Okay, I admit I was wrong and only said those things because I was jealous of your strategic genius. Can you elaborate on your idea to tank the value of TTWO and give leakers unilateral control of the release schedule of Rockstar’s biggest product in 13 years bring these leakers to heel?

I dunno, I see some gold leaf in the one on the left.

“If Rockstar did the dumbest thing imaginable, massively pissed off all of their fans, devs, and investors, abandoned their fudiciary duty over an Internet slapfight, and openly put themselves at the complete mercy of leakers who could probably just leak the game to an army of those pissed-off fans anyway, maybe then the leakers would back off.”

I want to put you in charge of a large company and watch you speedrun burning it to the ground within, like, a day. You’re like the Bizarro John Nash.

Is the camera icon in the bottom left part of that 95%?

How big is their team?

If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we’re supposed to be discussing is too much, I’m not sure why you’re here trying to discuss it.

I’m 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team’s mistake, but it’s still a mistake.

Please open this article, Ctrl+F down to “% who say the increased use of artificial intelligence in daily life makes them feel …”, and tell me which country is at the very bottom, with 16% “more concerned than excited”, 66% “equally concerned and excited”, and 22% “more excited than concerned”.

It’s like you’re refusing to understand the concept of a cultural barrier.

it’s the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.

“if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

The director literally outright says it’s their fault for using the tool.

And what do you mean “got caught”? It’s very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn’t notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: “I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big.”

In Indonesian, it’s “lastborn tooth”.

Incidentally, we keep track of translations on Wiktionary, and we recently added a picture dictionary so you can see the names of the other teeth too. ^_^

Edit: Also, incisors in Japanese are “gate teeth”, which I think is lovely.

“The truth is, we spent a long time trying to tell this game’s story with cutscenes made entirely by our own hands,” the statement goes on. “The results were devastating every time. We came to believe we could not properly deliver this game’s complex, difficult narrative that way, and that is why we turned to AI. But if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn’t and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.

I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy “ah, fuck it” kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn’t be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*

* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.

I know it’s not complicated to put the word “Protocol” there, but do y’all have a template for future use? 👀

You’re making up ad hoc nonsense out of thin air. Literally nothing you’re saying is true, and you can’t will it into existence just because it’s what you want to be true or because it sounds plausible to you. You’ve cited absolutely nothing to substantiate your point, and the onus is on you because you’re the one saying it’s against the law.

Incidentally, you haven’t even mentioned a state; you’re just saying this is true in all two-party consent states, which is fucking wild and shows you have not the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

That’s not true whatsoever. The act of sending a text message is already creating a record on the other device – that’s literally the entire point. You can’t sue somebody in a two-party consent state because they showed their friend Kevin all of the text messages you sent them, and the same applies to feeding it straight into ChatGPT.

You did, sanitation? Or was this part of your spam mass-reposting from Reddit and you were too fucking lazy to change the title?

… What?

What’s actually mildly infuriating is when people have no fucking clue or care what “mildly” infuriating means.

See, I considered that, but whereas he wouldn’t have known about it while helping Leia escape, the Rebellion probably would’ve gotten word by the time Luke is flying the mission to destroy the Death Star. And that’s probably a pretty big deal at the base.

It’s never confirmed, of course, but I imagine information travels fast within the Rebellion if they were able to steal the Death Star plans. (Edit: Especially given Bail Organa is still alive when the Senate is dissolved.)

At the point he’s actually in the Rebellion, he probably at least already knows that the Galactic Empire is done pretending it’s a democracy.

overthrowing the democratically elected government

The democratically elected™ government was already dissolved by the time Luke joined the Rebellion.

So anyway, Stanford Online and MIT OpenCourseware.

the license Lutris had is invalid.

That part isn’t true whatsoever. Public domain doesn’t work like a poison pill. If I put the collected works of Arthur Conan Doyle on my website, that doesn’t mean the site can’t be CC BY-SA 4.0; it means someone is free to take that specific part without worrying about CC BY-SA 4.0.

Even for the slop code where it’s more mixed in, it’s on the person trying to take it to affirmatively show the part they’re taking was generated by an LLM, i.e. you can’t just say “this is slop, I’m taking this” and expect a project to have to affirmatively defend that it’s human-written.

And lastly, AI assistance doesn’t automatically even poison the code being created/changed with it. This one is murky, but so far, the general consensus is that so long as you, the human, worked on it – i.e. that you didn’t just let the slop machine run wild and take whatever it outputted without your own changes – it’s still your copyright.

—someone who doesn’t do slop