Everyone’s talking about the mad cow part, but this is also a really excellent point:
“Some of these people trying to define the future of humanity, creativity, or whatever it is using AI, are not the most humane or creative people. So they’re sort of saying, ‘We’re better at being human than you are.’ It’s obviously not true.”
Humanity and creativity are not on the CEO’s resumeé. Making shareholders happy by increasing profits and padding the CEO’s ego certainly is.
i’m still convinced the only reason they’re pushing it so hard is to invalidate their Kompromat….
we’re already at the point where people don’t believe videos they don’t like.Well, he isn’t wrong.
…while his multibillion dollar company is union busting.
He left Rockstar a few years ago.
Did I say he was union busting? Read the English. He started Rockstar.
So maybe he is a little more qualified to criticize Rockstar management for being “fully rounded”.
Was Rockstar unionized while he was there? No.
You might just be a bit of a dick.
I mean you said his, which is factually incorrect as it isn’t his.
Read the room bro and learn to take constructive criticism. It’s not a personal attack.
It’s not a personal attack
And I took that personally!
Please be a nice bubble and pop soon, AI.
Stupid question: if you think it’s a good idea but don’t know when the price will go up, you just buy stock and wait. But if you think it’s a bad idea and don’t know when the price will go down, is there any long-term alternative to shorting that doesn’t require betting on the date?
Yes, you can with derivatives: buy out-of-money puts.
Derivatives are financial instruments that pay out based on market movements. A classic example is crops: using derivatives, farmers can, essentially, “lock in” the price they sell their goods at. This allows them more stability, since they know in advance how much they’ll be paid for their crops. (And they’ll separately buy crop Insurance to cover their risk for crops failing, most likely.)
Puts are a derivative that is a contract for the right to buy an asset at a given price (the “strike price”) on a given date. Usually, these are closed out by paying the cash value at the end, not actually buying the stocks.
Out of money means that the strike price is below the current market price. If they are still out of money at the end of the contract term, they are literally worthless. But, if the underlying asset (like NVidea stock) crashes, then you can earn the difference between the strike price and the market price.
What makes this speculation* strategy effective is that the market usually prices in a low probability of a major price decrease, so they’re (relatively) cheap. They also have limited downside risk—at worst, you lose everything you spent buying them. For deeply out-of-money puts, you can make a lot of money with a huge crash, but most of the time you “just” lose all your money.
This contrasts with short selling where you have unlimited downside risk. With short selling, you’re basically borrowing someone else’s share and immediately selling it at the current market price, then you need to buy it back from the market when you close out the position. So if you sold it for $100, and need to buy it back at $1000, you’re royally fucked. (You won’t be allowed to get that far, though; you need to keep assets in your account to cover the cost, so you’d be forced to continually “pony up” more cash as the price rises, until you can’t make a payment and you’re forced to close out the position, losing all your initial money and all the money you were forced to keep adding as it rose.)
But good luck with that strategy; I imagine NVidea puts are pretty expensive right now since a lot of people are making this exact bet. As such, people issuing/selling puts are demanding a lot of money to pay for them taking on risk.
* This is “speculation”, not “investment”. Investment requires, by definition, capital put towards productive assets—in other words, it needs to be expected to return an income stream of some kind, like interest, profits, or dividend payments. Speculation is betting on the direction of price movement on an asset—“gambling”, effectively, but with fancy investment words. Like in the farmer example above, they’re gambling that prices won’t go up, since they won’t gain any of the benefit from rising prices. That type of speculation reduces risk—unlike what you are asking about.
There are other ways that derivatives can reduce risk, but that’s not what you were asking about here.
If you imagine it like making a bet, nobody’s going to take a bet with you where they pay you when it pops, but there’s no time after which you pay them – because they’d never get any money out of that bet. Buying stock is different because it’s a thing you can own, but you can’t invest in the idea of something failing, because there isn’t any business which will take your money and make something more likely to fail.
You could buy every stock except AI-related stocks, which I believe is functionally equivalent to buying an index fund and shorting AI stocks based on the percentage of AI stocks in the index fund. You could also think about what businesses would do well (or less poorly) in the case of an AI-instigated crash, and then buy those.
Stock market derivatives are essentially all betting. You won’t get someone to bet with no date to resolve the bet: after all, you might just hold on to it until you kick the bucket.
