- 0 Posts
- 192 Comments
If there’s no difference in quality why obfuscate it? Why hide something that you think is a valuable tool if your code can speak for
The timeline was that he started adding attribution indicating the use of AI.
Then the anti-AI drones started bombarding the Github, Discord and forums with harassment. His recent statements and removal of attribution are entirely addressed at and because of the anti-AI people harassing the project staff.
He’s not removing it and saying ‘fuck you’ to the users. He’s tired of being harassed by third parties who are not involved with the project in any way and so he removed the source of the harassment.
I agree.
If you read the anti-AI comments you’ll find that when they say ‘AI’ they mean ‘LLMs fine tuned to be chatbots’ and ‘Diffusion models which generate bitmaps or video files’
They’re seemingly ignorant of all of the other things that Transformers and Deep Neural Networks are used for.
Remember how there were all of these projects trying to crowd source an algorithm to fold proteins given an amino acid sequence? Well, a trained neural network ‘AI’ called Alphafold was created and it can complete the task with >90% accuracy. THEN, using a network like AlphaFold another group of scientists made a diffusion model that could be prompted with protein parameters and then generate the string of amino acids which would fold into that protein.
I find it hard to believe that the ‘fuck AI’ crowd understands that ‘AI’ is completely separate from the capitalist frenzy over chatbots and image generation. The vast majority of their complaints are not about the technology, they are about assholes who have a lot of money that are abusing and overhyping the technology in order to get more money.
It seems like you’re glossing over the fact that he was including authorship until he was targeted with a harassment campaign by the anti-ai nutjobs.
He removed authorship in response to being harassed. His point was that including authorship has only led to harassment which takes resources away from the actual project. If a person can’t tell that the code was AI generated with out a ‘Generated by Claude Code’ tag then their complaints about AI’s quality seem to fall flat.
Out of many more ethical models out there, why go with that one specifically?
Because it is the better tool in the usecase that he is engaging with.
You’re setting up an impossible standard, one that you don’t follow yourself.
You know that Social Media is used to spread propaganda throughout the world, leading to hate crimes, genocides, wars, sexual exploitation etc. You’re still using social media. There are many more ethical ways to talk to people, why go with social media specifically?
All you’ve discovered is that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You can take anything that a person does and trace the supply chain to find examples of wholly immoral behavior. Unless you plan on living in a cave, you’re going to appear like a hypocrite at the very least if you start picking apart the choices of others under that lens.
That’s twisting the order of events.
The developer was marking code when AI was used.
Anti-AI drones started harassing him in Discord, the forums and Github PRs
The developer stopped marking code when AI was used.
The Anti-AI assholes are not participating in development in good faith, this is a harassment campaign. He’s taking steps to mitigate the harassment.
The fault and blame here is entirely on the people who thought it was okay to dog pile on a volunteer developer.
I remember my first big battle.
One Friday afternoon as we started fleet operations, the subcap fleet was being aligned on a non-reinforced POS. This is normally a really bad idea considering the POS can blow subcaps out of the water in a cycle or two.
As it turns out they were staging their capital ships at a new, unarmed, POS who’s password was leaked due to a GIA agent who had an undercover Jump Freighter alt in the BoB alliance.
Just before we landed on grid the fleet commander posted the POS’s password in chat. This doesn’t let you shoot into the POS, but you could bump ships out of the POS shields by flying into them. This is (was?) even more effective against capital ships who have terrible turning radius and acceleration. We interdicted the shit out of the PoS, lit a cyno for a around 50 dreadnoughts and played bumper cars with a few Nyx while the seiged dreadnoughts chewed them up.
After about an hour, and 2 and a half Nyx later, they brought in their subcap fleet through the gate, dropped an Avatar on us, dd’d our entire subcap fleet, and then jumped in and bubbled our dreadnoughts.
We were reforming at a station 2 systems away and fleet command sent out an alert over Jabber (this was before Discord so we had an entire array of goonfleet hosted services) for cap pilots to login.
