I wonder how (if) they're re-imbursing previous purchasers/subscribers??

(Laughs and laughs until gets hiccups and has to lie down)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

3 years into ai bubble, literally zero improvements and usefulness, yet some crazy managers still hype on it.

Marketroids. Those are the "crazy managers" you speak of. Anyone in Sales/ Marketing** is frothing over AI and driving it hard. The people who build stuff*** are hesitant, trying to work out the problems and processes while being ordered to convert. Trends are always marketing-driven. Bubbles are always marketing-driven. CEOs love getting exposure and face time as a wealth-generation tactic.

**CEOs are almost always from the sales/ marketing track. That's why they're so eager to promote hot, frothy trends.

***I'm referring to devs who actually know about programming and the code base. Kids fresh out of code camp don't figure into this equation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is the correct move. I hope Fedora keep it. Opinions from non-developers and people not understanding how AIs work can be actively disregarded.

Without even touching the AI-good, AI-bad argument, I can only point to individuals, companies, and government entities who self-certify that they are good actors. To bad actors, the opportunity to abuse that trust is irresistable. When it comes to code check-ins and the AI/ no AI declaration is appended, I would want to know:

a) What third-party tests determine what is or isn't AI generated
b) Did the submitter follow the tests
c) Can the same tests be confirmed independently

This is a huge barrier. Human nature being what it is, few submitters would be willing to do those steps, fewer able to test and verify the declaration. Assuming that all self-certified AI submissions will be bad is wasteful; yet assuming that all self-certified AI submissions will be good is unreasonably risky. The recent `xz` and `npm` poisonings show that blanket trust in a system allows bad actors to do bad things.

So knowing the system is inherently flawed means that opportunities for abuse exist. I freely admit I don't have deep insight into "how AI works." But I do have pretty good insight into history, human nature, and and working with flawed processes. Pragmatic checks and balances on AI generation and use are needed, so maybe we can work together to build them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The God of Unintended Consequences is going to have a blast with this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I, for one, welcome our mindless, soulless overlords. :cry:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time." --Obi-Wan Sierra

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@ehvis, guilty as charged. Then again, I lots of these games when they first came out on floppy or CD, so yeah. I guess my accidental duplication means I'm forgetful or not paying attention when free stuff comes along. One of the perils of being an older adult, I'm afraid. :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Played the earlier demo, and I'm really looking forward to the 1.0 release. Normally I'm not interested in roguelikes, pop culture references, or arcade games. But the developers put their own spin on this combination and made TCHDC fun to play! I found myself doing the "just one more" game hook that's rare for an older gamer like me.

Easy on the brain, decent story, the timed-hit mechanism wasn't too challenging for slowed eyes and reflexes. I'll definitely be playing it on release.

View this comment - View article - View full comments