Ook the Librarian

If.

You’re correct in a lot of languages; Excel comes to mind. Just that’s not how int rand() works in C.

Sorry, I don’t why you’re getting snark and even being accused of using the word “integer”.

Maybe I’ve always just felt a Roblox-shaped hole in my heart.

That’s easier to boycott than diapers, my friend.

Buying cat litter when you also need diapers and have to shop with a baby in tow? I’ll be anti-consumer next year.

Humans are horrible, but a main-stream social media platform should not be a celebration of it. People need to demand change and then leave if ignored. I seem to hear people demanding change. The next step has more impetus.

I wasn’t thinking of like a watermark that is like anyone’s signature. More of a crypto signature most users couldn’t detect. Not a watermark that could be removed with visual effects. Something most people don’t know is there, like a printer’s signature for anti-counterfeiting.

I don’t want to use the word blockchain, but some kind of way that if you want to take a fake video created by someone else, you are going to have a serious math problem on your hands to take away the fingerprints of AI. That way any viral video of unknown origin can easily be determined to be AI without any “look at the hands arguments”.

I’m just saying, a solution only for good guys isn’t always worthless. I don’t actually think what I’m saying is too feasible. (Especially as written.) Sometimes rules for good guys only isn’t always about taking away freedom, but to normalize discourse. Although, my argument is not particularly good here, as this is a CA law, not a standard. I would like the issue at least discussed at a joint AI consortium.

That’s true, but it would be nice to have codified way of applying a watermark denoting AI. I’m not say the government of CA is the best consortium, but laws are one way to get a standard.

If a compliant watermarker is then baked into the programs designed for good actors, that’s a start.

Yeah, kinda. I forgot which side of the argument the reply I replied to was on. I guess you can just flip the "you"s and "they"s. Or am I still off-base?

They are idealizing a pay-the-creator system. They are arguing for a system that is kinda coming together with patreon-like stuff.

You seem to be arguing that people will just buy the cheapest identical copy. Which is hard to argue against, but there are people out there that pay creators that give their work for free. Copyright law certainly protects creators. But it’s cool to see some creators monetizing on open-licensed work.

Agreed. But I was more highlighting what lengths you need to go to protect yourself from a rootkit. I thought the parent mentioned dual booting as a sandboxing measure. I could have been mistaken.

Dual boot would only protect you if have your other side encrypted or are monitoing it to make sure the other partition is never mounted.

What you need to play games like this is a side-piece computer on its own LAN.

Maybe the “rhetorical question” article link would article would be a better reply. I bet you weren’t expecting an analysis of why the half-price button idea was a nonstarter.

It’s very difficult to quote Douglas Adams without sounding like you’re pandering to nerd culture. I don’t think AI could pull it off.

I don’t know what to think of someone who could blast off accusations like this, either.

Edit: Oh. The accusation is even dumber. It’s just the header OP wrote. That was just direct to the point writing. AI or no, who cares about two tiny paragraphs.

Edit: Filled in the words my brain thought were there for everybody.

The Level 157 kill screen. Level 29 was called a kill screen because it’s nearly unplayable. But around 2019, it was becoming routine for matches to be decided in post-29 play. The level 29 killscreen was jokingly dubbed the thrillscreen. (don’t worry. the name didn’t last.)

NES Tetris is pretty nuts. Here is the 100 lines speedrun record for anyone who may care.

Ok. Fair point. I guess I should say, they addressed their cringe. But I still thought it seemed like they were feigning concerned but actually doubling down.

I love response to the backlash. It’s basically “Sorry our video was cringy and tonedeaf. We have removed the cringe.”

But this one is one better.

It’s not “impossible”. It’s expensive and will take years to produce material under an encompassing license in the quantity needed to make the model “large”. Their argument is basically “but we can have it quickly if you allow legal shortcuts.”

I want an “only necessary cookies except one cookie to remember I clicked this option” button available with one click.