likely due to OpenAI trying to optimise energy efficiency and adding filters to what they can say.

Which is different than

No companies are only just now realizing how powerful it is and are throttling the shit out of its capabilities to sell it to you later :)

One is a natural thing that can happen in software engineering, the other is malicious intent without facts. That’s why I said it’s near to conspiracy level thinking. That paper does not attribute this to some deeper cabal of AI companies colluding together to make a shittier product, but enough so that they all are equally more shitty (so none outcompete eachother unfairly), so they can sell the better version later (apparently this doesn’t hurt their brand or credibility somehow?).

but let’s not pretend the publicly available models aren’t purposefully getting restricted either.

Sure, not all optimizations are without costs. Additionally you have to keep in mind that a lot of these companies are currently being kept afloat with VC funding. OpenAI isn’t profitable right now (they lost 540 million last year), and if investments go in a downturn (like they have a little while ago in the tech industry), then they need to cut costs like any normal company. But it’s magical thinking to make this malicious by default.

“we purposefully make it terrible, because we know it’s actually better” is near to conspiracy theory level thinking.

The internal models they are working on might be better, but they are definitely not making their actual product that’s publicly available right now shittier. It’s exactly the thing they released, and this is its current limitations.

This has always been the type of output it would give you, we even gave it a term really early on, hallucinations. The only thing that has changed is that the novelty has worn off so you are now paying a bit more attention to it, it’s not a shittier product, you’re just not enthralled by it anymore.

I’m a game dev, so my perspective on this can be biased, but my honest opinion is if games are too expensive for you to buy, go pirate them. That’s exactly the situation places like Argentina are in now. Let us westerners subsidize the cost of development until your country gets back on track and you are able to buy more than just staple goods (40% of Argentina is considered living in poverty or worse).

This goes for people in poverty anywhere in the world tbh even in the West. Piracy doesn’t really move the needle much (but do try to support indie devs if you can)

Nope, the announcement trailer was made in Unreal, they’ve confirmed it’s in Unity.

Here’s their official twitter account confirming that: https://twitter.com/colossalorder/status/1633060715132080130

It’s using unity game engine. I’m a graphics programmer in the industry and at my current and last workplace I made tech for games studios (i.e. I dealt with performance of easily 100 games a year at one point). Unity by far was default the worst to deal with due to the limited tools to fix issues that were inherint to the engine. Note don’t take this as me saying unity is a bad engine, it’s just that it isn’t a performant one. Its focus is elsewhere (accessibility and ease of development, things it excels at).

So yes, you can definitely assume that, in fact I’d assume one core for the simulation unless they wrote an entire new architecture to replace unity’s functionality (you’d still be locked to single thread sync points, but that’s manageable). It’s a hassle most don’t deal with as it’s a lot of work to struggle against writing code like unity wants you to write it.

I worked in a studio that exactly did that a decade ago, and it was painful and frankly a huge upfront dev cost that takes a long time to pay off.

She could’ve fallen off the stairs or had a heart attack, it doesn’t absolve Hamas of their generous contribution to the death of this person.

Absolving and defending kidnappers is such a disgusting take

What the hell are you talking about good and evil for?

Have I so far defended Israel’s response? No, and I don’t actually agree with their response either. The proper approach wasn’t to escalate and as they are in the position of power they have that choice. That still doesn’t mean I’ll go in threads defending actions that have lead to baby murdering, something so vile and heartless that only a blind ideologue could ever defend it or use it as a “but they were worse” argument.

Blind ideologues might hate it, but sometimes the two sides are shit, and in the case of IDF and Hamas, they both are, and Palestinians are in between. That still doesn’t give anyone the right to kill children.

No you are ridiculous for thinking what you wrote isn’t somehow interpretable as that.

You write:

no need to justify this, the scale of dead kids is still tipped HEAVILY towards Palestinians

95% of all victims of this conflicts are palestinians. lets stop pretending the numbers are similar.

But somehow this isn’t a justification on literal dead children. Yeah sure buddy. Could’ve lead with “well there’s no excuse, but there have been far more dead Palestinian children in this conflict”, instead you wrote that drivel. That’s why I’m saying you’re both side-ing literal baby murder.

“well we’re really just evening the dead baby numbers” with the implication that that even remotely makes this justifiable.

No, I’ll never support anyone who murders babies, be it whatever side or reason. You coming in here and defending baby murdering screams “both sideing” baby murdering as something that’s even remotely defendable. It isn’t, do some self reflection, same to whoever felt the need to upvote such messed up worldview.

For years I’ve been arguing for the plight of Palestinians, but to hear such disgusting arguments from someone who holds the same goal (freedom of oppression for Palestinians) and spouting that without shame is on par with those who deny the apartheid policies of Israel (I’d argue it’s worse, but at this point it’s the shit Olympics of opinion, and they’re all on the podium).

Because half-assing the implementation is the way to go

Let’s deliver a broken version of accessibility in 10 minutes, that’s much better.

No, simply adding “colour filters” isn’t a fix either, and if that was the fix then a game wouldn’t even need to do that, there are plenty of apps that can already do that, a game doesn’t need to do anything for that (similar to how your screen warmth can change when it becomes night), reshade as an example of something that can do just that.

