I will never forgive them for what they did to the Kerbal franchise.
Not a single cent to them, until they either release a worthy sequel, or sell off the rights for cheap to someone who will.
Someone else is working on their own version called Kitten Space Agency!
Yeah, I’m aware. Also the new project by harvester is pretty cool. I was hinting at T2 selling rights to either of them (although I think harvester doesn’t want to do KSP anymore).
deleted by creator
And I am actively avoiding everything from Take-Two as a result. I won’t pay real money for slop.
You alone have as much influence as a single sardine in a school of fish.
You don’t need to have a massive impact just to stand on business for your own principles.
Very true but if enough of the sardines decide to go one way, others will also go that way.
Well, on the bright side, we’ll have a huge cache of free assets we can directly lift from triple-A games, given that AI work is public domain.
I assume if they just tweak things by hand slightly then it becomes a protected derivative work. For example, if I modify Shakespeare, my modifications are protected.
They have to tweak it more than a little bit for it to count. It has to be actually transformative, meaning it has to be changed enough that it no longer serves the same function, something not easily achieved with a texture, sound or 3d model without effectively doing the whole thing by hand. For comparison, in your Shakespeare example, changing a few words here or there isn’t enough. You would have to nearly completely rewrite anything that you would want to copyright.
I’ll be skipping all your shitty games then, asshole.
Like hiring a bunch of pro athletes and then pushing them all aside to focus on a gas guzzling robot that plays at an amateur level at best.
If it’s anything like the thousands of pilots and implementations in my company, only like 2 actually made it to production use.
If you listen to the ai-bad crowd, screw science.
You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions. Testing things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right observations to prove themselves right.
I prefer real science, thanks. You know, the kind that gets published in scientific journals and peer-reviewed, where they actually try to provide controls for what they are measuring, rather than going “trust me bro, I tried it and it’s a total game changer”.
You’d think, as a science enjoyer, you’d know better than to conflate the process of testing and forming conclusions based on observation and academia.
On the other hand, your idea of a scientific process is par for the course for a clankerfucker
I’m sure that joke kills at recess
If you listen to the ai-good crowd, screw economics.
You can just skip the market outcomes and go directly to assertions. Selling things is for idiots, the real enlightened among us already have the conclusion, they just need to gather the right investments to prove themselves right.
You’re murdering that strawman, bud.
You’re attacking the AI bubble, and investments in the services side of things that exceed the revenue that they’re producing. Yeah, the investment in LLMs that NVIDIA is the center of are dumb and a bubble.
The topic of the post, top comment and my reply is about the experimenting with AI in pilot programs. The post is full of people attacking Take-Two for trying AI, which is what I’m replying to.
You’re over here attacking AI companies for investing in a technology that nobody is using (other than Take-Two, apparently) as if that argument has anything to do with the topic at all.
Holy shit, maybe ask AI about your own asinine strawman.
If you listen to the ai-bad crowd, screw science.
You can just skip the experimentation and go directly to conclusions.
What a waste.
strawman
Are you just using that word ironically because I said it or are you actually unable to identify the fallacy that’s being used or do you need people to write /s for you to understand sarcasm?
Maybe you should ask the AI to read comments to you if you’re unable to comprehend basic written English. Here, since your confederates are similarly unable to read I’ve already asked an AI to explain for you:
The irony of using a meme made by someone else and made with copyrighted artwork to attack AI’s lack of creativity is rich.
Yap yap yap, projection, byeeeee.
Was your comment generated by AI? I read it three times and I still don’t understand what you’re getting at.
He’s just saying just push to prod no need for any checks.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work people find genuine personal fulfillment in, and eliminating any pathway to excellence. If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail. It doesn’t make you a “Genius Creative” finding shortcuts to success, it makes you a pathetic hack with no independent talent, a parasite, and a miserly cheapskate on top of that.
Or, better idea, stop using AI for creative work
People can use whatever tools they want, if someone wants to be a great oil painter they can do that, if someone wants to learn how to draw on a digital tablet and use photoshop to edit it then let them do that, if someone wants to use diffusion models and Photoshop then let them do that.
You do not lose personal fulfillment in a thing that you genuinely enjoy because someone else is enjoying their own thing. This is not about creative expression. Your argument is an economic argument at base, not one about artistic expression.
If you can’t afford to pay real people to create genuinely human artistic works, you’re a terrible business person and deserve to fail.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human. Anyone who is gutting their business because they think AI is going to replace creative workers will fail because they’re making the wrong bet. The tools simply cannot replace human creativity.
