Your "but then" is off-base. This is selling steel for the express purpose of nuclear reactors, with a contractual clause against its use in tanks, and the US government deciding that it doesn't feel like abiding by the rules in the contract.
698 karma · joined February 11, 2015
> Students should not feel policed. Durable change will require instructors to be as clear as possible about their expectations and students to understand AI misuse as an unacceptable deviation from shared peer norms and community values rather than a violation of an arbitrary bureaucratic rule.
Most of these are going to be smaller indie games that already don't have many settings to set. Off the top of my head, I'd probably say Ultrakill takes the cake with its opening screen. Based on the description of the expectations, my guess is you're mostly basing your expectations off of large AAA games with multiple pages of settings? Fair enough that they should mostly be implementing "standards" correctly, and theming and character take a back seat.
It sounds like your overall point mostly relates not to settings screens, but things that "don't meaningfully affect gameplay". I think that's a much better argument than the one your example point led me to understand.
As a final note, it's worth reiterating that Steam does not require disclosure for AI-gen code. That settings menu example you were mentioning would be fine, as long as it used art assets generated by a human.
What is the point then? The best games have all of their elements working together in service of their intended experience.
> someone who uses AI for internationalization
Do you think this would be an ok use of AI for a game? Did you not see the outrage over Hollow Knight: Silksong's translation last year? How every time a game is discovered to have used AI for translation there is an immediate backlash?
TFA also mentions that by routing calls through older non-IP networks you lose the accurate information, although it sounds like the FCC is slowly cracking down on this.
1. "Censored" by whom, and for whom?
2. "Censored" for which "right of center" views?
P.S. I should also mention that I can see the posts on that account, even if they all have flags for intolerance by the default moderation service (a service you can opt out of by the way).
Two other points that came up while I was reading:
1. I get that this is something you did once for an internal project, but this is what macros and derive_macros are made for.
2. The AI that you used to help write the post left its mark a little too deep. The cliched phrases make an appearance at the start of every section and it really starts to grate by the end.
It's worth noting that you can substitute "dollars" for "context" in that sentence, which seems to be where many of these impressive achievements are coming from. As ever, it's unclear whether these models will get cheaper while remaining better, since all of the recent breakthroughs appear to be of the "think more" kind. For translation specifically, I'd be very surprised if the "think more" LLMs would help given the per-unit cost expected of the output.
I barked out loud when I read this.
The takeaway was that this was yet another move by rich assholes designed to siphon money from the pockets of small time gamblers just so that the rich could get richer. They did it to Pokemon cards, destroying the experience of playing the actual game, and they tried to do it to Manga (although they hopefully won't succeed there).
While I agree "AI is bad", well-written posts like this one can provide real insight into the process of using them, and reveal more about _why_ AI is bad.
[type Shape
[Circle f64]
[Rect f64 f64]
Point
]
[sig test_sig : Shape -> Float]
[fn test_sig [shape]
[match shape
[Circle r] [* 3.14159 [* r r]]
[Rect w h] [* w h]
Point 0.0
]
]