Hehehehehe. And heeeheeeheeheee. Also hahahahahaha.
Jesus Christmas even iFixit is turning to AI for repair guides 
1 Like
For all those hoping Disney would sue OpenAI into the ground for the unauthorized use of Disney characters in Gen-AI tools, just know everyone, especially Disney, has their price:
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
3 Likes
Hino further mentioned that generative AI sometimes gets treated “like it’s synonymous with plagiarism,” a characterization he takes issue with. He continued, “A knife can be used for cooking or as a weapon; a computer can create games or enable cybercrime. AI might produce plagiarized content if misused, but if used properly, it has the power to enrich the creative world even further.”
It’s always obvious when the execs at these companies don’t understand the thing they are advocating for. Yes, gen-AI isn’t necessarily plagiarism because a knife can be used for cooking or as a weapon 
1 Like
1 Like
2 Likes
Tim Sweeney continues to be a grade-A tool:
1 Like
Once ago, Level-5 was my favourite company. The games they did are still some of my favourite games of all times.
When they were about to be broke, I was sad, but this… it would have been better if they broke. We would have the happy memories at least.
1 Like
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/1qex5xm/steam_updates_ai_disclosure_form_requiring/
So I’m reading through the comments on this thread, and I’m still once again flummoxed at where people draw the line on their hate of AI. In general, I think almost everyone is fine with code generation AI usage, but not art/performance. In theory, the “AIness” of generating code is the same exact concept as generating an image, just a different medium, yet it’s a weird divide in a lot of people’s heads with their okness of which one people can use. They’re both machine learning algorithms in concept. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine using AI to help me code at this point. You honestly can’t not use it in most development environments, and it’s really gotten good recently. I had Claude help me fix up the search on the site, and it did pretty much exactly what I told it to.
I’m just really curious why people who are vehemently against GenAI are ok with code assistance AI? A guy that works for me said well of course I figure a computer should be able to write code. He also said that since he could feasibly see himself writing a book, that’s why he’s not ok with it writing books. I was like, well that logic is terrible. What about people that can write code? Should they not be outraged? I remember telling my father in law that coding is actually much easier than most people think and he looked at me like I was crazy and told me that it’s just never made sense to him no matter how many times he’s looked at it or tried. Maybe it’s just the general lack of understanding is why people are ok with it? I don’t know.
Anyway, I’ve never been able to properly vocalize my conundrum/question about this, and I might not have achieved it today either. But if you understand what I’m asking, why are you ok with one or the other usage of AI?
My opinion is regardless whether it’s generating artwork, books, code, games, or anything else, it’s plagiarism. It’s taking someone else’s work without permission. Even if there is no plagiarism involved, the amount of energy, land, and resources needed to run these data centers are astronomically damaging to the environment and to the health of those who are forced to sacrifice their neighborhoods, natural resources, and environment for these ginormous facilities. Some regions have been asked to shower less, some regions have been asked to move out of their neighborhoods, sacrifice nature reserves, etc.
Plagiarism or no, using generative AI has no good very bad consequences when we can just share this knowledge and information via other options.
Im not taking a stand vis a vis code generation, but I think for some code generation is seen a mechanical mathematical process, and writing, illustrating or creating video is a creative one, and an LLM can’t experience anything to create something new, it can only regurgitate the data it’s been given in endless combinations. Code requires reproducing existing syntax and formulas, so a LLM can be argued to be useful there, but creative works are more than just reproducing existing work in variation. And the fact that it’s been trained on gobs of stolen creative works means it’s operating at the expense of artists who have been uncompensated (although one can make an argument that complex stolen code is also at someone’s expense).
2 Likes
As long as it uses other people work, it shouldn’t exist.
The only exception is for medical purposes.
LLMs regularly hallucinates when summarizing patient information. That can have dire effects.
1 Like
1 Like
2 Likes