flavionm

Would he realistically be able to make as much as they make out of him by himself? While working the same amount?

It's debatable whether he would even make as much as he gets paid currently, in that scenario.

Technically no, but you can distribute software, especially for free, that happens to break copy protection for one or more valid reasons, according to the law.

And, more importantly, we certainly don't try to limit the capabilities of computing that might be used to do those things. Given how AIs are very general purpose tools, the fact that they can be used to do something potentially harmful is too narrow a threat.

Nobody is trying to push for cars that automatically stop themselves from running over someone either, which would make for a more comparable analogy than cars with flamethrowers.

Aren't able to or have just failed to do so? Regardless, that doesn't exempt them from the responsibility. It's ultimately software they're running on their own machine, there is no one else to responsibilize for it.

I wasn't trying to imply you were advocating to restrict them, just that that is what Anthropic is doing. Legislating away all competition is worth whatever small concessions they would need to make.

A much less sizable part thinks it's okay to limit local computing. There isn't a widespread push to make it so local hardware is limited in ways that they're not allowed to, for instance, run programs that can hack systems. These programs are very deliberately allowed, and it's people misusing them that are held responsible.

Regardless of anyone's instance on gun control, it's probably wiser to compare AIs with something that's a little more similar to it, and try to reach a conclusion from there.

When it's an open weight, locally run blackbox, you blame the user, since in that case it's very much possible for the user to restrict what the blackbox can actually do. They have full control over it, so it follows they have full responsibility.

None of that requires trying to impose limits on open models, unlike what Anthropic is aiming for.

Yet we don't regulate computers so that they're rendered incapable of running software that can be used to hack into systems. Or said software, by the way. All we do is punish the people who use these tools to cause harm to others.

AI is much more comparable to that than to a car.

How do you think LLMs work? Because you seem to think they're a big compressed folder of every content they were trained upon, thus a big permanent copyright violation.

You're probably also capable of reproducting some art off the top of your head, your existence doesn't somehow violate copyright.

Besides, anything they're reproducing is the work of very successful artists whose work is widespread. Anyone who had their worked looked at once during training isn't being affected anymore than some artist who never had anything of theirs looked at.

Also, copyright benefits big companies much more than it benefits artists, by the way. Not being able to take any art for free and requiring to pay is a great trade-off for getting a monopoly over anything they pay for. Art would still be made regardless, just like it was before and just like it is right now even when, outside of these big corporations who mostly respect it, copyright is constantly infringed upon.

That already didn't happen, regardless of AI. The thing about freely sharing knowledge is that people take that knowledge and use it to build further knowledge that helps you.

You might say that the fact LLMs are being provided as services by big techs invalidate that. But some people taking the provided knowledge for themselves has also always happened. More importantly, though, is that big tech provided LLMs aren't the only way to access the technology. Open weights and local models exist.

When you objected to quotes around the term you deliberately used to make them sound better than regular updates that any early access game gets.

Then don't complain because people disagree. If adding unnecessary qualifiers to make it sound better is fair, so is quoting them.

Always having some instance of someone messing up is still substantially different from more instances than not being messed up. So it did actually matter quite a lot.

Now, as someone who is an avid retro gamer, I play plenty of those old games you're talking about. In the very old days, games were definitely shorter, but by the 5th and 6th gen, the gap isn't quite as big. If anything, they're often too large now, but that's neither here nor there. Budgets are bigger, teams are bigger, and most importantly, the consumer base is bigger. So size of games and expansions needs to be looked at relatively.

Regardless, for non-early access (of which NMS is an example of in all but name) and non-live service games, there mostly isn't an expectation that content will be added, only that updates will be made that improve and fix what's there. The exceptions are mostly when there's a pattern of content uodates happening before, or when something is clearly incomplete compared to what's usual for a series. See the Monster Hunter series as an example for both the latter ones.

Overall, it's natural for customers to want things that are at least as good or better than before when technology improves. It's the opposite that should not be happening.

Many people bought it expecting more, because the studio promised a lot more. You can say that's on the people for not checking before buying, but that doesn't invalidate the dishonesty on their part.

Were it an early access game, you would in fact be purchasing expecting updates. Not guaranteed updates, but certainly expecting them. This game was an amazing early access release in all but name.

