that would most certainly make for an interesting experience.

nice instance btw

uh no, i think the point would be that it’s a scary game. This isn’t a fucking beavis bacon teaches you typing simulator game.

yeah that sounds like the internet to me

im sorry the what was recommend and the what was hyped for the who?

Having a whole team watch you pretend to have sex is not okay, what the hell.

the problem here is the consent and awareness, not the actual scene. It should be entirely illegal to approach production like this.

ok so like, is video game acting like the worst field on earth, could you not just, refuse to do this? Seems like a fully reasonable thing to do to me.

idk if that would be sexual assault. It’s certainly not great though.

i was confused for a minute, as to why actors for video games cared, considering like, it’s a video game. Thinking it was voice acting or something.

It wasn’t.

funny, huh?

In another comment you say yourself they are not developing games.

i did?

If you’re talking about the comparison to a triple A game studio, yeah they aren’t a triple A game studio, they aren’t making a fucking witcher 4. This is like comparing fucking BMW to some guy who creates gokarts in his spare time because he thinks it’s fun.

Regardless, an indie game team of about 3 people can produce a really good game. I’m surprised you seem to think valve isn’t more than a small indie team managing more than one game.

Every game ever is missing a working anticheat. They’re probably not doing large content releases because their busy working on the fucking anticheat :)

its a little more than an engine update, and you’re forgetting that a game engine is like 80% of the game itself.

It also updates maps, and map textures, which is another like 10% of the game, and the rest would be like, actual gameplay, which CS players don’t want to change, and uh, i believe they did.

Even when they did make games (portal) for example, they literally contracted a uni team that was making it for a project.

ok well this is just wrong.

HLA definitely counts, and CS2 IS the current game their working on and making.

HLA was also an extrememly popular game.

a non game development company not developing games is smaller than a game development company that develops games?

That’s weird…

markdown formatting is weird bruh, sometimes it adds spaces, sometimes it removes them sometimes it just fucking yeets newlines, sometimes it adds them, what a weird “standard”

2048. Though im sure that one has ads. Probably depends on what you grab from the internet, as usual.

Mobile games suck.

No, it really isn’t.

i would consider it such, you said as much in your original post that the entire crux of the issue is the semantics between a real photograph, as physically taken by the camera, and what could be considered an image, whatever that constitutes, for purposes of semantical arguments here, let’s say digitally drawn art, clip art, whatever doesn’t matter. It’s objectively not a photo, and that’s what matters here.

The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

Yeah so the reason why the thought experiment does this is because it creates an incredibly sterile environment which allows us to easily study and research the question at hand. In this case it’s to boil it down to something as physically close to “objective relation” and “symbolic relation” I.E. the two extremes of the thought experiment at hand. It’s still not easy to define what the true answer to the question is, and that’s why it’s incredibly sterile.

The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

this is not what i was making my statement about. If you read my original comment you might pickup on this one.

Disagree.

yes ok, and this is what my thought experiment comparison was about in this case. The specific thing i was asking you was how we define a photo, and how we define an image, because what would normally be constituted as a photo, could arguably be considered to be an image on account of the various levels of image manipulation taking place.

While rather nitpicky in essence i suppose, the point i’m making here was that your entire statement might be upended entirely based on the fact that the original photo used, may not even be a photo at all, making the entire distinction entirely redundant to begin with. Since you never defined what counts as a “photo” and what counts as an “image” there is no clear distinction between that, other than the assumed AI image manipulation that you talked about. Which like i said, most phones do.

In short, i don’t think it’s a very good way of conceptualizing the fundamental problem here because it’s rather loose in it’s requirements. If you wanted to argue that the resulting imagery simply is not akin to actual real imagery (in a literal sense), i see no reason to disagree. However, unfortunately the general populous does not care about the semantic definition of whether or not an image is a photo or not. So as far as most people are concerned, it’s either “deep faked” or “real” There is no alternative.

Legally, since we’d be talking about revenge porn and CP here, i don’t see a reason to differentiate between the semantics, because as far as the law is concerned, and as far as most of the general public is concerned. Someone deep faking revenge porn is arguably, still just revenge porn. While AI generated CP may not be real CP, marrying a 12 year old is legal in some places, it’d still be fucking weird if you did it. If you are creating AI CP, that’s pretty fucking weird, and there isn’t exactly a good argument for doing that. (ignoring the one obvious counter example)

yeah idk why they said that, it’s objectively wrong.

Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

this is explicitly, untrue, they literally do. You are just factually wrong about this. While it may not be in the training data, how do you think it manages to replace the face of someone in one picture, with the face of someone else in some other video.

Do you think it just magically guesses? No, it literally uses a real picture of someone. In fact, back in the day with ganimation and early deepfake software, you literally had to train these AIs on pictures of the person you wanted it to do a faceswap on. Remember all those singing deepfakes that were super popular back a couple of years ago? Yep, those literally trained on real pictures.

Regardless, you are still ignoring my point. My question here was how do we consider AI content to be “not photo” but consider photos manipulated numerous times, through numerous different processes, which are quite literally, not the original photo, and a literal “photo” to rephrase it simpler for you, and other readers. “why is ai generated content not considered to be a photo, when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”

You seem to have missed the entire point of my question entirely. And simply said something wrong instead.

Yes it is semantics

no, it’s not, this is a ship of thesseus premise here. The semantics results in how we contextualize and conceptualize things into word form. The problem is not semantics (they are just used to convey the problem at hand), the problem is a philosophical conundrum that has existed for thousands of years.

in fact, if we’re going by semantics here, technically photograph is rather broad as it literally just defines itself as “something in likeness of” though it defines it as taken by method of photography. We could arguably remove that part of it, and simply use it to refer to something that is a likeness of something else. And we see this is contextual usage of words, a “photographic” copy is often used to describe something that is similar enough to something else, that in terms of a photograph, they appear to be the same thing.