At the same time, the framing that any use of AI tools to save labor is inherently bad is simply a denialist position. These tools exist and people are using them, this is the reality that we live in. Yes, it causes disruption in the labor markets this is unavoidable.
Think about how much you feel for the jobs of the Computers. Remember them? The people who used to earn their living calculating math problems… hundreds of thousands of professional people who had advanced degrees and worked their whole life in the field were suddenly replaced by some silicon and electricity. Are you boycotting the Field Effect Transistor because it decimated an entire industry?
Why do you even acknowledge the rights of digital artists or engineers to own intellectual property? After all, they’re using (by this logic) the terrible digital design tools, the software that replaced an entire industry of Drafters and support artists. Because of that software, nobody is going to hire a team of drafters, with their college educations and high salary expectations. Instead they just buy an AutoCAD license for less than a single worker would earn in a week.
Attacking a technology because it causes disruption in the labor market is pointless. If you’re living in a country where this disruption is causing serious problems, then you can understand the value of creating a social safety net in order to protect everyone from the next unforeseen circumstance/technology/disruption.
An AI tool is not going to produce higher quality work than a professional human.
Yes it will, because there will cease to be professional humans. If there’s no development pipeline, no one is going to achieve the pinnacle of art, because there’s no return on that investment. The AI will become better than any human, not by raising the standard by by kneecapping our ability to reach higher.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
AI will absolutely surpass us, not by raising the bar, but lowering it into hell under a firehose of garbage.
You’re using art and ‘return on investment’ in the same paragraph. You’re not describing art, you’re describing an industry.
People will draw pictures with charcoal out of a fire because they feel the compulsion to make art. People who want to make art will make art even if the world is burning. AI tools are not going to kill art.
But, like every technological innovation, AI tools will reduce the number of people in the industry. This happens with all technology. Yes, it’s disruptive and displaces a lot of workers who need to work to earn a living. This is just a fact of the situation we are in, it is not something that you’re going to stop by trying to convince people to not use the technology.
You can’t put this back in the bottle when anyone with an undergraduate understanding of linear algebra and a python interpreter can create new image generation models on a whim. A few TB of images and a few weeks of a single GPU’s time will train a model.
What is the endgame here? If you were dictator of the world, how would you even propose ‘fixing’ this? It’s one thing to be angry, but point that anger in the direction of something that is actually possible to change.
It’s ironic you chose to compare it to computers because we’ve seen that the generational decline in mathematical ability has fallen off a cliff as people now don’t even have to think about how numbers work. We have college graduates with zero reading comprehension or writing ability because they’ve never had to independently develop those skills. We have vanishing competency in critical analysis and the ability to carry a dialogue at levels that were considered natural and intrinsic a handful of generations ago. Everywhere we see the constant erosion of the capability of achieving objectives that are less than a generation removed from us. We’re not talking about forgetting how to knap flint or the decline of the buggy whip maker. We’re talking about the intrinsic capacity of the human mind to engage with the world suddenly becoming an investment on which there is no chance of return in a single human lifetime, because there is no economically sustainable path from raw novice to professional.
Sure, I agree with that in broad strokes.
That doesn’t mean that I’m going to get angry on the Internet that people are using computers in their business. Or driving cars instead of hiring a horse a buggy team, or eating food from a grocery store instead of driving a plow in their own fields.
Technology moves forward and we have to deal with the consequences. Look at ways that we can deal with the consequences if you want to actually make a difference. It is a waste of time to think that you’re going to shame the entire world into not using this technology that we’ve discovered.
Ew :|
I’m guessing it’s a response to this
Appeasing shareholders, means fuck all
So if new games start using ai, which is generated from pirating content, it is ethical to pirate those games
This is damage control talk. The response is what caveman shareholders need to hear to make them stop panicking, so it really means nothing. OP’s article says he’s been skeptical about AI until it hit the stock price, so I assume this is just all lies.
This is 100% right, you nailed it.
The article above even mentions that Take Two’s stock dropped.
In the immediate wake of [Project Genie’s] announcement, the share prices of a handful of companies, including game engine maker Unity and Grand Theft Auto 6 publisher Take-Two Interactive, took a notable tumble.
This is an attempt to stop the slide for the benefit of their shareholders.
Why not millions ? Take Two developed 8 games, published 78 games and distributed 48 games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Take-Two_Interactive_games