I'm not saying you should word it as updates you paid for, you just don't word them as if they're an act of generosity. Just call them "updates", not "free updates" like you did right before the reply that put "free updates" in quotes.

Back in the day, they had to ship complete working games, because the cost to fix it later was too high.

Not that they wouldn't mess up all the time, but the punishment for messing up was severe.

And paid expansions were often the size of a whole game by themselves. Those are a lot of value, and there's nothing wrong with them. They even still exist today, though rarer.

Maybe the NMS's updates did amount to one or two expansions throughout the 10 years of updates, but they were done piecemeal. Were it not a game that massively under delivered on release, they could've gone that route.

Content updates for a paid game aren't free. They're adding to a package that, more often than not, was incomplete to begin with. And they'll often result in more sales, which is how they pay for themselves.

Not that they're bad, but wording them like they're some huge act of generosity from the studio instead of a reasonable expectation pushes the baseline away from where it should be.

Won't that effectively leak the user's registered age bracket anyway? And if so, what advantage does it has over the current law?

That's exactly what the law will do, but on the device. The parents will input the child's age during device setup, and then every service will query the age range based on that and work in "child account" mode.

Without any requirement for verification, it'll be completely up to the parents to decide what their child will see, while the services will only get the minimum information needed. It'll basically make parental control easy, but still in the parent's control.

That's a very shallow understanding of reading, especially coming from an author.

No, reading is not just about getting the idea from the author. It's an experience in and of itself, and the lack of something makes the experience just as much as the presence of something.

It's almost like saying a comic and an animation are the same thing, or that an animation is better, since it has more possibilities.

There's this tendency to treat things as if they're the same, otherwise one is inferior. But that's just not the case. Two things can be both different and valuable in their own way.

We still do that, though, within our own little tribes inside civilization. Most people still love their grandparents, even though they're old. That just doesn't necessarily extend to all of civilization.

We don't need to have every human care about every single other human to thrive as a species. If anything, if we did, we wouldn't be able to thrive at all.

The issues you mentioned are, in the vast majority of cases, caused by the lack of peaceful coexistence to begin with, because as long as me and everyone else is coexisting peacefully, getting more for myself isn't taking anything away from those in the situations you mentioned. Resources might be scarce, but that doesn't mean they're zero sum.

> Humans, by virtue of being living, thinking beings deserve lives of fulfillment, dignity, and security.

You wanting people to have that doesn't mean that people deserve to have that. Fundamentally, no one deserves anything. We, as a species, lived for a hundred thousand years with absolutely nothing except what we could carve off the world by ourselves or with the help of small groups that chose to work with us. Everything else since then is a bonus (or sometimes a malus, but on average a bonus).

Also, as much as it sounds nice to declare such things as goals, deserved or not, it is indeed impossible, and probably not desirable, since, for starters, you can't even define what those things would be like. Those aren't actionable, they're at most occasional consequences of a system that is working to alleviate scarcity of resources.

Unfortunately, we're nowhere near that replicator.

> The person who did the work deserved credit and compensation.

That's the part of the argument in favor of copyright that is inherently flawed.

Doing some amount of work doesn't entitle you to anything besides whatever you've agreed to get for that work, or possession of the output, in case you did it for yourself. But that's all you're entitled to get.

Work itself doesn't have any intrinsic value, only output does. The scarcity of output is what dictates what is actually valuable.

Creative work has the characteristic of its marginal cost being very high for the first copy, but nearly zero for additional copies. That's true simply because of the nature of such work, it isn't something that is unfairly imposed upon creative workers. Whenever you choose to engage in creative work, you know that, or at least you should. And if you choose to give away the first copy for free, or very cheap, that's your prerrogative, but it doesn't inherently entitle you to anything else besides the value of that first copy.

Yes, there are laws such as copyright laws that exist to artificially inflate the value of additional copies, but they go against how things work naturally, so you shouldn't rely on them, and you certainly shouldn't base your moral compass on them.

Now, I do still prefer copyleft licenses over permissive ones for the work I choose to give away for free, but only to stop corporations from taking that work and then using copyright laws to keep it exclusive to them. Once copyright is no longer an issue, they won't be necessary anymore.