That’s a good question I dont have an answer to. Maybe there are ways to short where you can just hold, but I dont know how. Maybe there’s a way to borrow lots of RAM and GPUs, sell them, then buy them back when the price drops and sell them for cheap back to whom you borrowed. But I dont know who would make that deal.
You can hold a short position by repeatedly borrowing more stock – but you run the risk of running out of money completely, because short positions have (theoretically) infinite downside risk.
“So it’s sort of like when we fed cows with cows and got mad cow disease.” is an amazing analogy for the current state of LLMs.
Oh theses cows went wobbly, fell over and died, better feed them to our good stock to save money.
Yeah, the headline makes it sound like he’s insulting AI, but he’s just illustrating a fairly basic fact…
It isn’t – it is a completely populist comparison that can’t be used as a meaningful argument.
CEOs work by this very same principle: say what people want to hear, making their beliefs even stronger and thus increasing their craving to hear that statement again. Repeat until something breaks.
You know analogy and argument are not the same thing, right? Like, not at all. I’m not the guy you replied to, but I definitely did not get the impression he meant anything even close to “meaningful argument”.
And you know what? I think he’s right; that is a very apt analogy when taking about sophisticated bullshit generators. Cause that’s the version they keep trying to sell to the public. This isn’t about data analysis or any other if the creative scientific applications of this technology.
This isn’t about data analysis or any other if the creative scientific applications of this technology.
But this is the only thing that matters. Who cares how people who don’t know, care or capable of using some technology are actually using it? Ammonium nitrate is poisonous if you try to salt a soup with it, but it makes miracles in the hands of those who know how to use it (if you like analogies)
Cause that’s the version they keep trying to sell to the public.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that even in the USA it isn’t mandatory to buy everything that corporations sell.
Modern LLMs are very useful tools. Just some people try to smalltalk with it for some reason. Their right. Salting soup with nitrates is also their right.
Oh goddammit, you’re here. Move on to Lembot_0006 already, ya contrarian doofus.
Is that a user that is “unblockable” by dodging username blocks by iterating the name?
Yep, someone already joked that they picked 4 digits for their username so they have a failsafe for getting banned 9,998 times. That was at 0004.
If you look at their chat history it really explains it all tbh. I wonder if we could get this instance to defederate their account haven.
Ugh yet another Lemmy user desperate to make the LLMs like them. Go chat with your chatbot friends and leave humans alone mate.
Thanks Lembot.
the analogy perfectly describes model collapse.
While I like it as a simile, we didn’t feed cows to cows - we fed them sheep infected with scrapie, at least that’s the theory of how mad cow disease started. I say “we”, I wasn’t involved in the process, I just live here.
Mad cow disease is caused by prions from dead cow brains infecting the healthy brains of living cows. It’s kind of the cow equivalent of Kuru.
Those prions can also infect humans leading to Creutzfeld Jacob syndrome. Prions can also come from wild deer species and infect through venison.
I thought it wasn’t just any prions, but specific prions that replicate out of control after some time, depending on genetics. So cows were fed unclean bone meal from sheep and pigs and cows all mixed together, and they think some scrapie infected sheep spine/brain got in there and it spread to cows. Then it spread from there because we didn’t think cows could get it and even if they could we were pretty certain humans couldn’t get it. But we were wrong.
Yeah, pretty sure you’re right. Though I’ll admit I’ve forgotten much more than I know on the topic.
There is a natural incidence of prions in cows of one in a million, but we have herds this big now.
There’s natural incidence of prion disease in humans as well. I’m definitely not an expert and just remembering a video I watched a week or two ago. That the prions from different sources act differently.
Video I watched: Mad cow disease Also watched this one
Still a union buster
He left rockstar after red dead redemption II, partly because he was tired of dealing with those execs.
Tired of dealing with greed-flated, not fully rounded humans? I can relate.
He left with a shit ton of money.
So he’s going to rehire the visa dependent labourers RG fired?
The ones that were fired 5 years after he left R*? I mean, it’d be nice if he did, but is he really at fault here?
If some of these 35 visa dependent worked for more than 9 years, I am pretty sure he was there when they were exploited to work there. There’s no indication that these workers have less than a 5 year tenure.
fyigm, amirite?
How’s this a fyigm situation? He left 5 years before this particular thing happened, he had no say in it.
Now if he has actual need for these employees in his new company, I could see him hiring them there, but his new studio is in California and those employees were sacked in the UK, meaning they need a new job in the UK to keep living there. He also currently has fewer employees than the amount that R* fired. That’s how small that shop is.
