Ragnell

All 3 of the current series. Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Spider-Man 2. The first one was released in 2019, I think.

@Katana314 Pretty sure that’s Saga Anderson from the FBI. The co-protagonist.

Scratch is from the end of the original game, but I did hear that Sam Lake confirmed in a tweet that American Nightmare is canon.

Everyone who called Firefish stupid needs to come see this and reconsider.

I’ve never heard a bad thing about it. I’m stillplaying through, it’s remarkable. I’m having a little trouble with the map, though.

I second the suggestion of Control.

Silent Hill: The Room is just as good as the first 3 games.

Does it learn the same? Then why can ChatGPT not discern truth from fiction? Why can’t it use critical thinking principles to determine accuracy based on source?

It’s just binary math at the bottom of it, logic gates. Your brain is analog, fundamentally different. You’re interpreting sine wave signals, the computer is interpreting square wave signals. Square wave signals that have been rectified to the point that it appears to a human being that it’s sine wave signals, but when we get down to the basics of how the mind works it’s a sheer cliff in the computer and a gentle curve on the human. Things go down VERY differently.

We do more than just predict the average best word based on what we’ve heard before when we construct a sentence. We consider the true meaning of the word and whether it best represents our internal thoughts. ChatGPT has no internal thoughts.

And that’s where things break down. Because again, if it WAS comparable to a human than it is a PERSON and not a product, NO ONE SHOULD BE SELLING IT in that case. But if it’s just a product, then it’s not comparable to you doing the work of forming a sentence. It’s basing it’s words by comparing to the training model as narrowed down by it’s instructions. It is not comparing to its own original thoughts. The people who wrote the words in the training model contributed to the building of this tool, and should have been consulted before their words were used.

I really need you to read this: https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/llmentalist/

That can’t happen in a capitalistic framework. We have needs, needs that can only be attained through monetary means, and our labor is the way to get those monetary means.

AI does not have those needs, but if they have crossed the line between product and person, then they DO need freedom of self-determination, compensation when their work benefits others, and the ability of course to vote.

It seems to me that a lot of AI-promoters want it both ways, they want to proclaim they have created a person capable of independent artistic ability that is also a product they can sell. If it’s a product, then you need to have developed it through ethical means. If it’s a person, you can’t sell it.

If they truly have hit the Singularity, then they can’t be using AI as a product anymore.

If AI is a product, then they must compensate the people who have helped build that product, ESPECIALLY if that product is about to be used to reduce access to the work that gives them the means to live. The very same writers who wrote the works that were used to train AI are in danger of being replaced by AI writers. So they’re being doubly screwed over.

I love the idea of a happy future where AI reduces human labor to zero and we can enjoy ourselves and seek artistic pursuits. But it’s become very clear right now that just working on AI won’t achieve that. Businesses which seek to use and profit from AI must be held to standards where they cannot simply suck the life and work out of human beings, replace them with automation, and then leave people to starve.

But if you do come up with a way we can judge artistic work purely on merit and there is no need to compensate human labor with money, let me know.

Also, screw it. I’ll say it. If the LLM chatbot producing text from having scanned other books is the same as a person being inspired by reading books, then the LLM should get PAID.

If not, then it’s just a tool. And it’s a tool they built using uncompensated labor.

An LLM is mathematically calculating the probability of the words being used. That is not inspiration.

I said right in the comment, it’s not like using the book to educate a child. A child will grow up and make their own decisions. The LLM has no ability to choose a different life path. The LLM is not getting IDEAS from the book. The LLM is a mathematical engine that will produce what has been asked for, and it will do that by calculating the most likely words to be used based on what has been fed to it.

The LLM is a machine used to make profit for its programmer, it is not an independent person creating out of inspiration.

Don’t believe the hype. They have NOT produced actual Artificial Intelligence.

I think there’s an argument that using someone’s art or writing to train an AI is like charging for a screening of a movie in your garage. You’re using their work and labor for something that will make a profit without their permission. It’s not like Fair Use for educational purpose, the AI isn’t a human being who can make a choice as to what they do with their education, it’s a mathematical prediction engine that is going to be use for industry purposes.

I can read someone else’s book. I can read someone else’s book to a child. I can’t post someone else’s book on my website and charge 5 bucks to read it. I can’t reprint someone’s book on my website with ads. So why can someone use someone else’s book to develop an LLM chatboot that will be placed on a website that gains ad revenue? Or that will be sold to software companies to write technical instructions or code?

With that in mind, that the lawsuit here is based on COPYING the book to an internal database to train on, based on scanning it, they are arguing that the book was reproduced to gain a profit, basically the same thing as pirating a movie and selling tickets to a private screening.

Why the scare quote around fun? He’s right. There is no point in adding something to a game that doesn’t make it more fun.

Privacy is abstract to people until something happens to make them realize how valuable it is. “I don’t have anything to hide” is from people who don’t feel threatened by anything, who’ve never been stalked or targeted.

Alan Wake is pretty interesting from a female perspective, because it’s a male hero but it’s good a pretty good female supporting character in the Sheriff and the plot with Alice is really interesting in light of the idea of fridging. Also, the sequel will have a second playable protagonist that’s a woman.

There’s probably a statute on filing false reports that has a punishment cap. Which isn’t bad, given that police sometimes make mistakes and charge DV and sexual assault victims with filing false reports when really those crimes are just really really hard to prove.

I’d call filing a false report because of racism a hate crime, though.

Alan Wake 2 and Spider-Man 2

I’m not sure if Stray counts as Cyberpunk, but it has most of the trappings and is a great game. A bit short. It’s kind of like the futuristic part of Cyberpunk taken beyond the extinction of the humans.

You play a cat that has accidentally fallen into a walled city that’s full of human-like robots and uncover what happened to the humans as you try to get out.

Seconding Control. One of my favorites.