We ended up with an Erebus, another 20 dreadnoughts and some carriers and motherships for the 2nd wave. The Erebus DD’d their subcap fleet, our subcaps jumped on grid and tackled the Avatar. Our Dreadnoughts had it about halfway through armor and the motherships in the POS were logging/not coming out to try to save it.
They managed to get their subcapital fleet, 2 motherships and a few carriers back into the fight as the Avatar went into structure and by that time it was taking upwards of 10 minutes to get a lock (this was also pre-time dialation). We were chewing through their hictors so our dreads could jump out after the Avatar died… the the node crashed.
The Avatar pilot didn’t log back in immediately so we camped that POS location for nearly 2 weeks straight. I think it got away by logging in right after maintenance and immediately getting cyno’d out.
Technically a win, isk-wise, but losing the Avatar kill hurt (it died a few weeks later in another large engagement but I wasn’t there).
I don’t think I managed to land a single attack between getting DDd and the lag but it definitely hooked me on the fleet combat side of things.
Anyway, Rho Squad
I have so many memories of that game, boring 90% of the time but that other 10% was peak video gaming.
Mittens was the hardest working EVE player who never logged in. He made good propaganda though and the folks that did that kind of stuff were great for morale. The BoB director that defected and disbanded the BoB alliance did so mostly because we were having fun and BoB was super serious and toxic. A cultural victory, if you will.
Speaking of morale, Suas’ Little Bees song, sung to ‘Let it Be’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-m-0RlqMHM was awesome. I was in the fleet TS when he demo’d the song and promised to release it if we could get a foothold into delve, which did eventually happen.
Also, RIP Vile Rat.
Anyway, I don’t know how the game is now (I haven’t played in over a decade) but it left an impression.
I’ll definitely try this new game.
Hell due to the meta in the game and the massive player alliances there’s some alliance leaders that don’t even bother logging in. They just manage their alliance out of game. you can easily “play” EVE without actually playing EVE. so former EVE devs doing something like this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
This is very true. I spent a good year casually playing EVE and never undocking from Jita 4-4. I was basically playing spreadsheets and logistics contracts, earning more money than a person flying a ship and grinding isk. Then moved to doing carrier logistics for a large Bee-based alliance.
e: If you were into this kind of spreadsheets gameplay, look at Prosperous Universe. It’s basically EVE if they removed all of the spaceship stuff and left the trade hubs and planet/moon installations.
If it is anything like EVE it just means that there are systems that work in real-time and operate even when you’re offline.
For example, if you tell your colonists to built a factory… it may take 36 hours but you don’t have to be online for them to work. Also, in EVE, your character’s skill progression happens if you’re online or not. Level 1 in a skill may take 2-3 minutes, and level 5 for some of the highest level skills could take weeks.
This.
Even the original argument, that patents exists to reward inventors with a period of time where they have the sole ability to sell their product, is gone. Now patents are simply owned by the company or university and rarely the inventor or scientist, they’re allowed to be renewed over and over so that they are effectively eternal.
It’s a shit system designed to encourage rent seeking behaviors without the risk and cost of having to invent new things.
The topic of the thread is about users migrating away from Discord due to privacy concerns over their ID requirements. If this doesn’t apply to you, what is your purpose commenting? To tell us all that the thing in the OP isn’t actually happening?
Your position is that:
- this can’t happen,
- people can’t leave discord because people are on discord,
- it’s impossible to learn 3 applications,
Therefore nobody would replace Discord with Teamspeak and also use some other chat program (that’s 2 programs! which is nearly as impossible as learning 3 programs!).
You’re posting this opinion in a thread about users migrating to TeamSpeak and calling me the idiot?
That’s certainly an opinion.
Your a fucking delusional idiot.
‘Your’ is the possessive form of you.
You’re is the word you’re looking for, as it is a contraction of ‘you are’ as in ‘you are an idiot’.
Oh, that looks pretty nice, thanks for the recommendation.
I’ll have to throw up an XMPP setup and give it a shot. It looks like they have a podman container setup available: https://github.com/movim/movim
Voice chatting and streaming and text channels on the same client are an absolute must.
Yes, those are certainly a convenience that would be nice to have.
I just don’t think they’re “Be subjected to Discord” nice anymore.