His brother, however, is still an exec at Rockstar. He, along with the rest of R* and Take-Two leadership has a lot to answer for.
In my eyes it’s simple. His brother is not just an exec at rockstar, he’s the company president. They’re worth hundreds of millions of dollars and both have been in positions to shape company policy especially around labor conditions within their subsidiary.
I can all but promise that a union busting culture is not new. The influence they’ve had as upper executives cannot be minimal, as these guys have been the ones making the golden goose.
Odds are both houser brothers are sitting on loads of take two stock. Their performance bonuses have probably been more money than anyone on here will ever make in their lives, their kids’ lives, or their grandkids’ lives collectively with few if any exceptions. The crunch time issues of the past are absolutely a symptom of the disease: fyigm. Why pay anybody or treat anybody fairly when you can just keep your money?
I’m not saying others are not also to blame, but anyone who is in a top leadership post at an organization usually has a massive amount of discretion especially for those under them.
But even his brother is not top leadership at the organization. Any direct orders from their superiors at Take-two still take precedence over what Sam Houser says. In fact it’s currently suspected that the order to fire came from Take-Two.
They’re rich beyond the average person’s imagination, but not “early Google employee” rich, let alone “started multi-billion dollar company” rich. They started as regular employees that, after making the first few golden geese, got given stock options so they wouldn’t leave.
Turns out the big 100 hour crunch for RDR2 was just Dan Houser, Lazlow and 2 other senior writers and for about 3 weeks. Apparently the crunch used to be a bigger issue earlier on, but got improved after GTA V.
Senior Code Content Developer Phil Beveridge concurred that “work practices have definitely improved. Crunch on Red Dead Redemption 2 has definitely been a lot better than it was on GTA V, where I was pulling a month of 70+ hour weeks (while being told by my boss at the time to go home…).”
As I understand, the issue at R* wasn’t ever really anyone’s boss saying “you gotta work 70 hour weeks”, it was more “the senior staff works 100 hour weeks and maybe if I only do 40, I’ll not be seen as a team player”. Which is still toxic, but if they’ve taken steps to reduce it, perhaps things aren’t as bad as they seem.
The games industry is so bad because of the deadlines. The whole public announcement of “we’ll release game on date X” is a huge problem, as is the fact that games make most of the money just after release, so you gotta have a new game out every few years if you want to keep the lights on - a problem R* no longer has since they’ve brought in billions, so I’m sure Take-Two has loosened the leash a bit on that front at least.
Hell, I’m a regular software engineer and I’ve worked 60-70 hour weeks. Not because I was forced to, but because the deadline was near if not passed already, the customer was getting unhappy and I knew it’d look great for my next salary review. I suspect if I was working on a public project, essentially a work of art, that millions of people will get to see and I saw my boss work 100 hours a week, I’d also be motivated to work 60 or 70 for a while. So I can kinda understand how some R* employees say there was no forced crunch time and others say they felt like they were expected to crunch.
Honestly, the Houser brothers have just always struck me as creatives who are super passionate about their work. That’s the type of person that can work ridiculous hours without even realizing it and it could bend one’s expectations of what others should do, but it doesn’t seem to me like they’ve ever expected everyone else to work as much as they do, nor has either of them (or even the brothers combined) become a billionaire off over 20 years in senior leadership at a company that literally prints money for its parent company.
came to this thread exactly to make fun of this “fully-rounded labour exploiter”
A man who left Rockstar five years before they fired people for discussing unionizing?
Refresh the thread. He hired the fired foreigners when he was still director.CX
I’m not following, he hired some people, then 5 years after he left someone else fired those people? Isn’t he more likely the good guy in the scenerio?
“How dare you give these people a job? That put them in a position where someone else could take away their job!”
It honestly depends how he hired them. If he offered them living wages, plus Visa fees, lawyers, and healthcare, he was a “good employer” when he hired them. The fact the union discord server is older than 5 years leads me to believe the visa dependent were offered less. So he exploited them knowing they can be deported as soon as the studio was done with them.
So the union discord existed when he was there and he didn’t fire anyone involved. 5 years after he leaves someone else fires the people involved so… Fuck the guy who hired people and did nothing to prevent the discord server years ago?
I am not so sure why you are strawmanning my arguments. If he was aware of visa extortion practices during his tenure, is he a good director or a bad one?
