I’m talking about the stuttering, caused primarily not recalculating shaders. Something I just dealt with the entirety of my first playthrough of ER. But the fact that it still isn’t fixed really makes me not want to play, or to pay them money.

Yeah, I’m holding off for a sale on this one. I liked Elden Ring well enough, but the performance issues are infuriating. Baffling that it still isn’t fixed.

I don’t care for it. It does some interesting things, in base building. But having played it a lot mostly because my friend group likes it, it’s very janky. It does not feel close to 1.0. And, while there’s some fun to be had, everything outside the horde nights just feels like busywork in a way I didn’t feel with Valheim or Grounded.

I fully agree. If you read my first comment, I pretty clearly as much as the new ones are pretty bad (story wise), the two Jaffe worked on are even worse in that regard.

I mean, I too would be unhappy with the new games’ stories. They’re not very good stories overall.

But, they’re better than the vast majority of video game plots, because that’s a low bar.

Still, Jaffe seems to imply the old stories in GoW were any better, when they were pure drivel. I might still be very underwhelmed by the story in the two new God of War’s, but I at least like that they’re trying (even if I think the direction of relying heavily on animation and visual flair is the wrong one, as far as telling good stories goes).

Why is it “schizo edition”? Is that like, a real thing, or is sseth doing that abelist ‘schizoposting’ stuff?

Edit: man, y’all really hate people with schizophrenia, huh?

Yeah, they got that ‘no pores’ look that selfie filter give, that’s somewhat uncanny looking.

I got through the tutorial, and into the ‘hub world’ or w/e it’s called, and it just felt very ‘MMO’ to me. Which, on top of the monetization already putting a bad taste in my mouth, I just refunded there. I hate games that shove ‘multiplayer stuff’ into single player games. Like, I played through Elden Ring in forced offline: I don’t want to interact with others, even through little stuff like bloodstains.

Good. This is a game I played and immediately refunded when I saw all the monetization stuff.

I just want a single player TBS, in the style of their other game, Monster Train. But I got immediately turned off by the FTP MMO type design choices in Inkbound.

BG3 was basically unplayable for us for about 2 weeks post 1.0

But also, we really wanted to only play co-op, and the bugs were mostly online related, which is arguably more forgivable.

But still, hard crashing or freezing every 15 minutes for one of the three of us sucked, and looking at support forums, wasn’t uncommon either.

Yeah. I love fallout 1 and 2, and NV is… fine. But at this point, I don’t think I’m a ‘fallout fan’, since I’ve just had zero interest in the series after hating 3 and 4.

And same thing with elder scrolls, and Morrowind. I just don’t like their modern formula, at all.

You are, of course, correct.

But even so, costs are costs. It doesn’t matter if you’ve achieved communism, and are in a moneyless, stateless existance, you need labor and materials to build nuclear, and labor and materials to maintain it (along with other infrastructure).

And, I’m not anti-nuclear; it does make sense to use sometimes, in some amounts. Its just very very costly for what it provides.

But frankly, even only accounting for current tech, wide spread nuclear just doesn’t make that much sense compared to renewables + storage and large grids interconnects.

I dunno, I really don’t get either of them. They just seem like dreadfully boring games. Played like, 6 hours of each, and I just, don’t get the appeal, at all.

Movies and TV are boring. In the past two decades, there’s been a small handful of stuff that’s watchable, but most of the media is like, painfully boring.

None? I’ve never really understood the appeal of ‘rewatching stuff’. My favorite movie(s) are the LotR ones, and I’ve probably watched it through… three times over my life?

Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

“My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.

And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

I’m not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don’t think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren’t really for private use, but for corporate use.

The issue isn’t that people are using others works for ‘derivative’ content.

The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

With chat GPT and other AI, its been ‘trained’ on her work (and, presumably as many other’s works as possible) once, and now there’s no ‘views’, or even sources given, to those properties.

And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.

Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can ‘copy’ artist’s work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I’m genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.