I’ll take on the burden of launching two executables and clicking two different windows in order to not be subjected to the endless monetization and privacy violations.
Not everyone agrees, that that’s fine too. Using Discord (or Signal if your group is small and care more about privacy than open source) isn’t wrong, but some people see the downsides as outweighing the benefits.
It seems like the most realistic option to me since I doubt the masses wanna get into self hosting.
You only need these services as part of a gaming community.
I think you’d have a hard time finding a gaming community that didn’t contain at least a few people who could handle installing a docker container on a VPS.
The trade off, to save minimal administrative overhead (compared to moderation and such), you give up complete control over how your system is run, how your data is divulged and any control over future cost increases.
Everyone should be self-hosting (and also running Linux, but we’ll beat that horse later) if they’re running a gaming community.
Kind of, they give everyone a free 1 server 32 slot license.
That isn’t guaranteed to be there forever and they could decide in the future that you need to buy that license.
However, if you install a Mumble server then it can’t be taken away from you. The hosting process is largely the same from an administrative perspective so I’d prefer the ‘free forever’ to the ‘free, limit 32, while supplies last’ license-wise.
Hey guys, stop moving on to the next commercial service who will do the exact same thing once they get up to critical mass.
Yes, commercial services are easier to setup. The cost you pay is all of your privacy and your loss of control over the service that you’re building your communities on.
Stop making this same mistake OVER and OVER and OVER.
Take the time to find the IT workers or tech nerds in your community, take donations to rent server space and administer it yourself. Moving from Discord to Teamspeak isn’t an improvement, you’re just selecting the next group of people who will sell you out the moment that it becomes profitable.
Use Free and Open Source solutions, that your community hosts themselves. You have Mumble (https://www.mumble.info/) for voice, XMPP (https://xmpp.org/software/?category=servers) for text chat, Discourse (https://github.com/discourse/discourse) for forums, or even setup a Lemmy instance.
None of these things are difficult to use and the administrative side of things is simple (most are simply pre-made and hardened Docker containers). Even if you don’t want to deal with that yourself, there are managed hosts available for all of these pieces of software. If you don’t want to administer a Mumble server you can just rent one for less than the cost of a single Discord subscription. There are similar managed hosts for all of the other software.
Every game that I’ve ever played as part of a large community has had forum software and voice chat that we’ve hosted ourselves. Discord killed all of that because they offered the same service for free and made it easier.
Well, it wasn’t free, they’ve been steadily enshittfying and profiting off of the users. The prices keep increasing and they’re depending on the Network Effect (“I can’t leave because everyone uses it!”) to keep you trapped on their services.
I have the same panel and a similar experience. It is the best display that I’ve ever used.
I often accidentally turn the monitor off because my desktop is just a black background and so it appears to be off if there isn’t something being displayed.
The HDR could possibly be brighter, but the OLED blacks are worth the diminished peak brightness (which is brighter than is comfortable in a dark room).
I have around 12,000 hours and I have some minor blue channel image retention in the crosshair area, it looks like a small bar across the center of the screen, but it is only noticeable if I’m displaying a pure blue color (like when I’m looking for image retention). In actual usage I don’t notice it and the peak brightness is probably a little lower. I usually run at 60-80% brightness depending on room lighting conditions so I have a lot of overhead before I’d notice the loss of brightness.
You’re using art and ‘return on investment’ in the same paragraph. You’re not describing art, you’re describing an industry.
People will draw pictures with charcoal out of a fire because they feel the compulsion to make art. People who want to make art will make art even if the world is burning. AI tools are not going to kill art.
But, like every technological innovation, AI tools will reduce the number of people in the industry. This happens with all technology. Yes, it’s disruptive and displaces a lot of workers who need to work to earn a living. This is just a fact of the situation we are in, it is not something that you’re going to stop by trying to convince people to not use the technology.
You can’t put this back in the bottle when anyone with an undergraduate understanding of linear algebra and a python interpreter can create new image generation models on a whim. A few TB of images and a few weeks of a single GPU’s time will train a model.
What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
Sure, I agree with that in broad strokes.
