These big game publishers and studios really aren’t giving people a reason to pay for stuff. Pay for it:
Seriously, what’s the point of paying them?
Sail the seas with I2P and anonymous torrents. They can’t stop it.
…why are you so triggered? That’s such cringey right-wing thing to do.
It was released in 2012 or something. Back then it wasn’t greeted with such positivity and I hadn’t checked since.
The reviews do look pretty positive now.
A lot of the negative reviews were tied to the very buggy state the game released in. I’ve heard rumors that Obsidian asked for more QA time but was forced by the publisher to rush it to release. Given that Obsidian had a bounty reward if they hit a certain Metacritic score and they missed it by one point, I’m inclined to believe that rumor.
Thanks, that’s what stuck with me and I hadn’t checked since. I’ll give a go. Thanks.
If this had IPFS support, it would be so cool!
Thanks for the explanation! Never played New Vegas. The reviews said it was terrible, but maybe after a few updates it was OK?
What’s the dialogue that gets you to this? 😅
I seriously hope so. Hopefully they make good games, become successful, and turn into the thing they hated.
Agreed. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Previous work has already shown that image generators can be forced to generate examples from their training data—including copyrighted works—and an early OpenAI LLM produced contact information belonging to a researcher
You don’t seem to be able to read the articles, yet have responded with junk anyway.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
How is it ironic? I never said I was a lawyer, nor did I ever say I was giving legal advice, nor have I ever spoken with authority on the subject.
You however… can’t see the irony of your own statement.
As a lawyer, what’s your opinion on the CC BY-NC-SA v4 license?
Thanks for the support 💗
I’m not very affected by it, honestly. It makes me chuckle that people get so offended about a link in a comment. Sometimes I respond, but quite often I block and move on.
I said so in my comment
So there is a big lawsuit against it
How exactly do you expect to see the “source” of a language model?
Hey does anyone want to buy a t-shirt from me with this guy’s worst comments printed on it?
@[email protected] the license is actually a Creative Commons license for Non-Commercial uses. Creative Commons is a copyleft license that’s “free to use with some restrictions”. Mostly used in art, literature, audio, and film, for my part I’m using it to license my comments. Anybody can cite with attribution, but commercial use is forbidden by the license.
The why: I just don’t like non-opensource commercial ventures. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, and so on are harmful in many ways.
Enforcement and legality: Microsoft’s Github CoPilot (a large language model / “AI”) was trained on copyrighted text source code. A few licenses clearly state that derivatives should also be opensource, which CoPilot is not. So there is a big lawsuit against it. Many artists, non-programmer authors, musicians, and others are also unhappy that AI was trained on their copyrighted works and have sued for damages.
Until these cases make it out of court, it will not be clear if adding a license to comments could even jeopardize commercial AI vendors.
Germany doing its utmost best to drive away innovation. Genius.
But why go to the USA? The EU has 27 members and Switzerland is a neighbor…
Stop buying their shit.
Anti Commercial-AI license