He was never the owner. It’s a 45 billion dollar company, his net worth is said to be like 250 mill. He was paid a very high salary since he was one of the original employees of that subsidiary, and given some stock in the parent company as bonuses, so he’s set for life and richer than most of us will ever be, but he never had any real say in the parent company’s decisions. Take-Two is known for being absolute scum. They don’t just own Rockstar Games, they also own the companies behind the Civilization series (which has Paradox-like DLC scumming) and the Borderlands series (remember when BL3 was Epic exclusive on PC?).
Technically if you’d started at, say, Microsoft as a software engineer or other similar role when he started at Rockstar, and stayed there until 2020, you could honestly be richer. Same for Google, some of their earliest employees became billionaires from the stock options. The Houser brothers made Rockstar famous, but they were never ownership class.
But even as a creative director, he was this oblivious to visa extortion contracted labourers?
Uh I’m pretty sure as creative director, he didn’t see anyone holding a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to sign a shit contract.
Why exactly do you think they were being extorted before any of this? If someone worked for a company for several years, I’m assuming they actually liked working there. Before someone at Take-two saw that there were a bunch of people at their subsidiary who’d unionized, some of whom were foreigners on visas and some locals. Why is the problem for you not that a bunch of people were fired for unionizing, but the fact that some of them weren’t born on the island they were working on?
Why is the problem for you not that a bunch of people were fired for unionizing, but the fact that some of them weren’t born on the island they were working on?
This reads as if you’re ignorant on how much more visa workers pay to live somewhere than locals. Should 50+% of my income go to my residency status in a country where that income pars rent prices? Ignorance of visa extortion in the UK is your choice. But don’t tell me Dan was ignorant to the exploitation.
What’d he do?
He hired the foreigners that were fired recently when he was still a founder.
Fair enough, giving people jobs in a country where they can actually make a living is a bad thing.
You legitimately believe visa workers were not threatened to be deported in the UK if they worked for less than their Unionized workers who actually negotiated for living wages‽ In the Brexit economy‽
You don’t have to threaten to deport your workers if you sign the contract beforehand though? Once they’ve agreed to the salary, they’ve agreed to it. Did they make less than a pureblood Brit in the same role? Perhaps. We don’t know that. But generally speaking, you don’t go importing labour unless you literally can’t find enough locals anymore. The bureaucracy nightmare isn’t worth the cost savings otherwise. Particularly because a lot of countries don’t allow you to pay the imported labour less than you’d pay your purebloods in the same role. Exception of course being people from countries with whom you have freedom of movement (so anything intra-EU is allowed)
Also, it’s not like he was the CEO or something. He was the creative director. I swear some people just want to be angry at everyone.
If he wasn’t part of the hiring decisions, I take back what I said. But creative directors do influence who gets assigned roles in a studio, and what tasks get sent to the visa’d. There’s nothing indicating he wasn’t aware the studio hired visa workers when he worked there. Accents and vernaculars differ. I doubt he was oblivious that roles he assigned to foreigners were not hired to be exploited.
You think he was subconsciously hinting at his prominent cranium?
Projection is a silly thing. Especially when it’s digressive.
I’m tired of people using “AI” for only generative AI/LLM. Especially in video games ?!
You’re absolutely right, but you also need to accept that most people think ai means transformers (as in, LLMs and generative/image synthesis)
It sucks, but that’s how language works unfortunately. How most people use a word ends up defining it.
only
As in, what, you want more? Such as…?
Recommendation systems, search and ranking algorithms, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, voice cloning, audio noise reduction, predictive analytics, forecasting models, fraud detection, anomaly detection, robotics control systems, self-driving path planning, robot navigation and mapping (SLAM), reinforcement-learning agents, game-playing AI, warehouse optimization, dynamic pricing models, object detection, face recognition, license-plate recognition, medical image analysis, sentiment analysis, keyword extraction, spam detection, classic machine-translation models, personalization engines, matching algorithms, logistics route optimization, scheduling algorithms, resource allocation models, algorithmic trading bots, risk scoring, market-making AI, healthcare diagnostics, disease-risk prediction, protein-folding models, music analysis, beat detection, autonomous drone navigation, industrial monitoring, and smart-traffic systems.
Sounds like machine learning (ML) “a field of study in artificial intelligence” more than what people mean when they say AI, which is Generative AI shortened.
Obviously depends on context of a conversation though for how you would deduce the usage of the word.
Ha ha what a list!
Cheers
deleted by creator
actual artificial intelligence
deleted by creator