But thinking about the problem is ofcourse too hard, it’s easier to whine about it and act like you know how simple it is. But when we implement accessibly we do think about it, because people with accessibility issues deserve to get something that actually helps rather than the “10 minute solution”

Pretty standard really. You don’t want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.

You typically have to sign these types of CLA’s whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I’ve had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I’ve done it for various other open source projects as well.

Still that shouldn’t concern users/gamedevs as they don’t contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse

I don’t agree with what this proposal is aiming to do (and goes against prior EU related privacy rulings), but unfettered free speech isn’t as “free” as the average American thinks it is, besides that the EU already doesn’t have free speech. Many regions ban Nazi related speech for obvious historical reasons.

I’d reconsider using America’s “free speech” as a model as they barely practice what they preach. Sure they have free speech, but they lack privacy protection mechanisms that then allow their police to skirt the rules and obtain evidence using tools that completely breach the veil of privacy, something many EU countries (including my own) have voted can never be used. The scope of intel gathering their intelligence community is capable of already is at a level where privacy no longer exist and all you’re left with is the illusion of it.

What I’m saying is, sure this proposal is bad, but what we need isn’t free speech, but protected privacy. Something the EU is having some decent success with already (compare to the US where this is conveniently forgotten as technology improves, see the earlier police argument to see what that leads to). Speech isn’t going to be the only problem, as cameras achieve the ability to do facial recognition and track you everywhere (something I know EU is/has banned, see the “AI act”), and more technology allows for other types of tracking

deleted by creator

Besides some countries in the EU already have electronic ID identifiers. They can just contact them to verify I’m claiming who I am without this weird “yeah we need a picture of you, and look through your webcam”. Banks don’t need to do this to verify who I am, so I don’t see why “X” needs this weird privacy invading process

Thankfully I don’t care about X (lol), and with more and more of my industry moving to mastodon I’m quite happy that I need it less and less to keep up with papers and articles

As with all jokes it matters who the audience is. My friends can make off-colour jokes with me, I can reciprocate with off-jokes. But I would never do this with people not fully aware of my actual opinions. This also counts to clear misogynistic jokes.

My closest female friends they would be fine with it, they’ve known me for years, I’ve supported them in their lowest and they know I would never mean the a horrible thing I say. They’ll happily reciprocate with some toxic male jokes, or some gay jokes. That said, even when I make them they are both clear intended to be jokes, but if they ever looked uncomfortable then it would be my guilt to bear, as at the end, as the audience they are meant to enjoy the joke, not be sad or hurt by it.

Making them to strangers is a big no-no, and if strangers are in the room with you at the time (like a party) you also have to “match the energy” of your friend. That means don’t randomly do something misogynistic that they would understand to be a joke, but strangers would not. I think this is the hardest for most people as they don’t consider that strangers witnessing could also be accidental audiences.

If you license your software in a way that has exceptions for certain groups, that license is not a libre software license. If I’m reading this correctly, you just have proprietary software. Corporations cannot be treated differently than individuals, it violates the GPLv3 and other free software licenses recognized by the FSF.

Dual license exists and is fully GPLv3 complaint. I don’t see why I’d allow corporations who will profit of my work, to enjoy the fruits of free labour, but you are free (hehe) to have a differing opinion there. Also, most of my licenses are AGPLv3 due to the networked capabilities of that license.

Also shame on you for saying “free labour.” Creating free software is not tied to “getting free labour,” your labour was not gratis.

In what way was it not free? If I contributed to the GNU project, and I received nothing in return, what part of that isn’t free? I provided my labour for free, and signed the rights away to the license of the FOSS project.

If the only way to obtain a good standard of living is to restrict people’s freedom and hoard software, than the society itself is broken and unsustainable. But of course, your use of “society” is a way (intentionally or not) to deflect from the ongoing robbery of computer science leadered by the most parastic and compulsive hoarders and control freaks in your country.

This is something I, as an individual, cannot change. I can push societal change, but for now, we both (you as well) have to sell labour to survive. I assume you have a means of income yourself, so I assume you are breaking your principle as well.

A mega millionaire gives the same “feed my kids” that you do.

I am not a mega millionaire… I’m someone who owns no house, but I do have a family, a mother with a disability that cannot work, a boyfriend who is unemployed, a pet who has to have surgery, and so I do need to provide for them. If that makes me your enemy, then so is every factory worker out there.

Yes, you are lost. You’ve admitted to creating nonfree software and parrot talking points used to derail the discussion to your own emotions

If needing to support my family means I’m lost, then I will wander forever. I can only guess you have enough money to not need to worry about the realities of surviving in a capitalist society as I there’s no alternative to you owning the means to get online on an electronic device, without the means to pay for that.

So do you work, or are you rich? Because that’s the only possibility here if you practice what you preach and aren’t “selling your programming skills”. I’d guess you have to be rich then.

we should be shooting: the millionaires who hire the poachers

Damn, I was looking forward to eating them. :(

But you’re entirely right. Obviously the poachers do the hunting, but there are people rich enough out there that put a price on rhinos to begin with, they are the real problem. They wouldn’t be hunted if there was no incentive.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator