely reverse engineer the server backend,

    I think the point of this article is to share that games without proper modding support or indefinite “always online” connection checks tend to die, whereas old games that don’t have these features have the opportunity to live “forever” (or as long as there are still people willing to play.)






  • But every time someone gets on their soapbox in the comments it’s like they don’t even know the first thing about the math behind it. Like just figure out what you’re mad about before you start an argument.

    The math around it is unimportant, frankly. The issue with AI isn’t about GANN networks alone, it’s about the licensing of the materials used to train a GANN and whether or not companies that used materials to train a GANN had proper ownership rights. Again, like the post I made, there’s an easy argument to make that OpenAI and others never licensed the material they used to train the AI, making the whole model poisoned by copyright theft.

    There’s plenty of uses of GANNs that are not problematic. Bespoke solution for predicting the outcomes of certain equations or data science uses that involve rough predictions on publically sourced statistics (or privately owned.) The problem is that these are not the same uses that we call “AI” today – and we’re actually sleeping on much better uses of neural networks by focusing on a pie in the sky AGI nonsense being pushed by companies that are simply pushing highly malicious, copyright infringing products to make a quick buck on the stock market.


  • See, I’m troubled by that one because it sounds good on paper, but in practice that means that Google and Meta, who can certainly build licenses into their EULAs trivially, would become the only government-sanctioned entities who can train AI. Established corpos were actively lobbying for similar measures early on.

    As long as people are paying other people, these things will equalize eventually. Ultimately, it would be much more likely that the cost of AI production would become so severe that it would no longer be viable as a business (which, frankly, is fine. There will eventually be enough public domain content that AI will be at the quality it is today with public materials alone.)