Quoting: Wolfgang RoseThese days I always checkout 'who owns' a particular software. I checked out 'Opera Norway' and noted that the company was floated on the NASDAQ, ergo it will have lots of American investors and will likely cater to US tastes and business norms. In my experience as a developer/tester/project manager, I know most US firms will make all the noises to comply with GDPR, but will often breech intentionally as 'part of business'.

To American corporations, "The Law" is just a tax on doing what they want anyway. A small tax.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EWGSo, besides exposure, does this do anything to help Godot?

Allows it to fulfill its purpose? Not much point to Godot existing if nobody ever uses it to make games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rustynailTo me it seems fundamentally impossible that this will ever work well. DLSS only has the current frame to work with, so all of the information used to add whatever it adds to scene NVIDIA has to pull out of their ass. This is also true for upscaling which is why it will always have all the artifacts, but made up details that don't make any sense are obviously way worse.

To be clear, I don't know what this press release sentence means, and I'm not enthused about this whole schtick. But, this might be relevant to them claiming they can pull that off:

materials that are anchored to source 3D content and consistent from frame to frame.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArtenFrom my point of view, there are three stances toward AI. Two of them are unhelpful. One is reasonable.

• AI is evil and must be avoided in all cases. This is a bad stance.
• AI is just a tool, and when used responsibly it is reasonable to employ it. I don’t think generating an entire article with AI is a good idea, but using it for spell‑checking? If it can catch incorrect wording, that’s a worthwhile use.
• Throw AI at anything. This is also a bad stance.

This seems like a reasonable perspective, but there are several problems and caveats to it.

So, before the real problems, the main caveat: Large language model AI is so incredibly intensive in its use of computing power that it costs real serious money to use. So for instance, using generative AI just for spelling/grammar checking is incredibly wasteful; we had spelling/grammar checking before that wasn't "AI" and that just worked on your computer without requiring a subscription to anything. Currently a good deal of the real cost is hidden because most AI companies are providing their services at a serious loss, in hopes of, um . . . well, that gets complicated and sordid, but they are doing that. But my point is, a lot and perhaps most uses that seem like reasonable uses for LLM "AI" as a tool, are not worth the money those uses would actually cost unsubsidized, and subsidized use is unsustainable in the medium term . . . fairly short term at this point. Getting used to cheap AI being available as a tool is a mistake, because it will either become unavailable or become not cheap.

The real problems: There are a lot of implications to AI use which go beyond their momentary utility to the user. Yes, they're indirect and longer term so lots of people don't want to be bothered thinking about them. That doesn't make them not real. And those impacts are mostly negative, particularly given who owns AI and what their motivations are, and they are probably much larger to any given individual than the positive impacts of using the marginally useful tool. So viewing AI use solely through the lens of "Is it useful to me right now?" is a good way for us all to collectively screw ourselves in a few years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm on board.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I notice that dwarven evil corporations seem just as bad as the human ones.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: BladePupperThe cards you get are used to play the actual game whereas the skins from say CS2 are basically only used to cash in and maybe pay for a steam game.

Agree with most of your post except this bit. MtG packs are not "necessary" to play the game. You buy the base pack and you're good to go.

That is . . . true in some sort of technical sense. But it has nothing to do with the actual experience of anyone playing Magic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZlopezI think the lootboxes wouldn't be issue at all if you always get things in value of the price of opening lootbox. This is how plenty of mystery boxes are working (with exception of trading cards, as the amount of some cards is scarce by design). If you just have same amount of all the items of same rarity tier and have set value for them it would not be gambling as you will always get the value you paid for.

Welllll . . . the things in Valve lootboxes, being cosmetic, are all essentially worth nothing. But since they tell you that up front, they are certainly all worth exactly what they told you they were worth, and all worth the same. Nobody really has a complaint coming when they open a Valve lootbox and get something worthless; "worthless thing inside" was effectively what it said on the tin. 😝

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EWGEspecially good for books, CDs, DVDs/Blu-Rays if you ask me.

No, nope, definitely not. Clearly asking you would be, in my case, a terrible idea. I'm picky. Random books, CDs, DVDs would almost all be worth zero to me. Less than zero, because they would take up bookshelf space and I'm running out already. So yeah, I wouldn't take mystery random boxes of that kind of thing if you offered them to me for free.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Multiplayer? OK I guess.
Good game, I like it as single player . . . I suppose I'm just not much of a multiplayer fan.

View this comment - View article - View full comments