Think about scanning a paper document, that would be a photographic copy of some physical item. While it is literally taken via means of photography. In a contextual and semantic sense, it just refers to the fact that the digital copy is photographically equivalent to the physical copy.

yeah but we’re also talking about something that quite literally never happened, it was all manufactured, and while i don’t want to downplay the effects of that.

This is probably the best time ever to start being an e slut because you can just say it was deep faked and people don’t exactly have a reason to disagree with you.

Also while trauma is permanent, i would also like to remind you that every life experience you have throughout your life is also permanent, it cannot be changed, it cannot be undone, it cannot be revoked. You simply have to live with it. The only thing that changes your experiences and memories around it, is how you handle it internally.

I would probably be more compassionate with you if we were literally talking about revenge porn, or whatever the correct stipulation would be here, i’m not sure, i don’t exactly fuck people on the regular so i’m not really qualified here lmao.

But like i said, this is just AI generated. Everyone knows about AI now, how many people do you think are going to hear that and go “yeah that makes sense” probably most of them. Highschoolers might be a bit more unreasonable, but nothing changes the fact that they simply aren’t real. You just have to do your best to dissociate yourself from that alternate reality where they are, because they quite literally, are not.

some people would consider it to be traumatic, others wouldn’t. I wouldn’t give a shit either way, i might even further the rumors because i think it would be funny. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Not when you ruin someone else’s life.

we are literally talking about an image that was made out of thin air, the description of “ruining someones life” is fucking absurd considering the very real alternative in this case.

I don’t think maturity is an explicit thing in a binary form, i would be ok with the presumption that the age of 18 provides a general expected range of maturity between individuals, it’s when you start to develop your world view and really pick up on the smaller things in life and how they work together to make a functional system.

I think the idea of putting a “line” on it, is wrong, i think it’s better to describe it “this is generally what you expect from this subset”

People that want everyone to be OK with nudity and in most cases diddling kiddo’s. Same arguments, almost verbatim, have been used in the map-sphere.

you say this like they’re saying that children have to be naked in order to be outside legally. The point they were making is that the primary reason half of what you said was a significant concern is due explicitly to our current social climate and it’s values. While not fully relevant, they still made a point, and considering how bad your argumentative rhetoric is, i’d say it’s a fair shot at something you said, considering you didn’t have much else to say other than accusing someone of being a pedophile i guess.

We have been able to see faces since forever and people are still mocked for having faces that don’t fit the popular norms. Your argument is flawed.

i have vitiligo on my face, have yet to be mocked for it. People only ask about it respectfully.

People still have the right to privacy.

actually, no you don’t. Very few places have legal protections for privacy, both online, and physically, if you go outside in most states in the US you’re being trained on some sort of crime stopping AI dataset somewhere

All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?

and by the time they’re 18 and moving on to college, or whatever they’re probably busy not fucking worrying about whatever happened in high school, because at the end of the day you have two options here:

be a miserable fuck. try to be the least miserable fuck you can, and do something productive.

Generally people pick the second option.

And besides, at the end of the day, it’s literally not real, none of this exists. It’s better than having your nudes leaked. Should we execute children who spread nudes of other children now? That’s a far WORSE crime to be committing, because now that shit is just out there, and it’s almost definitely on the internet, AND IT’S REAL.

Seems to me like you’re unintentionally nullifying the consequences of actual real CSAM material here.

Is my comment a little silly and excessive? Yes, that was my point. It’s satire.

It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best

absolutely, all of the material out there for marketing is digitally manipulated by a human to some degree. And if it isn’t then honestly, i don’t know what you’re using AI image generation for lmao.

They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.

most phone cameras alter the original image with AI shit now, it’s really common, they apply all kinds of weird correction to make it look better. Plus if it’s social media there’s probably a filter somewhere in there. At what point does this become the ship of thesseus?

my point here, is that if we’re arguing that AI images are semantically, not photos, than most photos on the internet including people would also arguably, not be photos to some degree.

it would be material of and or containing child sexual abuse in it.

i believe in the US for all intents and purposes, it is, especially if it was sourced from a minor, because you don’t really have an argument against that one.

why do i get the gut feeling that this is going to be an utter clusterfuck of a mess.

Hopefully i’m wrong.

that would make sense.

God speed GOG.

the fact that gog is even in business is impressive to me.

You mean to tell me you can actually make money and run a successful company by just, respecting the customers? And giving them what they want? Even in late stage capitalism?

we don’t deserve GOG.

it’s ironic, that’s kind of the joke.

The humorous part of the statement is not the fact that the dev doesn’t care, but the fact that the dev who doesn’t care is portrayed as this “gigachad” individual. The gigachad part here is literally not being THE gigachad.

There is also an argument to be made that if enough people pirate it, a significant enough number of people will then buy it after the fact to support the devs, thus negating the piracy that happened to begin with.

average GOG enjoyer. At least, i would hope so, given that you pay for games. Though to be fair not a lot of indie studios release on GOG. They really should though.

i wasnt even aware they had a partnership prior to this, that’s really cool actually. Hopefully that goes somewhere.

idk man, gog already has it pretty fucking good. Maybe it’s not as nice as steam, but DRM free games that just fucking work is about as good as you’re going to get really.

That fact that i can just stuff terabytes of games i own onto a disk and then fuck off is awesome. BTW, if you want a good gog interface, i’ve been using heroic games launcher for a bit with epic, it’s pretty good, do recommend it.

calling out is fine, being called is the problem.

yall actually use the call function?

Why?