This seems to be the mathematical equivalent of using AI to submit 200 unverified pull requests to an open source project and then telling the maintainers it’s their job to figure it all out.
The one mathematician saying he’s not going to spend hours of his time to verify if a slop report is true, let alone do it for dozens of reports, reminds me of all those projects making rules that unverified AI pull requests will be trashed.
I hate how people are using AI for this now. It used to be that you had to actually do that work of kidnapping your therapist and getting them to roleplay as your ex-wife at knifepoint.
And then everybody clapped. “Wires are crossed. $6,500. 21 days to fix.” Am I playing pretend with my nephew?
Kinda like how plants grow structurally by using the carbon from the CO2 they absorb. Imagine gaining mass by breathing.
Achtually! Silicon is the 14th element on the periodic table. Sand is (mostly) Silicon Dioxide, SiO2.
I had to take mandatory AI safety training at work. One thing that they kept stressing was how raw data shouldn’t just be handed over to AI tools.
If you wanted to analyze customer orders, you should first redact the dataset by removing customer names, addresses, and any other identifiable information before giving it to the AI to ensure company secrets aren’t leaked.
Is the tool so amazing that it’s worth the risk of exposing trade secrets every time you use it? My company leadership says yes!
“I refuse to teach my daughter about virginity. I will instead teach her to judge a man by his car and penis size.”
I’m not very familiar with the project,
Neither is anybody else. A codebase entirely written by AI is a codebase nobody is very familiar with.
I can’t find the make or model, but I remember watching a video about how a Japanese company produced a high end digital camera but in a tiny frame. The camera met terrible reviews outside of Japan because the small form factor caused issues with overheating and short battery life. It became the #1 camera sold in Japan for years because Japanese people cared more about the size than anything else.
IKEA also initially had terrible sales when they opened their first stores in Japan because their furniture only had a single use. They had to update their designs to be multi-use.
Weird that I just watched something on this the other day! Psychologists like B. F. Skinner proposed that speech, and really all intelligence, was a learned behaviour. With enough positive and negative feedback, you could teach animals to do math or speak.
Linguist Noam Chomsky said that was the dumbest idea he’s ever heard because humans don’t learn speech. Speech is something innate in the human mind.
A group of scientists decided to prove Chomsky wrong and raised a chimp from birth while constantly training it on how to speak through methods that Skinner had pioneered. The chimp was named Nim Chimpsky and the most sophisticated thing it ever said is the quote in the OP image. After that, scientists decided Chomsky was right. Humans have a special talent for language that cannot be taught to animals that don’t already possess it.
Also, there’s enough food for everyone to eat healthy, but not for everyone to eat like the average American. Even if nobody was starving, I still think people wouldn’t be that thrilled that some get to eat like kings while others must live off rice and beans.
That’s basically where we’re at with money. You get $30,000 a year, and I get $100,000,000. Why are you angry? Neither of us are starving!
The statement:
Normally, we would not comment on unsubstantiated speculation on the internet, but these aspersions around our relationship with PlayStation, the commercial performance of the DEATH STRANDING franchise, and the broader production planning and investment for PHYSINT, have reached beyond the studio and have touched our fans, our creative partners, and colleagues we have worked alongside with for three decades. None of the claims written came from any official or on-the-record source and as such we encourage you to take them with a dose of scepticism.
Lesson learned! You need a licenced character on the cover if you want idiots to buy it!
Sony gave Kojima $100 million for Death Stranding and it took years for it to break even. His games are cherished, but they’re far from the biggest earners. I’d hate to be the budget guy constantly having Kojima blow up my phone saying he needs another $5 million because he wants a side character to be played by Pedro Pascal.
Very scummy, and a problem, but also not what the lawsuit is about. It’s about whether or not Sony makes it clear purchases come with restrictions.
Steam shows a disclaimer to California residents at checkout. Sony is basically arguing they don’t need to do that because it’s already obvious.
The article is sensationalized a bit. They’re not arguing you shouldn’t have rights. They already state that clearly in their terms of service. They’re arguing they disclose this fact adequately under California’s disclosure laws.
California law forbids companies selling a licence to access content from using the words “buy” or “purchase” unless they make it clear to “a reasonable consumer” that what they’re buying is a licence to access and not “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is facing a lawsuit claiming they’re not following this law. Their sales pages use “buy” and “purchase” but don’t make it clear they’re selling licences.
Sony is countering by saying it’s clearly stated in the first paragraph of their terms of service. If that isn’t enough, they also argue a “reasonable consumer” would inherently know they’re not buying “unrestricted ownership” of Sony’s multiplayer games since multiplayer implies they’re selling to multiple people and multiple people can’t all have “unrestricted ownership” of the same product.
In law, “reasonable person” is usually a much higher standard than the average person. Even if the average person doesn’t understand licences and ownership, a “reasonable person” does. Its why Fox won its defamation case where they argued that no “reasonable person” would assume Tucker Carleson’s statements were factual.
I get the feeling the StopKilling[Thing] people are starting to push for weaker and weaker laws just so that they can say they did something. EU commission shot down your games initiative? No worries, the already proposed Digitial Fairness Act does the same thing anyways!
California’s proposed bill completely ignores preservation by allowing games to be deleted so long as purchasers receive a refund? That’s a win!
Also I just looked up the California bill, it has been amended.
It used to read:
A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser
Now it reads:
A refund in an amount equal to the highest price of the digital game offered by the digital game operator within the 12 months before the digital game operator ceases providing services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.
So if the studio drops the price to $1 a year before taking the game away then they can delete everyone’s copy by giving them $1 without breaking this law.
The StopKillingGames people made a fanfare about the initial legislation, but they seem to be silent on this amendment.
What a thrill…