That doesn’t mean that I’m going to get angry on the Internet that people are using computers in their business. Or driving cars instead of hiring a horse a buggy team, or eating food from a grocery store instead of driving a plow in their own fields.
Technology moves forward and we have to deal with the consequences. Look at ways that we can deal with the consequences if you want to actually make a difference. It is a waste of time to think that you’re going to shame the entire world into not using this technology that we’ve discovered.
strawman
Are you just using that word ironically because I said it or are you actually unable to identify the fallacy that’s being used or do you need people to write /s for you to understand sarcasm?
Maybe you should ask the AI to read comments to you if you’re unable to comprehend basic written English. Here, since your confederates are similarly unable to read I’ve already asked an AI to explain for you:
You’re murdering that strawman, bud.
You’re attacking the AI bubble, and investments in the services side of things that exceed the revenue that they’re producing. Yeah, the investment in LLMs that NVIDIA is the center of are dumb and a bubble.
The topic of the post, top comment and my reply is about the experimenting with AI in pilot programs. The post is full of people attacking Take-Two for trying AI, which is what I’m replying to.
You’re over here attacking AI companies for investing in a technology that nobody is using (other than Take-Two, apparently) as if that argument has anything to do with the topic at all.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
The post button did you dirty.
So why aren’t EGS exclusives, which only takes a 12% cut and the dev of such exclusives also get a massive monetary incentive to be exclusive to the platform from Epic, not any cheaper than their contemporaries on any other marketplace? 🤔
I don’t know, I can only speculate. EGS makes a lot of decisions where they lose money on purpose in order to try to grow their business so their practices don’t always fit neatly into a simple economics model. For example, giving away games for free isn’t a rational business decision on the face, but they’ve decided that the future benefits will outweigh the costs.
If I had to guess a single reason. I would say that this is likely because AAA games have all essentially coalesced around specific price points. If a game is selling for 59.99 everywhere, then you’d certainly try to sell your game for 59.99 also. If you’re selling with 12% fees ($52.80/unit) and they’re selling with 30% fees ($42/unit) then your company is making more money and you’re in a more favorable position should the competition try to lower prices to take your market share.
Selling for less than the market prices wouldn’t make sense and the market price for all of this is primarily based on how Steam operates. Since Steam is the largest distributor, all price decisions are going to be primarily based on a market where prices include the 30% fee because the largest volume of, most, games’ sales are through Steam.
This lawsuit may not go anywhere, but there is no world where we, the consumer, are hurt by Steam being challenged on their pricing model. The only outcomes here are pro-consumer and pro-indy developer (the people most price sensitive and so most affected by these fees as a percentage of total revenue).
Maybe, but this doesn’t hurt the customer, this hurts the people wanting the profits, mostly the game publishers.
Trying to argue that adding a 30% tariff to a good doesn’t cause the price to go up is nonsense. It is basic economics that a good which costs more will need to sell for more than a good that costs less.
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to geopolitics, but this argument has already played out in the real world and to the surprise of nobody, raising costs via tariffs raise the costs to the end consumer.
Your games cost more because of fees like this.
This price pressure freezes out smaller developers who, if they didn’t need to pay 30% of their gross revenue in fees, would otherwise have been able to run a successful business. Those small developers, which don’t exist, are not making games and that means less variety in the market places and more domination by the large AAA developers.
I read the article and I’m not sure what I’m missing.
Their claim is that Valve’s practices, such as the 30% platform fee are anti-competitive. The winners of the lawsuit would be the class of ‘People who have purchased games from Steam’ and the money that the lawsuit recovers would be paid to the class members.
I can’t see the downside of possibly winning some money and having cheaper games on Steam.
The point in hiding it was that it was being used, without harassment or complaint, right up until he added attribution which resulted in an avalanche of complaints which require resources to deal with. Discord, the forums and Github pull requests now require much more moderation labor, which takes away from the project.
People had no complaints about the code quality until he started adding AI attribution. So he removed the attribution.
Like he said, if people can’t tell the difference until he started marking the code AI assisted… then they don’t actually have an argument and are simply bringing anti-AI politics into the project.